Faults escaped in the Printing PAge 3. line 6. for these read those p. 5. l. 3. for cerul read serui l. 2◠〈…〉 read that p. 9. l. 30. for each read those p. 10. l. 22. for illustrissime 〈…〉 p. 13. l. 1. read and Blanchâ— p. 14. l. 3. leaue out for that cause â— 15. for sinnes read sinne l. 9. read as Caietan in that place p. 1â— l. 31. for motioâ— mention p. 18. â—â— for the read no. p. â—2 l. 26. for The read That p. 23. l. 〈◊〉 say read saith p. 24 l. 20. f◠〈…〉 l. 22. for iâ—â—ead in p. 2â— l. 15. read 〈◊〉 turne l. 35. for his r. this p. 30. 〈…〉 do because l. 23. 〈◊〉 out then AN APOLOGY OR APOpologiticall answere made by father Paule a Venetian of the order of SERVI vnto the Exceptions and Obiections of Cardinall BELLARMINE against certaine Treatises and Resolutions of Iohn Gerson concerning the force and validitie of Excommunication Printed in Venice by Robert Meietti 1606 IT being necessary as I conceiue to answere the obictions made against the two Treatises Frier Paâ—â—â— concerning the validitie of excommunication written by Iohn Gerson a man famous both for holines of life and learning and that not so much to vphold the reputation and credit of the author as to deliuer the true vnderstanding iustifiable both in Law and Diuinity of a matter of this nature and moment and to maintaine the lawfull power and authoritie which God hath giuen to soueraigne Princes I haue resolued to doe it but with all modesty and reuerence auoiding all biting and reprochfull speeches which I hold very vnseemely in all occasions that occurre betweene Christians and especially betweene Religious or Ecelesiasticall persons in matters concerning the saluation of soules And herein I will not trouble my selfe to repell or retorte any iniurious speeches vttered against so famous a Doctor as Gerson was knowing that himselfe if he were aliue would according to his owne Doctrine and instruction to other men be readie to follow the example of our Sauiour * Qui cum malediceretur non maledicebat Neyther intend I to propose or set on foot any other doctrine then the same which was first taught by the holy Apostles and after them by the holy Fathers and other Catholicke Doctors which haue from time to time vntill our age expounded the diuine Scriptures and instructed Gods people which notwithstanding I will euer submit to the iudgement of our holy mother Church that cannot erre And proceeding in this manner I am verily perswaded that I shall be able to satisfie not onely mine owne conscience which is the chiefest respect that mooues me but all other men likewise that shall see and read this my Apologie who I am sure would as much dislike impertinent raylings and cauelling speeches as they will now be well pleased that I doe with all sinceritie of heart and singlenes of speech vndertake a defence of this kind for the glory of God and the edification of my neighbour And to auoid that tediousnesse which commonly groweth by the repetition of titles though due iustly belonging I that intend to bend my selfe and my discourse chiefely to the substance of the matter I handle resolue to forbeare to name the opponent with his attributes of honour that were fit to be vsed vnto him and to deale with him in all this Treatise by the onely name of the author reseruing neuerthelesse vnto his most honorable and reuerend Lordship that due and humble respect that at all times belongs vnto him and which I haue long ago professed to beare him when I had occasion to treat with him euen before he was made a Cardinall The proeme of Bellarmine whom he calls the Author How true that saying is of our Sauiour Christ Qui male agit odit lucem Iohn 3. May euidently appeare in this man that hath translated into Italian and published in print two little Treatises of Iohn Gerson For knowing in his owne conscience how many vntruthes he had heaped together in one preface of his though a verie short one and that in the two little Treatises themselues which he translated there were errors of no small importance And withall to how litte purpose those Treatises serued him for the end which he pretended he was ashamed to make either his owne name knowne or the Printers And which is more the better to couer and disguise it he faines that he wrote it from Paris Whereas it is but too wel knowne that it was both written and printed in Venice Now therfore least this man should abuse the simple readers with his hypocrisie we will proceed to examine first the words of his preface and after the words of Gerson which hee hath translated though not so faithfully as he pretendeth Certainely the translator had no cause at all to be ashamed as if Gersons considerations were impertinent to the busines that is now in question Answere Frier Paulo For if his whole works had not beene extant printed aboue a hundred yeeres ago I for my part should easily haue beleeued that these two treatises had beene compiled at this time and vpon this occasion So directly particularly do they touch all those points that are materiall to be touched and handled in this question And indeed it was commonly so beleeued in this country when they came first out vntill many men had compared them with the Ancient copies printed in Paris 1494. But now these old impressions giue vs cause rather to think that there was in Gerson some propheticall spirit ioyned with that extraordinary portion of learning and piety wherewith he was indued And of this euery man that reades him shall easily iudge But in sooth if Gersons treatises be nothing to the purpose now in hand why doth the Author take so much paines and trouble himselfe so much about them Why doth hee labour so much to confute them Euermore hee contradicts his doctrine but no where he goeth about to proue that it is not pertinent to the present case and question Whether the considerations of Gerson containe error or not wee shall see hereafter when the obiections that are made against them shall be examined all which obiections or oppositions do either presuppose things that by the booke it selfe appeare to be false as that Gerson wrote those considerations in time of scisme or they presuppose and assume that which is in controuersie and the very question it selfe as namely that the Popes commandement to the Venetians is iust and lawfull or else taking some ambiguous and doubtfull terme that may haue a double vnderstanding and accordingly setling a position in the one sense which is true and so purchasing it some credyt and assent in the readers minde in the end the obiection concludes in the other sense which is false The preface of the translator of Gerson containes no other doctrine then is contayned in the Bookes themselues Therefore I see no reason why of necessity
against Stephen And of Sergius the 3. against Iohn 9. And in like sort if he had obeyed Celestin 3. when he taught this doctrine that marriage might be dissolued for heresye nay he had vndoubtedly sinned that had obeyed Iohn 22. and beleeued for obedience sake that the soules of the saintes deceased did not see gods face All which I haue heere breifly touched to let the reader see that this assersion that Christian liberty may be lost by disobeying the Pope but not by obeying him may very well carry a good shew but that it is with all deceiptfull and captious beeing deliuered in such a generality and vnlesse it be limitted with this restriction when he commandes according to gods law fourthly where he saith that no Pope did euer attempt to change the forme of gouernment in the Citie of Venice I will be bold to put the auctor in minde that it is very much that he vndertakes to pronounce an absolute negatiue in a point of ecclesiasticall history for the space of nine hundred yeares during which time there haue beene about nine hundred and fourty Popes since the first began to intermedle with temporall matters of which number as it is true that the most part haue fauoured that state so yet can it not bee truely sayd of them all although it hath pleased the diuine prouideÌ„ce almost miraculously to protect and preserue the liberty thereof euen when it was apparant that some did labour mightily to ouerthrow it vtterly And further it may be well replied vnto him that it seemes strange and not to be endured That noe Pope hauing euer before this time according to the authors owne saying attempted or preteÌ„ded to desire to alter the gouernment of that common wealth This Pope should be now so peremptory and confident that he may doe it by offering as he doth to intermedle with the making of their lawes which is the very life and soule of ciuill gouernment At last the author passing ouer that which made not much to the purpose is contented to acknowledge that the translator speakes here of the liberty of a soueraigne Prince which among other things consisteth in making lawes necessary for the good gouernment of his state and punishing offendors And thus he goeth on There remaineth only that liberty which belongeth to an absolute Prince that acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall matters and of this kinde of liberty it is likely that the author of the preface speaketh But out of all question he is deceiued in saying that the Popes holinesse sends out excommunications against the state of Venice for refusing to subiect the liberty which God hath giuen them to the will of another And if any man obiect that to make lawes punish offendors is the proper right of absolute Princes and yet Pope Paule the fift excommunicates the heads and principall officers of the coÌ„mon wealth of Venice because they will not obey him in disanulling recalling some lawes they haue made in temporall matters in setting at libertie certaine offendors which they had put in prison I answere that Pope Paule the fift excommucates the heades of that common wealth for refusing to obey him in disanulling not all lawes or any lawe concerning temporall matters but vniust wicked lawes made in preiudice of the Church and with great offence to God and their neighbour And who can or will deny if he be a true Catholick that the Pope hath authority as vniuersall pastour to rebuke reprooue any Prince or state for their sins if they refuse to obey to compell them vnto it by ecclesiasticall censures For accordingly we see that S. Gregory did very sharply reprooue tht Emperour Mauritius for a law which he had made that was preiudiciall to Gods seruice And Innocent the third as wee may reade in the chapter Nouit de iudicijs doth plainly determine that it belongeth to the Pope to censure the sinnes and offences of all the Princes of the world Non intendimus saith he iudicare de feodo cuius ad ipsum regem viz. spectat iudicium sed decernere de peccato cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus And a little after Cum non humanae constitutioni sed diuinae potius innitamur quia potestas nostra non est ex homine sed ex deo nullus qui sit sanae mentis ignorat quin ad officium nostrum spectet de quocunque mortali peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum si correptionem contempserit per districtionem