Emperour he saith vnde per eundem tremendum iudicem deprecor ne illae tantae lachrimae tantae orationes tanta ieiunia tantaeque elemosnae domini mei ex qualibet occasione apud omnipotentis dei oculos fuscētur Sed aut temperando pietas vestra aut mutando rigorem eiusdem legis inflectat This humble and decent remonstrance worthy indeed of a Pope or supreame Bishop deserues not to be tearmed by the Author a sharpe reprehension But those other words that follow are yet more worthy to bee considered Ego quidem iussioni subiectus eandem legem per diuersas partes terrarum transmitto quia lex ipsa omnipotenti deo minime concordat ecce per suggestionis meae paginam dominis nunciaui Vtrobique ergo quae debui exolui qui imperatori obedientiam praebui pro deo quod sensi minime tacui I would not haue produced these words of Pope Gregorie if I had not beene forced vnto it by the Author to let him see that it was not a sharpe reprehension but rather an humble and respectiue remonstrance which Saint Gregorie vsed to the Emperor But seeing hee hath drawne mee thus farre I must intreat him to answere mee whether Saint Gregories calling him selfe so often the Emperours vnworthy seruant and his saying that as one that acknowledged himselfe subiect to his commandement hee had sent abroade into diuerse partes of the world a lawe which in his conscience hee held not to bee iust and that other saying of his that in so doing hee rendered vnto the Emperour that obedience that was due vnto him whether I say these speeches doe agree with the doctrine which the author now publisheth wherein he makes the Pope supreame temporall Monarch and the Princes of the world lesse then his vassals as I will shew him before we part out of this argument that his words do necessarily infer although they dare not yet auow it in expresse termes But before we goe from this point it will not bee vnpertinent for mee to let the Author know in what Court of Chauncery or campo di sancto fiore it was that Saint Gregory caused this his sharpe reprehension or admonition to bee published and set vp to bee read In this 64. Epistle hee writes to one Theodorus Physition to Mauritius that hee had made a remonstrance vnto the Emperour for so I will bee bold to interpret suggestionem yet with the Authors leaue least hee taxe mee as hee doth the Translator but that hee was not willing that his Agent should present it vnto him publiklie but prayed that Theodorus rather to deliuer it vnto him priuatelie at some conuenient time when it might not diuert him from greater businesse I must also craue pardon if whiles wee talke of the maior proposition by occasion of Saint Gregories words I shall incidentally touch a point belonging to the minor To shew the iniquitie of that law of Mauritius that holy man prayeth him to inquire and search whether any Prince before him had made any law of that nature So I would haue wished that our holy father the Pope had in like sort required the Venetians to consider whether any king of Portugall Castile Arragon Poland France Sicilie or any counte of Burgandy or the state of Genoa had euer made any lawes like vnto theirs For so he should haue truely imitated Saint Gregory And surely I cannot but admire the authors great wisedome in that he forbeares to quote the place it selfe of Saint Gregory being so precise and subtile in his allegation of other places throughout this whole Treatise But let vs goe on to the second argument drawen from the Chapter nouit of Innocent 3. After long warres betweene Philip Augustus King of France and Richard King of England about the yeare 1199. Richard died and his brother Iohn surnamed Lackeland succeeded him in that Kingdom either by the nomination appointment of his brother as some affirme or by vsurpation vpon Arthur who was son to another Elder brother of his But those territories which the Kings of England possessed in France submitted themselues to the Dominion of Arthur Whereupon there ensued great warres betweene Philip and Iohn because Arthur followed the faction of the French King and was supported by him But at length in the yeare 1200 by meanes of a marriage betweene Lewis son heire successor of the French king Blanche of Castille king Iohns sisters daughter of which mariage issued afterward S. Lewis a peace was concluded betweene Philip and Iohn wherein Arthur was likewise comprised vpon this cōdition that Iohn should do homage to Philip for the Dominions of Brittany Normandy and Arthur should do homage to Iohn for the same After this vpon some occasion that fell out Arthur was put in prison by his vncle the King of England and there died in the yeere 1203. And the common opinion was that hee was murthered by his Vncles commaundement Whereupon Philip Augustus as chiefe Lord of the Fee caused Iohn to be cited to Paris and vpon default of his appearance condemned him and confiscated those territories which he held of him and went afterwards with an armie to seise them into his hands by force Iohn pretended that this was directly against the peace and treaties betweene them and made his complaint vnto Pope Innocent the third who commaunded both the Kings vpon paine of excommunication to keepe peace and to surcease from warre and sent also a Legate vnto them for that purpose Iohn for whose aduantage this commaundement was did gladly imbrace it But Philip found himselfe much grieued and tooke great exceptions against it and so did the Prelates of France in this behalfe vnto whom Innnocent the third made that answere contained in the Chapter nouit Philip for all that desisted not from his former purpose but went on and conquered by the sword all the territories that the English men at that time possessed in France neither could the Pope preuaile any thing by his commaundement In the yeare 1208. Pope Innocent 3. excommunicated the aforesaid Iohn and interdicted his whole kingdome which interdict continued six years and three moneths Yet did not Iohn yeeld to obey the Pope in that he required of him Therefore the Pope sent Pandolphus his Legat into France to Philip to perswade him to make warre vpon Iohn Philip made his preparations accordingly and many Barons of England combined themselues with him But in the meane time Pandolphus comming into England and letting Iohn see the daunger wherein he stood aduised him to become the Popes Feodatary Iohn inforced by the present perill accepted the aduise and made his kingdome tributary to the Pope to pay him yearely 1000 markes of gold Pandolphus hereupon returned into France and commaunded Philip vpon paine of excommunication that he should molest Iohn no longer as being now become the Feodatary of the Church But Philip refused to obey and the warre continued Whereupon in the yeare 1215. in the