ecclesiasticam coercere Sea forsitan dicetur quod aliter cum regibus aliter cum alijs est agendum Caterum scriptum legimus in lege diuina ita magnum iudicabis vt paruum nec erit apud te except to personarum Hitherto are the very words of Pope Innocent And Pope Boniface in the extrauagant vnam sanctam de maiorit obedient Saith very well that the temporall authority when it erreth ought to be â—â—formed and rectified by the spirituall power For although a temporall prince that is absolute acknowledgeth no other temporall Prince for his superiour yet if he be a Christian he must of force acknowledge the head of all Christendome which is the Pope Christs vicar in earth to be his Superiour which Soueraigne Bishop or Pope because his chiefe end and care is the spirituall good of mens soules doth not therefore intermedle in the gouernment of temporall princes as long as they vse not their authority to the hurt of their owne soules and their subiects or to the preiudice of Christian religion But when they do the contrary hee both may and ought to put to his hand and to bring them into the right way againe And he that beleeues not this is no true Catholike and if any man shall obiect that those lawes of the Venetians containe in them neither sinne nor hurt to the Church I will answere him that to determine whether any law do containe sin or preiudice to the Church or not belongs likewise to the Pope who is the supreme and highest Iudge of all euen as to iudge whether a ciuill contract offend in the sinne of vsury belongs properly to the same ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the cognisance of sins generally appertaineth So the Popes Holines blames not the Venetians for punishing their subiects that offend but because they presume to lay hands vpon ecclesiasticall persons which are subiect to no superiour but spirituall make no reckoning of the sacred Canons of the grieuous censures denounced against all such as lay hands vpon persons consecrated to God Therfore whosoeuer will rightly consider of this point without passion shall finde that the Pope goeth not about to bereaue the State of Venice of any other liberty but the liberty to do euill which is not giuen of God but of the diuell and our owne corrupt nature and is the selfe same thing with the bondage of
remediis non obediendo in malis non adulando non tacendo arguendo â—uocando illustres ad increpâ—ndum exemplo Pauli c. Therfore Cardinal Cayetan who made this consequeÌ„ce was no good Logician but a perverse Scismatique But for this other consequence S. Paul exhorts inferiors to obey their Prelats and came to visit S. Peter Ergo we must obey yea though they abuse their power we refer it to the Author to stile it with what name please him and if he shall say that he speakes not of the abuse but of the lawfull vse of power why Gerson spake onely of the abuse and not of the vse of it and we condemne all them that obey not their superiours when they commaund according to his prescript that gaue them their authority aswell as we condemne the superiors that abuse it 6 The sixt consideration is that such a case may be put Gerson that one in not obeying his Prelate shall be a contemner of his keyes and another likewise in not obeying shall be in no contempt as where the first shall beleeue the Prelates sentence to be iust or shall beleeue for some other reason that he is bound to obey it and where the second shal know for certaine or shall haue sufficient probability that his Prelate misuseth the power of the keyes To this consideration there is little to say but that euery probability Bellarmine or a probabity of euery abuse whatsoeuer is not sufficient to exempt a man from obeysance to his Prelate But that a man should be freed from such obeysance it must be certaine and notorious auoiding to the common receiued learning that the Prelate doe abuse this power in some essentiall point for it is a generall rule giuen by S. Augustine libro 22. contra Faustum cap. 75. and followed by the rest that the subiect stands bound to obey not onely when it is certaine that the superiour doth not commaund any thing against God but also when he is not certaine whether he commands any thing against God or no because that in a doubtfull case he is to follow his superiour iudgement not his owne and then onely he must not obey when he is assured that he commands against God for that as it was said before Obediendum est Deo magis quam hominibus I know not what to say in this sixt Consideration Frier Paul but to merueile at it that the Author out of a desire of contradiction giues it a limitation which Gerson himselfe gaue in like sort in fewer and playner termes For where Gerson saith It may fall so out that in the same case one may become disobedient in contempt and another without contempt wheÌ„ the one shal repute the sentence for iust or that he is bound to obey it for some other respect this other shal not so think of it but either knows it of certainty or hath sufficieÌ„t probability that his Prelate vseth his authority amisse in preiudice of the keys the Author limits it that for sooth euery probability is not sufficient Gerson saith not euery probability whatsoeuer but a sufficient probability and I say affirme and warrant it that a sufficient probabilitie is enough and in matters humane and morall it is as great assurance and certaintie as can be said neither can I beleeue that any man will say that which is sufficient is not enough vnlesse he will contradict himselfe So that all the Author saith in many words is comprised in one short and plaine terme by Gerson and they are agreed But I would not now haue any man deceiued by that which the Author adds Viz. That in a doubtfull case a man is to follow the iudgement of the superiour and not his owne For a case may be said to be doubtfull in two sences either doubtfull wherein a man hath not indeuored to resolue himselfe or doubtfull wherein after his due diligence imployed he cannnot yet resolue himselfe In the first case he that stands in doubt whether the thing commaunded be against God is bound to put in practise all possible meanes both by himselfe and with the helpe of others to cleare his owne iudgement or else he sinnes against God by exposing himselfe to hazard the breaking of his law He that after all his diligence remaines still in doubt the Doctors allow him to follow the iudgement of his superiour I thinke well that the Author hath this verie same meaning but it behooues vs to stand vpon our gard against ambiguities because all false doctrines make their first enterance masked with the name of good And he doth so often inculcate it heere That the subiect is bound to obey not only when he is assured that the superiour doth not commaund any thing against God but also when he is vncertaine whether he commaunds any thing against God or not because that in a doubtfull case he is to follow his superiours iudgement and not his owne and then onely he must not obey when he is assured that he commaunds against God that we are inforced to reply ioyntly withall that his assertion is not true sauing onely where the subiect is not resolued that the Superiour commands ought against God after he shall haue consulted sufficiently of it and in a case still doubtful after consultation he hath to follow the iudgement of his Superiour and then he is not to obey when he is assured that he commaunds against God but if he stand in doubt because he hath not well thought of it then is he bound to bethinke himselfe seriously of it first before he yeeld obedience Yet my meaning is not that from hence there should be drawen this conclusion that as the subiect is bound to obey in a case inuincibly doubtfull for so I will terme it to auoyde Aequiuocation so that the Superiour may in like manner commaund in such a case for he sinnes alwaies whensoeuer he commands that with himselfe is not assured to be obligatorie So doth Adrian prooue and conclude Quodl 1. For the authority of the Superiour doth not extend to things doubtfull and it is against the lawe of nature saith Adrian to affirme that the authority of the keyes is extended to that which is doubtfull but the subiect is bound in a case inuincibly doubtfull to obey because hee ought to beleeue that howsoeuer it be doubtfull to him yet it is not doubtfull to his Superiour But in case he were assured that it were a like doubtfull to his Superiour then he is not bound at all to obey him So that when the Superiour commaunds in a doubtfull case and the subiect knowes that the Superiour himselfe holds it for doubtfull and yet commands it to aduantage him selfe here he is not bound to obey him It shall not be superfluous to repeate it ouer againe that the doubt which bindes a subiect to obedience must of necessity haue twoe conditions First that it be a doubt inuincible to himselfe and the other that
giue him the seat c. and hee shall raigne for euer This is that you chose not me but I chose you This is the kingdome in the Apocalips and thou hast made vs to our God a kingdom This Christ is the Father of the family who is owner of it and it his child and seruant Which for that it is composed of visible men the Father himselfe would that it should bee gouerned also by a man visible and hath appointed the authority which hee should haue and instituted one of them before the Church was founded but for the residue of time after it was founded hath left on earth the power to choose a successour Now with this doctrine which I am assured the author will admit yea rather will say that without it no man is Catholique the reason is answered that the Church is not a commonwealth as Venice or as Geneua which giue as much authority as themselues please to their Duke nor a kingdom which may chaunge the manner of gouerning it neither inuisibly nor visibly because that Christ hath prescribed the manner much lesse is it such a kingdom as France which hath a bloud royall where the Kings succeede by birth neither as some other by testament but as touching the inward gouernment and meerely spirituall it is not like vnto any because it hath a perpetuall and immortall King In the visible gouernment it hath a Minister as concerning his authority instituted by Christ and vndepending of the Church as concerning the application of the authority to the person electiue and depending of it Wherefore when he alledgeth and I am constituted a King by him Our Lord God shall giue him you chose not me Thou hast made vs to our God a kingdome All these places and such like others are meant of the inuisible kingdom the spirituall interior where the Pope hath no gouernment at all but onely the Sauiour which knoweth the hearts and can inflowe into them and bestow on them the graces and guifts whereby they are made Citizens of the heauenly Ierusalem Christ also is that Father of the family which depeÌ„ds not of it The high Bishop is a seruant â—et ouer the family by the Fathers therof in respect of the authority but which the family it selfe hath placed ouer it selfe in respect of the election of the person So as touching the authority it is from Christ as touching the application it is from the Church But the Author maketh the Church a family depending of the Father whom he acknowledgeth to be Christ and this beeing setled hee concludeth that the Father doth not depend of the family nor hath his authority from it Therefore the Pope cannot be subiect to the Church and passeth froÌ„ the father of the family which is Christ to the steward elected by the family it selfe which is the Pope Let him stand firme in the similitude for he shal neuer find in the Gospell that any other is called father of the family but God the father or else Christ his Son by nature The minister is a seruant it is not fit to attribute the proprietie of God to another For which cause the example serues meruailously for Gerson as also the example which the author brings of a Vice-roy is much for the same purpose If a King of France as S Lewis the 9. should go to the conquest of the holy land shold say to the kingdome I leaue you my cosin for Viceroy with authority to administer iustice but not to make lawes not to assemble the states c. and in case he happen to faile choose ye another in his place with the same authority the authority of the elected should be from the King and master the person which the kingdome should choose should be subiect to the kingdom This is that which Gerson teacheth throughout all his works where it is seene that verily the force of the reason concludeth for him Out of the things abouesaid I will not conclude that the opinion of Gerson in this point of the supreame power Ecclesiastical either is true or is false but onely that the authors conclusion that Gerson is deceiued and that he is deceiued that doth follow him and goeth contrary to the doctrine of the holy scriptures of the sacred Councels and of manifest reason hath need of other proofes then those abouesaide The Author proceedeth Bellarmine And if he should say that which Gerson himselfe wont to say that it is written in Saint Mathew in the 18. chapter tell the Church And if hee will not heare the Church let him bee to thee as the Heathen and the Publican I would answere that in that place by the Church is ment the Prelate who is the head of the Church and so doth Saint Iohn Chrysostom expound it Homilia 61. in Mathew and Pope Innocent 3. cap. Nouit de iudiciis and so doth the practize of the vniuersall Church of all the world and of all times declare that he who will denounce a sinner to the Church and obserue this precept doth not assemble a Councell but hath recourse to the Bishop or to his vicar It is not sufficient to the Author to haue disputed with Gerson but he also giues solution to his reasons But in this place of many which Gerson bringeth and deduceth Frier Paolo the author contenteth himselfe to produce one onely and to dissolue it And this is taken from the authority of Saint Mathew tell the Church vnto which hee answereth the Church that is the Prelate and of this exposition hee maketh Chrysostome the author although the Parisians say that Chrysostom doth not say so but it seemes when a thing is accustomed to bee alleadged euery man alleadgeth it without once viewing it Chrysostome expoundeth tell the Church namely the Bishoppes and Praefidents This is that which Gerson saith to the Church representatiuely because it being not possible to assemble the whole it be comes represented by the assembly of Bishops and Praesidents And therefore they adde that vnder the name of the Church their cannot bee ment one person For in vaine should that ensue If two of you shall consent vpon earth concerning euery thing whatsoeuer they shall aske it shall bee done to them of my Father which is in heauen For where there bee two or three gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them And for confirmation of this sense they bring that Saint Paul who receiued the information against the incestuous there is plainely heard fornication among you c. It followeth I indeede absent in body but present in spirit haue already iudged as present him that hath so doone in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ you beeing gathered together and my spirit with the vertue of our Lord Iesus to deliuer such an one to Satan Where they note that Saint Paul who was then in Philippi did not write by his Briefe I excomunicate such an one but wrote to the Church that beeing
Counsell of Lateran Pope Innocent Sent out an Excommunication against all those that molested Iohn King of England for thâ—â— cause and for that cause in the yeere 1216. another Legate called Guallo went to Paris who by vertue of that sentence of Excommunication commaunded Philip Lewis his sonne to forbeare to passe with an Armie into England which they were then prepared to doe But all this notwithstanding Lewis desisted not but entered Iohns kingdome with a great power Although the same Guallo were gone ouer into England and there ceased not daily to thunder out his Excommunications This warre continued vntill the death of Iohn after which Lewis of France who had gotten many places of that kingdome into his hands made truce for fiue yeeres with Henrie the sonne of Iohn who succeeded his father Now to applie this storie to our purpose The Lawyers hold that to shew that you haue commaunded is not sufficient to prooue a Iurisdiction vnlesse the commaundement haue beene obeyed I will leaue it therefore to the authors exquisite iudgement to make the conclusion that followes of this seeing that so many commandements and so many Censures of the Pope were not able to withhold or hinder these two Kings Philip and Lewis from prosecuting these pretensions which they tooke to be iust although the Pope iudged them vniust I will say thus much more That Cardinall Hostiensis who liued shortly after writing vpon this Chapter nouit takes much paines to defend it and proposeth many coniectures of his owne how and with what limitations the matter must be carried to make that rule or precept of the Popes deliuered in that chapter to appeare iust But it sufficeth that in France it was not so esteemed nor obeyed Therefore from the authoritie of that chapter nouit there can be no such thing concluded as our author would inferre The proposition of Pope Innocent 3. alledged by the author Intendimus decernere de peccato cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura and the other which followeth nullus qui sit sanae mentis ignoart quin ad officium nostrum spectet de quocunque peccato mortali corripere quemlibet christianum were not meant by him in that generalitie wherein some doe vouch them First because there must be excepted according to the doctrine of saint Thomas all internall motions of the minde whereof the Pope hath no power at all to iudge vnlesse it be in foro paenitentiae And of this sort are the greatest number of sinnes And all diuines and Canonists do agree that in the excommunications graunted against hereticks those are not comprised which erre onely mentally And that any Canon that should be made to comprehend them were of no validity So as here will be a generall proposition framed That the Pope may iudge of all sins which when we come to defend we must be forced to except the greater part of particular sins Besides a prince may sin by breaking his owne lawes without iust cause as saint Thomas proues 1.2 quaest 96. art 5. And yet of this sinn a he cnnot be iudged of any but god alone Caietan in that place declareth shewing that in foro poenitentiae and in the sight of God is all one in sense Certainly to affirme that a prince doing against his owne lawes should be therein subiect to the censures of the Pope were wholy to take away the power and authority of princes And one the other side to affirme that he should be subiect to them in other crimes and not in that were to ouerhrow the very ground of the reason presupposed in that chapter nouit Namely that it belongs to the Pope to take care of the soules and saluation of men and to remoue all things that be aduerse or repugnant thereunto But a Prince may incurre damnation by the sinnes he committes against his owne lawes therefore as well of these sinnes as other it belonges to the Pope to iudge which as I sayd before is directly contrary to the doctrine of Saint Thomas Moreouer it is necessarie well to obserue the very words of Innocent where he saith that the censure of euery mortall sinne belongs vnto him quam censuram in queÌ„libet exercere possumus debemus And a little after ad officium nostrum spectat de quocunque peccato mortali corripere queÌ„libet christianum Now if he be bound by the duty of his place to denounce censures against euery mortall sinne against euery christian so offending surely if he do it not he sinnes himselfe But we do not see that the Pope sends out any censures against the courtisans and profest harlots who yet persist and abide notoriously in their sinnes Therefore eyther he must needes sinne grieuously or it will behooue him to do nothing else but thunder out censures so as those words de omni peccato mortali are not to be vnderstood generally of sinnes seeing we haue already shewed so many instances of particulars to be excepted And therefore Gabriell Biell vpon the Can. Lec 75. Laboureth much to giue some tollerable interpretation to this place but can find none but this that this decretall and all other of the same tenor must be vnderstode in foro poenitentiae only I wil not trouble my selfe to proue that the words of the decretall are to be vnderstood as Gabriell interprets them I will only say this that whosoeuer wil affirme that they are to be vnderstood in foro exteriori shall haue much to doe to auoyd the absurdities and the vtter ouerthrow of the seculer power ordeyned of god and the confution of the world which will arise out of this doctrine besides the state of damnation whereinto he plungeth all Popes by the same In which point some canonists and Nauarro among the rest haue taken much paines but with no good successe neyther need we trauell much to reconcile and fit the words of this Pope to the true doctrine which distinguisheth the seculer power from the spirituall authoritie especially seeing the same decretall conteyneth some other things which had need to be well expounded as namely this that K. Philip Augustus was of the ofspring e genere as he saith of Charles the great which is not true vnlesse he suppose and imagine some mariage and so deriue the descent by the way of some woman a thinge neuer vsed in France A certaine french Historiographer deriues the howses of Charlemaigne and Capet from Merone by linial descent of seuerall women But to shew that the house of Capet comes of Charlemaigne wil be very hard without deuising some thing without the compase of al stories It is time to get out of this chapter nouit which the author in reason should haue bin careful rather to haue expounded then to inlarge it and extend it as he hath done for coÌ„trary to the meaning of InnoceÌ„t who saith that to him did belong the correction of euery christian our author hath interpreted these words quemlibet christianum
al the Princes of the world So as now it shal belong to him to excōmunicate the Turke the Kinge of Persia the Kinge of Samarcanda the Tartar And diuerse others of whom we haue yet no knowledge And Saint Paule may no longe◠say Quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare But of priuate Christians which Pope Innocent intended to comprehend the author thought not good to make any motion as if it were sufficient to haue commaund and rule ouer Princes and an Indignity and an abasement to intermedle with other To interpret quemlibet Christianum all the the princes of the world is both at once to inlarge and restraine the true sense of the decretall It is restrayned by excluding priuate Christians and it is inlarged by extending it to Princes that be no Christians Concerning the Authority cited out of the extrauagant vnà m sāctam I would be glad the Author would resolue vs of a doubt which groweth by the reading and comparing of this extrauagant with an other of Pope Clement the fift who came not long after him which begins thus Meruit de Priuilegiis Where Clement saith that he determineth and declareth that by the aforesaid extrauagant Vnam sanctam there shall be no preiudice or iniurie done to the King and Kingdome of France nor that the said king and kingdom shal be any more or otherwise subiect to the Church of Rome then they were before but that all things shall continue in the state they were in before that extrauagant And this he professeth to do to shew fauour to that King who was worthy of it both for his owne good affection and for the merits of his ancestors and in respect the whole nation of the French had deserued it by their true pietie and sincere deuotion Hereupon I aske this question Whether Boniface in this extrauagant Vnam sanctam did make a declaration of Ius diuinum in this point that is expound and declare the iurisdiction which the Pope hath De iure diuino ouer Princes or whether he did thereby impose a new subiection ouer Princes in some matters wherein God had not made them subiect before vnto the Popes If any man shall answere it was the latter I may then reply that is was an innouation after 1250. yeares a void act an vsurpation an incrochment and an abuse of the power giuen them by God Besides in this case it was not fit that Clement should declare or meane that France alone should bee exempted from that constitution but it behooued him to declare and determine the same for all other Princes and Kingdomes Neyther was it a matter of fauour to be yeelded as in recompence of the good desertes of that King or Kingdome but a thing due vnto them of right and Iustice But if it be answered That it was a declaration of ius diuinum I would faine know then how Clement could free the King Kingdome of France from that subiection which God had appointed them vnto the case beeing very cleare that the Pope cannot exempt any man from his owne power and Iurisdiction which he holds de iure diuino But to come to the very point of that extrauagant which the Author alleadgeth if that which Boniface saith to wit That the authoritie temporall when it erreth ought to bee corrected and rectified by the spirituall bee a declaration of the lawe of God I say that it ought to bee vnderstood onely for so much as concernes the saluation of their Soules and in foro Dei and without any temporall power of that kinde which the Lawyers terme Coactiue and that all the Ecclesiasticall power ouer Princes is therefore onely spirituall And heerein we shall not neede to goe so farre as to the Pope of Rome for this kinde of authoritie is as well in euerie Prelate though betweene him and them there be this difference that other Prelates haue no such generall power and commaund ouer all as the Pope hath and that their authoritie is subordinate vnto his But whereas out of those three authorities before mentioned he concludes that a temporall absolute Prince although he recognize the other temporall Prince for his superiour yet of necessitie he must recognize the head of all Christendome I would not that any man should be deceiued by the Equiuocation and ambiguitie which rests in these two words Recognize and Superiour for in one sense to recognize him is as much to say as to be subiect to his lawes and doe homage vnto him and to acknowledge that you hold your state by his fauour In an other sense to recognise him is no more but to account him the Minister of God in matters which concernes the kingdome of heauen In which sense I say and affirme that Princes doe not onely acknowledge or recognize the Pope but the Bishop also The word Superiour likewise in the former sense signifieth that which in our common speech we terme Lord of the fee or Superiour of Dominium directum But in the latter sense Superior signifies no more but one that teacheth the Law of God ministreth the Sacraments and generally directeth men the right way to eternall saluation In which sense I say that euen the Bishop also is Superiour to a Prince although the Pope be Superior in a higher and greater measure It is not fit therefore that the Author should without distinguishing these two significations affirme in grosse and in one breath as it were that an absolute Temporall Prince although he acknowledge the superioritie of no other Temporall Prince ought yet to recognise the Pope for his superiour and so confound the two superiorities For if it should be thus proposed that an absolute Temporall Prince though he acknowledge no other Temporall Prince for his superiour yet must acknowledge the Bishop to be his superiour no man would allow of it because the fallacie would be apparant to all men Therfore if Recognising be vnderstood in the former sense in case of Dominium directum I say that it is not true that a Prince ought so to recognise the Pope For the Pope is not such vnto him but that in the same manner that he recognizeth no other Prince he ought as little or lesse to recognize the Pope himselfe But if superiour be vnderstood in the second sense for a Spirituall superiour it is not true that any Temporall Prince though otherwise a Feodatary or Homager doth or can acknowledge any other Temporal Prince for such a superior For in this sense to acknowledge one for a superiour is as much as to account or accept him for a spirituall Father And for such a one the homager ought not to acknowledge his Lord. How ought wee therefore to beware of deliuering such diuinitie whereby both the kingdome of God and the kingdomes of the world are disordered and confounded and the simple people abused and made to beleeue that in all things they are bound to obey the Pope Neither is the manner or Phrase of speech
saith But in this sense no Prince can make lawes hurtfull to the Church but withall they must be hurtfull to himselfe also who iâ— a principall member of it and hee must needs sinne in so doing Likewise if by the Church he vnderstand the ministers thereof iâ— as much as they be ministers I am of the same opinion But I adde this withall that these lawes of Venice are not any way hurtful or preiudiciall to them but rather as may easily be prooued they tend in some sort to the fauour and benefit of their calling But if by the Church he vnderstand some temporall power or state I denie that the Pope hath any right to hinder or prohibite lawes to be made to the preiudice of the Church in that sense The ambiguitie of the word doth deceiue vs. It is true that no man ought to make lawes that are hurtfull to the Church but this must be vnderstood of the Church in the first or second signification But if a Law be made against carrying of corne to Ancona a Towne of the Popes Dominions this must needes be vnderstood in the third signification And therefore to say that such a Law is against the Church is an Equiuocation In like sort where he saith that the Pope ought not to suffer Christian Princes to make lawes that may hurt or hinder the saluation of mens soules we will put him in remembrance that it is Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine That ecclesiasticall persons haue their exemption in criminall causes onely iure humane be it eyther by the graunt of Princes or by the constitutions of Popes or by both together Hereupon I would aske this question whether before such graunts and constitutions were made secular magistrates which punished the offences of Clergy men committed any sin or did any wrong to the Church If it be said they did it cannot be maintayned for they neither brake any lawe of God as both himselfe and other truly hold nor any law of man for there was then no such lawe made et vbi non est lex nec preuaricatio therfore it was no sin It was not against the saluation of mens soules it was no wrong or preiudice to any man why then could not the Popes suffer it so to continue But the Author will say it was so then Perhaps for there was no lawe yet to the contrary But now the lawe is made it is so no longer Then say I they haue stopped and straightned the way to heauen without them it would haue beene more easie and therefore this they haue done is not to edification If it were once lawfull for Princes by punishing such ecclesiasticall persons as did offend to maintaine the publicke peace of their states and to giue satisfaction to the parties grieued without committing any sinne themselues what neede was it or to what purpose to inuent this deuise so contrary to the common good and so likely to breede confusion in all estates whereby the punishing of malefactors which is agreeable to the law of God shall now become sinne to them that doe it Can this auaile any thing to make the way of eternall saluation more easie Can it bee for the good of wicked clergy-men themselues who take the more liberty and boldnes hereby to doe euill Can it bee of any vse in respect of them that are iniured or do they not rather by this occasion conceiue the deeper malice and practise priuate reuenge Do the Princes reape any good by it whose states and gouernments are disordered and disturbed thereby Or can it bee any credyt or reputation to such Clergy men as are good and vertuous that the lewde should continue amongst them Is God honoured and glorified by any but such as bee obedient to his lawes But here I foresee an obiection that by this opinion I seeme to dislike all those immunities and exemptions which so many Princes worthy of euerlasting memorie haue graunted to the Clergye in Criminall causes No I am so farre from disliking them as I doe much commend them and propose them as worthy patterns to be followed by all Princes present and to come But this is that which I say That if wee beginne at Constantine the great and goe along to Constantine the sonne of Irene and from him through all the greeke Emperours vntill the finall destruction of that Empire and among the Latines from Charles the great to Fridericke the second inclusiue wee shall not finde that any Prince did euer exempt the Clergy from his owne authoritie But all the exemptions they graunted were from their inferiour offiicers and Magistrates some from all and other from some onely And some in certaine kindes of offences and other in all respectiuely But there remayned still vnto the Princes themselues that supreame authority which could not bee seuered from them Now so as offences be punished to what Magistrate it shall belong to doe it and to what not and ouer what persons hee shall haue authority and ouer whom hee shall not it belongs to the Prince to appoint according to the congruety and fitnesse of tymes places and matters And accordingly wee see that when the state of their affaires so requires it Princes doe sometimes graunt priuiledges and exemptions vnto souldiors and sometimes to men of other conditions In like sorte when it is requisite for the planting or propagating of religion in their dominions they are content to giue conuenient priuiledges and exemptions to ecclesiasticall persons and therein they deserue to bee much commended as I doe highly commend all tha forenamed Princes and likewise the common wealth of Venice which though not by a written lawe yet by a laudable vse and practise hath exempted Ecclesiasticall persons from the ordinary Magistrate in ordinary crimes and such as cary no enormity with them But for such a Lawe as shall take away from a Prince all authority to punish offences euen when the necessitie and peace of his state doth require it I doe not see how any man can eyther allowe it or account it agreeable to the lawe of GOD or nature It followeth not therefore that because wee commend many holy priuiledges which Princes haue graunted in this kinde wee must of necessitie commend also an exorbitant exemption which tends so directly to the confusion and generall disturbance of the state Therefore let vs conclude that it is true that the Pope neither can nor ought to giue permission or allowance of any of those thinges which in their owne nature are euill and opposite to the saluation of mens soules and which though hee should permitte them would neuerthelesse continue to bee sinnes and exclude him that doth them from attaining saluation And surely those Popes are worthy of exceeding praise that haue indeauored to remooue such abuses and other things forbidden by God which remayning make it impossible for men to bee saued These many yeares the worlde hath sighed and groaned for such a reformation and so many a time haue they
point concerning the sufficiencie of the decree made touching censures we should haue beene freed of much labour if as well the acts as the decrees of the councell had beene printed To this day if any acts of the Councell of Ephesus be found which was at least 1200. yeares agoe or of the Councell of Nice which is more auncient they are embraced and receaued with all greadinesse The acts of the holy Councell of Trent are extant I leaue it to the authors great wisedoÌ„e to iudge whether it were not good they were published Sure I am that they would resolue and cleare this doubt we haue in hand To the second obiection I could haue wished that he which is so curious to finde faults in the translation of Gerson would haue beene more exact faithfull in translating the words of the Councell The Councell saith Nefas sit seculaeri cuilibet magistratus The author interprets it thus let lay men take heed eueÌ„ those which are placed in publicke authoryty I suppose that any grammar scoller will expound Saeculari cuilibet magistratui for any secular magistrate and not for lay men euen those which are placed in publike office so that of priuat persons there is nothing spoken but the translator of Gerson desired instruction for deuout and religious coÌ„sciences and not for magistrates and the author hath added these words lay men to include priuate persons contrary to the meaning of the Councell Those other words likewise Sub praetextu quod contenta in praesenti decreto non sunt obseruata are not truely rendred by him in these words vpon pretence that it is not done orderly and according to the due forme he should haue sayd thus vpon pretence that the things are not obserued which are contayned in this present decree for there are many other due formes and rules in Saint Mathew Saint Paulâ— and S. Augustine which are not contayned in the decrees of that Councel The Councell forbiddeth lay magistrates that they shall not by their authority commaund any excommunication that is denounced to be reuoked vpon pretence that all things were not therein obserued that are contayned in that decree But if some other things be omitted which ought to be obserued the councell doth not determine whether in such cases lay magistrates may commaund the censure to be reuoked And peraduenture in some case they may according as they vse to doe in the Parliaments of France It is euident therefore that the councell hath giuen no instruction to deuoute and religious consciences that is to such as are vniustly excommunicated and to them which liue among them who are to conuerse and communicate with them what their duty is in that case which is the point that Gersons translator desired But after the Author hath alleaged the words of the councell Nefas autem sit saeculari cuilibet magistratui prohibere ecclesiastico Iudici ne quem excommunicet aut mandare vt latam excommunicationem reuocet sub praetextu quod contenta in praesenti decreto non sint obseruata cum non ad seculares sed ecclesiasticos haec cognitio pertineat thus he goeth on These are the words of the holy councell which hath prouided for euery thing and hath taught vs that the office and duety of secular magistrates is not to resist with force and violence the publishing of excommunications as the magistrates of the common wealth of Venice do at this time Here I cannot choose but be much amased The councell saith that the magistrate ought not either to forbid ecclesiasticall Iudges to excommunicate or to commaund them to reuoke their excoÌ„munication when it is denounced The Author saith that it commaunds them not to resist the publication of an excommunication with force These things are as different as heauen and earth for the publication may be hindred without either forbidding the sentence of excommunication to be pronounced or commanding it to bee reuoked when it is pronounced The one is an act of power and iurisdiction ouer him that doth excommunicate the other an act of naturall defence which requires no iurisdiction at all doth not only appertaine to magistrates but to priuate men also as wee may see in Caitan Soto and Victoria who doe all intreat at large of the resistance that both priuate men and secular magistrates ought to make against all vnlawfull commandements especially the Popes And with them agreeth also Cardinall Bellarmine in his treatise de Romano Pontifice written in a time when this controuersie not beeing as yet begun he iudged without all passion and parciality where then doth there appeare or whence is there proued any such vntruth as the Author affirmeth that Gersons translator hath vttered against the counsell and that other point that if he had read out the whole decree hee should haue found c. So in conclusion the obiection that is made against the translator in this point is grounded onely vpon three vntrue and improper interpretations made by the Author contrary to the true sense and words of the Councell But let vs passe to the fourth point where he saith But the Author of this translation proceedeth and saith And whiles not finding that which I sought for Bellarmine I turned ouer many Authors I chaunced among the rest to light vpon Iohn Gerson a most Christian Doctor worthy of eternall memorie â—tc It cannot be denyed but Iohn Gerson was a Doctor of very great learning and piety but the vnhappines of those times by reason of the long continuance of the scisme in the Church of Rome gaue occasion to that Doctor as well as to some other of that age to thinke somewhat vnderfoote of the authority of the Apostolick seat Because that while they sought by meanes of the generall Councell to remedie the scisme to induce the Popes of seueral obediences to submit their claimes pretensions to the Councels declaratioÌ„ hereupon they set themselues to intrance the authority of CouÌ„cells beyond mesure as much to debase that of the supreme Bishop And hereupon it grew that they fell into manifest errors contrary to the holy Scriptures and to the generall iudgment of the diuines that haue beene before and since so that Gersons Authority in those matters which concerne the Popes power is not of any moment and there were enow other writers more sound which might haue beene quoted to giue vs to vnderstand how farre the force of an excommunication extends as are Saint Thomas S. Bonauenture S. Antonine and infinit others without bringing in an Author suspected yea and apparantly erroneous in the point that is now in question It had beene good dealing in the Author since he hath reported some of the honourable titles which the Interpreter giues to Gerson to haue put them downe all that so the obiection which he makes against him of beeing a debaser of the supreme Bishops authority might happily haue beene refuted For if he had adioyned the opinion which
that age held of him stiling him the most Christian Doctor and his so long continued exercise in teaching sacred diuinity and the things hee effected by his teaching his example and his publicke authority withall hee could hardly haue perswaded his reader that Gerson was a man likely to bee stirred by indiscreet affections But so powerfull is the will of contradiction that it transporteth him to detract not from Gerson alone but from the rest of the Doctors of that age and to taxe them as manifestly erronious and suspected and contrarie to the Scriptures Wee cannot denie the vnhappinesse of those times and the long durance of that scisme in the Romane Church but withall wee must needes acknowledge a much greater infelicitie in these of ours wherein so great Kingdomes haue made a totall separation from the same Church whereupon there is bred an appetite in some to supply and make vp by an intensiue way of improuement within those few regions that remaine all that was so lost in extent and territory abroad yea an infelicitie indeede may wee rightly tearme that of our times when there is not that father of the auncient Church that is not censured and when they dare take vpon them to say that if they had liued in these dayes they would not haue spoken as they haue spoken Neither is it to be beleeued that the occasions of those times did transporte men more to fauour the authority of Counsells more I say nay or any thing so much as the present occasions transport some to depresse them since it is euident that all the Kingdomes that are sequestred from the Church do desire and grone after a Councell Forasmuch as in very deede to speake in fauour of a Councell can not touch any one mans proper interest since no one person can aspire to become a Councell whereof hee must bee content to be but a fiue hundreth parte so as it is more to bee misdoubted the vnhappinesse of the present times caries on an affectation of excesse then that of the ages past did of any diminution A good zeale to cure scisme such as was that of Gerson and the rest of that age by the Authors owne confession it is not wont to transport to any peruerse opinion specially such as are no way interessed but this catiue zeale of inlarging ones own greatnes is a perilous motiue to seduce into blindnes Here I must not omit to note that it is a kinde of taxing of Gods prouidence to say that he suffered an age to fall into a manifest error contrary to the deuine scriptures an age that was moued out of a Godly zeale to reduce the holy Church to vnitie Men of much knowledge and godlines such as the Author confesseth that Gerson and the other most excellent Doctors of that age were are not suffered to fall into such errors since to fall into open errors repugnant to the Scriptures it is a defect so enormeous and exhorbitant that by the Authors good leaue I will auerre it that who so falleth into it hath no sparke of either godlines or knowledg To erre manifestly against the Scriptures is the greatest blindnesse that can happen to any Christian the greatest chasticement that God can impose in punishment of him whosoeuer shall make vse of the deuine authority to serue his owne turne in mondaine interests It is too to grose expresse a contradicton to be forced to confesse the great learning piety of Gerson and to say withall that he fell into open errours contrary to the Scriptures It is not as yet decided who holds the better opinion touching the authority of the sea apostolick whether Gerson or our Author that he should presume to pronounce it so absolutely that Gersons authority in the question of the Popes power is of no moment Moment is a terme relatiue and that which is of no moment with him is neuerthelesse of moment with others and if the Authors opinion be of value in any place then that of Gersons is esteemed of in many more But to leaue this apart in all these twelue considerations the Author could find no fault but at one only point that propounded incidētly the rest of the doctrine he must needs allow howsoeuer he streines him selfe what by limitations what by extensions to make a shewe of the contrarie yet in fine he approues all so that in direct dealing hee ought not to haue made this point of the superioritie of general councels for his principall question since that is not the point now in question nor any man affects to make any such vse of that point to drawe in his holinesse purposely for his obiect that it might beare any such construction that the defence of Gerson were in offence of his holines There wāted not saith the Author other writers more sound which might haue beene alledged and he nameth Saint Thomas S. Bonauentura S. Antonine in particular But Gersons doctrine That excommunications abusiue and nulle are not to be feared That we ought not to obey them but defend our selues against them That in cases doubtfull we ought to take aduise and that all ought to be vnited to the cōmon good it is the doctrine of both S. Thomas and of S. Bonauentura of S. Antonine of infinit others more but it is not indeed cōpacted all into one place so as it may be seene vnder one view in one small tractat as it is in this of Gersons He that will collect places out of these and out of their schollers he shall finde their doctrine I speake not here of that head touching the superiority of the Councell but of the rest to be in all and through all points conforme to that of Gersons Here I will adde this that if the author shall protest vnto me that he will admit of all S. Bonauentures doctrine who was a man of so great sanctity and knowledge I wil vndertake to produce him places that shall giue him much more trauerse then Gerson and those other of his time haue done and wel he might haue forborn these terms of suspected erronious not haue ascribed thē to one whō himselfe acknowledgeth for one of great learning religiō But let vs now heare another greater reprehension But the cause Bellarmine which induced the Author of the praeface to translate and publish Gersons two treatises is most blame-worthy of all the rest To the end saith he that euery godly and religious conscience in reading them may take comfort and not incurre that great iudgement which God sends vpon the reprobate to conceiue a feare of those things which are not to be feared Trepidauerunt timore vbi non erat timor Behold how farr mans blindnesse aspires to abuse and misapply the word of God to take away the feare of God The holy Prophet in the 13 and in the 52 Psalme he saith The vngodly feare not the true God who is most worthy to be feared Non
according to Gersons words And againe how will you terme excommunication in Greeke but Anathema yea our Diuines make no difference betweene Excommunication maior Anathma And S. Paul saith cupiebam Anathema esse a Christo and in annother place si quis non amat dominum nostrum Iesum Christum sit Anathema Now let him on that lists to finde fault with S. Paule and say he spake improperly sithence euery sinner Non amat dominum Iesum therefore is Anathema to fauour such and after let him proceede to blame Gerson for mistaking It needed not iwis admit there had beene some improprietie when hee vnderstood Gersons true sense who spake not of that excommunication which is the Church censure when he accorded with him in substance to straine and force his words in matters of no moment And this might haue sufficed mee but that my desire was to shew by alleaging S. Augustine Gratian and S. Paul how the Author reprehends that for which indeede Gerson deserues to be commended 4 The fourth consideration is Gerson that a man is not to be said to contemne the keyes in any of the three kindes when a Prelate doth manifestly notoriously abuse the power of the keyes This consideration is true if it speake of the abuse of the keyes in points essentiall as if the Prelate should exceede his commission or should excommunicate a man without giuing him any warning before Bellarmine or should commaund vnder paine of excommunication things contrary to gods commandement in which case we say with S. Peter Obediendum est magis deo quam hominibus Act. 5. But howsoeuer Gersons Doctrine be true yet the Interpretors intention may be very infectious full of poison for that happily his drift is that the world should conceiue that the excommunicatiō which our Lord the Pope hath published were a notorious abuse of the keyes whereas it is indeede their lawfull most ancient vse as we could most clearly demonstrate if we were to insist vpon that point Bellarmine This consideration might euen as well haue beene passed ouer by the Author since he finds nothing to reprehend in it The limitation hee brings in that the manifest notorious abuse of the keyes excuseth the faithfull from contempt where he saith that this is true if the abuse be in points essentiall it is superfluous Who makes any doubt that it is so meant The very word abuse imports no lesse in it owne signification But when the Author adds that howsoeuer Gersons doctrine is true yet the interpretors intētion may be full of poyson This is nothing else but to fight against shadows to oppose against that which may bee and to wrāgle with ones owne cōiectures Is this S. Pauls precept not to iudge our neighbor till our Lord himselfe shall come to reueale the secret of harts Is this that charity quae non cogitat malū Gersons doctrine is good the interpreter hath not so much as applied it he speaks not a word but Ger. he puts too nothing of his owne yet it is obiected for all this that the interpretors intētion may be verie venemous Admit there had been some word which might haue beene turned either to the right hand or to the left yet it had beene the part of Christiā charity to haue interpreted it to the best but to come to what may be that purposely to accuse to giue a brand this exceeds the bounds of that we ought to do This poysonous intention which may be in the interpretor he explains saying peraduēture his meaning is to beare the world in hand that this excōmunication thundred by nostro signore is a notorious abuse of the keyes which indeed is contrarily a lawful most holy vse of them as might clearly be demonstrated if that were the point to be hādled I for my part cannot tell what is meant to be handled but sure I am this is the very question should be handled because this is it which is in cōtrouersy which would determine the strife without which it can not be determined And of this I would faine the Author he had intreated laid aside all other by-matters as little pertinēt to the purpose Gerson 5 The fift consideration is that when a prelate abuseth the power of the keyes he doth more disparage the keyes offends more greuously then doth any man subiect to his iurisdiction when he obeyes not his prelate hence it is gathered that it is a meritorious worke in such like cases to resist the prelate to his face as S. Paule did to S. Peter Bellarmine In this consideration much might be said but because it makes little to our purpose we will only say two things First that Gersons doctrine seemes scarsely safe lesse grounded For to lay by comparisons which may varie according to their diuersitie of circumstances whereupon it may fall out that sometime the prelate that abuseth his authority offends the more and sometimes the subiect that obaies it not if we shall simply consider the misusing of this power the disobeying of this power it is a greater sinne wilfully not to obay then it is to vse this power amisse for he that abuseth this power commits but a sinne of iniustice offends a man subiect to him but he that will not obey the prelate that commands iustly despiseth his excommunication commits a sinne of rebellion offends Gods diuine Ma. in his Vicar and so saith Christ Qui vos spernit me spernit Luck 10. and the Apostle in the first to the Thessalonians the fourth chapter Qui haec spernit non hominem spernit sed Deum And this despising God in his Vicar is called by the Prophet Samuel the first booke of Kings the 15. Chap. a kinde of Idolatrie To that which were here to be said is not said by the Author I can make no answere neither ought I to diuine sin in rash iudgmet Two things he opposeth First that Gersons doctrine seemes scarcely soūd lesse grounded because that in respect of the circūstances it may so fall out that sometime the prelate shall offend more in abusing his power sometimes the subiect in not obaying it The Author shall neuer find any Diuine that when he is to compare two sins to finde out the greater that will do it ex circumstantijs but only ex genere The consideration ex circumstantijs is infinit no wise man will pitch insist vpon that which may varie in infinitum And S. Thomas 2. 2. quaest 39. art 2. saith expresly dicendum que grauitae peccati dupliciter potest considerari vno modo secundum suam speciem alio modo secundum circumstantias Et quia circumstantiae particulares sunt infinitae ita infinitis modis variari possunt cū quaeriter in cōmuni de duobus peccatis quod sit grauius intelligenda est quaestio de grauitate quae attenditur secundum
hee come not to knowe that the Superiour himselfe holds it doubtfull as well as he 7 The seuenth consideration is Gerson that to discouer aright the contempt of the keyes we must obserue the lawfull power and withall the lawfull vse of this power and therefore that same common saying that the sentence of the Pastor or of the Iudge it ought to be feared yea though it be vniust it needes a good glose This is a good consideration Bellarmine and the glosse of that common saying it is extant in the sacred cannons among which also is the verie same saying viz. in Gratians decreetum causa 11. quaestione tertia and that in sundry Chapters And the summe of all is that the Pastors sentence is to bee feared when it is vniust so it bee of force and good in Law as when there wants not any one essentiall part but onely some accidentall matter for example a lawfull Prelate excommunicates one that is vnder his iurisdiction for a iust cause hauing before admonished and aduised him but he doth not excommunicate him for pure zeale of iustice but for some particular grudge he beares him or he doth not warne him three times or he doth not put downe the sentence in scriptis this excommunication is vniust but it is strong in law therefore ought to be feared Yea admit yet further that it were indeed voide but the inualiditie were not knowen here it ought likewise to be feared at least in respect of the scandall I doe not straine my selfe to prooue these things for that they are cleare such as Gerson himselfe would not denie them And from this consideration any man may gather that the sentence of of our Lord Paulus Quintus published against the heads of the State of Venice hath all the requisites aswell essentiall as accidentall and ought therefore to be feared it beeing not onely of validitie but most iust withall For if you looke into the lawfulnesse of authority you shall finde that there is a supreame power giuen him from God and most vniuersall ouer all them which pretend to bee sheepe of Christs flock and members of the mysticall body of the Church and citisens of Gods citie and domestiques in the house of the same God That the power is vniuersall it is cleerely seene in those words Quodcunque ligaueris quodounque Solueris Math. 16. And that it is ouerall it is seene in those other words pasce oxes meas Iohn 21. Where it is not restrayned to these or those sheepe but includeth all those that are his and hee that beleeues not this is no Catholick If you looke into the lawfull vse of this power you shall finde that there wanted not diuerse admonitions nor any of those things which the order of iudgment requires Finally if you looke into the cause you shall finde that it was in defence of the Churches immunitie which the sacred councell of Trent Sess 25. Cap. 20. affirmeth to bee founded vpon diuine ordination and vpon the constitutions of the holy canons and for which wee knowe that many holy prelates haue combated euen to the death God hath honoured Saint Thomas of Canterbury with infinite miracles hath declared him to be his owne true Martyr as the Church also declared him to be afterward for hauing spilt his bloud for the liberty of the same Church Frier Paulo In this seuenth consideration it pleased the Author to bring in the Glosse vpon that common saying That the sentence of the Pastor or of the iudge it is to be feared yea though it be vniust which Gerson thought good to let passe as a glosse most knowne and handled of all the Doctors Yea further I for my parte doe not onely subscribe to that which the Author saies but I adde this more that euen such a sentence as is notoriously voyde in lawe ought notwithstanding to be feared after a sorte that is to say wee ought not proudly to disdaine and contemne it but with modesty and reuerence to hinder the execution of it But howsoeuer the glosse he brings in conteine good Doctrine yet is not the consequence for all that currant which he would collect thereupon that therefore the Popes sentence which is now in question hath all the due requisites aswell essentiall as accidentall and that it is not onely in force but withall most iust This hee proues thus If you inquire into the lawfulnes of the authority you shall finde that there is a supreame yea and that a most vniuersall authority giuen him frō God which is proued by Quod cūque ligaueris and by Pasce oues meas Iohn 21. If it be taken in the right sense such as be Catholicks make no difficultie to admit of this proposition but this same new termed Vniuersalium most vniversall is one of those ambiguous words which though it be first broght in in a good sense that is to say bounded limited in things only belonging to the kingdom heauen and to the edification of the Church according to the Euangelicall rules yet in tract of time it will after extend and straine it selfe further euen to mundane and worldly matters S. Gregory lib. 7. epist 30. held this very word for suspicious and in exceeding iealousie when he was styled Papa vniuersalis and he said it was a proud title and imported as much as if he were the onely Bishop and no other man were Bishop but he And so to haue authoritie most vniuersall is after a sort to say if Saint Gregories discourse may be allowed that there is no other authority but it For if the stile of vniuersall Bishop take away other Bishops Ergo a most vniuersall authority must needs take away all other authorities But we will not contend about the word so that they wil giue it it owne true meaning Let vs consider now how this most vniuersall authoritie is proued It is said to Peter and in his person to all Popes Quodcunque ligauereis c. Quodcunque solueris c. Ergo their authoritie is vniuersall But in the 18. of Mathew it is said to all the Disciples and in their person to their successors Quaecunque ligaueritis c. Quaecunque solueritis c. Ergo there shall be sundrie most vniuersall authorities which implies a flat cōtradiction Indeed the Quodcunque is vniuersall but it is bounded and restrained by the words before Claues regni coelorum All that perteins to the kingdome of heauen is subiect to Peter who doubts it but that which appertaines to the kingdoms of the earth Christ cōmitted it not to him The other profe by Pasce oues meas it is indeed vniuersall in respect of Oues meas but god denieth by Ezechiel in his 34. that to cloth our selues with the wool of his sheep is to feed them he denieth that to dominier ouer thē cum austeritate cum potentia is to feed them he denies that to drink the clear water by our selus
the family ouer him Saint Cyprian saith that the supreame power of choosing such Priests as are worthie and refusing vnworthy doth principally rest in the people and if the author will read the place he shall perceiue that hee speaketh of Bishoppes particularly though in the wordes alledged he mentioned Priests and withall that it is not onely Cyprians Epistle but the Epistle of 36. Bishoppes and written to the common people of Leon Asturia and Emerita and if hee will let him read the 14. Epistle of the 3. Booke such authorities as these wee ought to alledge for the maintenance of our cause and not come in with such misticall and those inforced explications as the author doth in this place where if he had bin disposed to deale sincerely hee should haue alledged that place of Saint Luke intirely Quis putat est fidelis dispensator prudens quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam vt det illis in tempore tritici mensuram and then it maketh against the author for this seruant cannot bee a generall dispenâ—er of all the Lords treasure to whom he hath committed nothing saue onely the distribution of the Corne there are many other things to bee distributed as meat drinke and apparrell all which his Lord will commit vnto him if hee behaue himselfe faithfully in this particular office for thus he saith Beatus ille Seruus quem cum venerit dominus inuenerit ita facientem vere dico vobis quoniam super omnia quae possidet constituet illum Let him read the place and see whether it can receiue any other interpretation If either the Pope or any other to whome the charge of all thinges is already committed be that faithfull Steward what are those other thinges which shal afterwardes bee committed vnto him for hauing so wel discharged his duty in this administration if the author will say that wee are to vnderstand those wordes of the Coelestiall Paradise wee must answere that the charge thereof is peculiar to Christ and the Angels the holy Popes entring into the kingdome of heauen receiue from God a rewarde of their labours but their gouernments they leaue behinde them and are for euer exempted from labour as for the wordes that follow Quod si dixerit seruus ille in corde suo c. From whence the author will gather that if Gods high Steward doth misbehaue himselfe hee reserueth the punishment of him to himselfe and will not impart it to his family I answere that the consequence doth not hold in all Stewards neither can the example which hee bringeth of a vice roy availe him to this purpose it is one thing when the father of a family being absolute Lord of it doth commit the gouernment to another but if the father of the family shall giue leaue to his family to choose them a gouernour with such and so great authority ouer their Maisters treasure as hee himselfe shall set downe it is a case of far different consideration in like sort different it is when a King who hath no dependence of his kingdomes shal constitute a Vice-roy and when he giueth leaue to his subiects to choose theÌ„ one with such authority as hee himselfe shall prescribe for in the first case I acknowledge that the family hath no power ouer their gouernour nor the subiects ouer the Vice-roy but in the 2. case as the family hath power to institute him so hath it also power to censure his actions And the subiects in like sort the actions of the Vice-roy and as the Cardinall Bellarmine saith that the authority which the Church hath of choosing the Pope is nothing els but an applying of the power to the person so Gerson in his book which he writeth vpon this occasion saith that when the Church doth iudge the Pope it doth no more but separate the power from that person if Christ had so instituted the Popes as it should haue bin in their powers to appoint their successors peraduenture that might haue followed which the author would inferre that the Church should haue no power ouer the Pope but hee which affirmeth that God hath giuen power to the Church to annexe power to the person should also haue shewed that it hath not the selfe same authority to remoue it but the common doctrine that the pope hath no authority of electing a successor doth euedently declare that he is not a gouernor of the first sort deputed immediatly from the father of the family but of the secoÌ„d elected of the family by the fathers appointment and with this doctrine doth Gerson answere that of Pasce oues meas and all other places of Scripture like vnto it Namelie that although hee which is by the owner appointed to bee ouer the flocke is not subiect to the flocke yet if it be such a flocke as hath power to chuse a sheepheard the sheapheard when he is chosen shall be subiect vnto it the faithfull flocke of Christ ought to resemble sheepe in humblenesse and innocencie yet ought they not to be so sheepish or foolish as to forgoe the authority which their owner hath bestowed vpon them either of choosing them a good sheapheard or of judging a wicked Saint Augustine doth proue with reasons vnanswerable that doctrines are to be grounded only vpon the literall sense of the scripture and not vpon any mysticall interpretation whosoeuer will read all that chapter shall easily vnderstand the meaning of our Sauiour and the literall sense of the Gospell Hee spake to his disciples and consequently to all Christians beginning at those words about the middle of the chapter dixitque ad discipulos suos that they should not take thought for the things of this world because God had prepared another kingdome for them that they should be watchfull in wel doing as not knowing wheÌ„ the Lord will cal that if the goodman of the house knew at what hower the thiefe would come hee should find him watching in like sort they should be prepared because Christ will come at an hower when we thinke not then Peter said vnto him Master tellest thou this parable to vs or euen to all Christ replied who thinkest thou is that dispensator fidelis prudens c. inferring therby that he spake to all whereas if it had bin spoken onely to his Viccar it would follow that the commaundement of watching of not regarding the thinges of this world of waiting for the kingdome of heauen and the vnexpected comming of Christ should haue beene giuen to him alone but because such commaundements as these are equally giuen to all the faithfull the litterall meaning is that they all are these faithfull stewards which God hath commaunded to exercise their charity by imparting their goods and other abilities which God hath bestowed vpon them to the rest of his familie this is that measure of wheate and that office for the faithfull administration whereof God will multiplie his blessinges vpon them this then as all interpreters
I will not speake France is not the country of Iapan from whence we must expect aduertisements but once a yeare to know how that kingdome is gouerned All the French writers make mention of the liberty of their Church and they are al collected into one volume printed at Paris 1594. out of which I will gather somewhat to this purpose and leaue it to be iudged of by the Reader And thus beside many more particulars it is plainely set downe in that booke The Popes can neither commaund nor giue order in any thing either in generall or particular which concernes temporall matters in the countries and territories vnder the soueraignty and obedience of the most Christian King and if so bee they commaund or determine any thing the kinges subiects yea though they bee Churchmen are not in this respect bound to obey them Although the Popes supremacy bee acknowledged in spiritual causes yet notwithstanding is there no way giueÌ„ in France by any maner of meanes to an absolute and infinite power but it is restrained and limited by Conons and rules of auntient councelles of the Church which are receiued in this kingdome in hoc maxime consistit libertas Ecclesiae Gallicanae The most Christian Kings haue at all times according to occasions and affaires of their country assembled or caused to be assembled Synodes or prouinciall and nationall councels in which amongst other thiâ—â—es which did import the conseruation of their states they did in â—â—ke manner handle affaires concerning the Ecclesiasticall rule and discipline of their countries and in these councels the Kings themselues haue caused prescriptions chapters lawes ordinances and pragmaticall sanctions to bee made vnder their names and authorities and at this day there are many to bee read in the collection of decrees which are receaued by the vniuersall Church and some of them approued by the generall counceles The Pope can by no meanes send into France his Legates a latere with commission to reforme adiudge bestowe dispense or such like matters which are vsually specified in the Buls of their commission if it be not at the request of the most Christian King or at least wise by his consent and the Legate is not to execute his c mmission but vpon promise made to the King in writing and a solemne oth taken by his holy orders not to exercise the said commission in any kingdome country land or Lordship vnder his subiection but for such time onely as shal stand with the Kings liking and as soone as the Legate shal be aduertised of the kinges pleasure to the contrary he shall presentiy desist and stay In like manner he shal not vse any part of his commission but such as may be with the Kings liking conformable to his wil without attempting or doing any thing in preiudice of the holy decrees generall councels immunities liberties and priuiledges of the French Church and the Vniuersities and publike Colledges of this kingdom And to this end are the Commissions of the Legates presented to the court of Parliament where they are seene examined approued published and registred with such prouisoes as shall seeme expedient to the Court for the good of the kingdome With which prouisoes further are all differences and contentions adiudged which do rise vpon occasion of the Legats actions and no otherwise The Prelats of the French church though they bee sent for by the Pope vpon what occasion soeuer yet are they not to go out of the kingdome without commaundement licence or pasport from the king The clauses inserted in the Bull in Coena Domini and those in particular in the time of Pope Iulius the second and others after him haue no admittance in France in as much as concernes the liberties and priuileges of the French church and the rights of the King and his kingdome The Pope can neither take vpon himselfe nor commit to others the triall of rightes preheminences and priuileges of the crowne of France and the appurtenances neither doth the king plead or debate his right and pretensions but in his owne court The French Church hath euer held that although by ecclesiasticall rules or as Saint Cyrill saith writing to Pope Celestine by auncient custome of all churches generall councels are not to be assembled or solemnised without the Pope claue non errante who is acknowledged for head and primate of the whole militant church and the common father of all Christians and that nothing is to be determined or concluded without him or his authority yet notwithstaÌ„ding is it not to be thought or imagined that he should bee aboue the vniuersall councels but it is rather held that he is bound to submit himselfe to the decrees and resolutions of this vniuersall councell as to the commaundements of the church which is spouse to our Lord Iesus Christ and is chiefly represented by this congregation The Buls or Apostolique letters of citation bee they of present execution or thundered out for admonition or of any other sort are not to bee executed in France without a Pareatis from the king or from his officers and such execution as may be done vnder permissioÌ„ is done by the ordinary iudg appointed by the king with the kings authoritie not auctoritate Apostolica to auoid confusion which would grow by the mixture of iurisdictions The Pope can impose no pensions vpon benefices of this kingdome which haue cures of soules nor vpon others except it bee by consent of the incumbents conformable to the holy decrees of councels and canonicall constitutions or else for the profit of such as do resigne vpon such expresse conditions or to let peace betwixt parties which are at strife and in sute about a litigious benefice The liberties of the French Church are preserued by diligent obseruing that all Buls and dispatches which come from the Court of Rome be seene and visited to knowe whether there bed any thing in them which might be in any sort preiudiciall to the rights and liberties of the French Church and the authority of the King of which there is yet to bee seene an expresse ordinance made by Lewis the eleuenth and imitated by the predecessours of the Emperor Charles the 5. which were then vassals of the crowne of France and likewise by himselfe in an Edict made at Madril in the yeare 1543. which was put in practise in Spaine other countries of his obedience with more rigor and lesse respect then in this kingdome They are likewise preserued by appeales which are interposed to the future councell of which many presidents euen of latter times are to be seen as of appeales made by the Vniuersity of Paris from Pope Boniface the 8. Benedict the 11. Pius the 2. Leo. the 10. and others Were I not restrained by the breuity which in reason I must vse in this apology I might here recite the arrests and acts of Parlament in matter of iudgements in criminall causes where it is decided that in France the Clergie men of whatsoeuer order they be may not onely bee apprehended by the secular magistrat and referred to the Ecclesiasticall Iudge for common trespasses but adiudged by the laity for heynous offences and such for which they claime priuiledge And further when for an ordinary fault a man is twice put ouer to the Ecclesiasticall power the third time he is held incorrigible is adiudged by the secular The arrests may be seen in all the French Lawyers and particularly in Gio Papons collections L. 1. r. 5. art 4. 9. 30. 31. 33. 34. 35. 44. 45. 46. 47. By this it may appeare to all men that that which the Author saith is most true that the liberty of the French Church is grounded vpoÌ„ ancient Canons though it be not therefore true that they are grouÌ„ded vpoÌ„ theÌ„ onely but further vpon the law of nature vpoÌ„ al equity reason It may further be seen that that which the Author saith is not true that at this preseÌ„t there is no more speach of the liberty of the FreÌ„ch church but rather that most florishing mighty kingdome doth employ as much care study for conseruing it selfe at this present as it hath done in times past And comparing this liberty with that which the state of Venice doth acknowledge to holde of God and intend to preserue with all their power it may appeare that there is no greater difference than such as the difference of the countries doth necessarily require It may rather be seen tâ—at the state of Venice doth not make vse of all the natural liberties which it might freely doe and onely to shew the greater reuerence and respect of the holy sea By which euery man may directly discouer how farre the last conclusion which the Author 〈◊〉 makes doth differ from truth that the liberty which the state of Venice takes to it selfe is contrary as well to the olde Canons as the new Ephes 3. Ei autem qui potens est omnia facere superabundanter quà m petimus aut intelligimus secundùm virtutem quae operatur in nobis ipsi gloria in Ecclesia in Christo Iesu in omnes generationes saculi saeculorum Amen FINIS