a man to obedience And more that sentence is erronious in point of manners because it teacheth to doe ill and likewise in matter of faith because he that saith it is lawful to do ill is an Heretique and if he repent not himselfe he must bee put into the handes of the secular power that hee may bee punished according to his deserts and a sentence of this nature must not onely not be obeyed but also not so much as feared because our sauiour saith nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus and a man should sooner choose to die then obey such a law Whereby there can bee no discouery made of this fourth part which Gerson produceth which is that some sentences either ought or may be feared yet not obeyed speaking of that feare which is an inducement to obedience though there may bee a naturall feare of a tyrant which commaundes wickednesse But neither in this hath the Commissary erred because hee alwaies spake of such a sentence as though it were vniust was yet of validity as this can not bee which commaunds sinne and may be plainely condemned of a nullity See then how the whole dicourse of Gerson is built in the ayre And he which translated it brought it to light to teach the Venetians to dispise the Popes sentences being iust and of validity shewes himselfe to bee more fraught with malice then iudgement For the better expressing the meaning of Gerson Frier Paolo and declaring the truth it is very necessary ouer and aboue thaâ— which we haue saide before that it is no hard matter to finde sentences which are to bee feared yet not obeyed to proceede with the same distinction the author vseth that a sentence must either commaund a thing which is manifestly good or plainely bad or that which is doubtfull And as for the first part when the thing which is commaunded is manifestly good and equitable wee hold with the Author that it is to bee obeyed For the third part which imports a doubtfullnesse for feare of his equiuocations wee must distinguish this worde doubt as wee haue done before into that which goeth before an orderly admonition and that which followes after The first doth not tie vs to obedience but to take counsell onely and then if vpon consultation the doubt can not bee ouercome wee agree with him that the subiect is then bound to follow the opinion of his superior and not his owne And I would craue pardon of the Reader in that I so often repeat this doctrine because the author comes out so often with his equiuocations to make Châ—istians runne blindly forward in beeing led by other mens passions In the second case when a bad matter is comaunded vpon paine of excommunication and a time set down for the fact or els the excoÌ„munication to take effect this sentence hath two parts the one which commaunds obedience to the iniunction within the time prescribed and the other which commaunds forbearance from the Communion if it bee not obeyed before the saide time be expired As for the first part I say it is sinne to feare it as the author requires and he that feares it in that sort doth commit sinne and here that which he alleageth is properlie verified nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus but for the second part which is forbearing the Communion it is more then the subiect is bound to but if hee will doe it of himselfe beecause hee will not transgresse the other iniunction hee doth not offend And thus saith Gerson in these wordes which the author must needes haue reade because in some cases they may bee feared by timorous consciences yet notwistanding they are not to be obeyed for there is great difference in saying they are to bee obeyed and they are to be feared to obey a sentence of excommunication is vnderstood by Gerson to execute the iniunction either by that meanes not to incurre the sentence of excoÌ„munication or if it bee incurred yet to be absolued But to feare an excommunication Gerson takes that to bee to forbeare the Communion A sentence of excommunication ioyned to an iniunction which commaunds an vniust act hee which obeyes it doth sinne whereas he that feares it only sinnes not though he be not bound to feare it Wherefore there is great diffrence in saying Our sentences though they be vniust ought to be feared because this signifies a forbearing of the Communion for the reuerence is had of them and the Commissary speaking in this sort had failed no otherwise then in saying ought in steede of may but when he said they ought to bee obeyed he committed a greater fault because they not onely not ought but further not so much as can be obeyed without sinning yet may they be feared though that be more then needs And this is the fourth part expressely declared by Gerson which the author saith is not to be found though it may easily be found both in Saint Gregory and Gratianus by any that will enter into consideration of the matter without affecting contradiction But the author as it seemes not well assured before of what the Commissary spake yet here as if he spake vpon better ground saith neither in this yet hath the Commissary erred because he euer spake of an vniust sentence yet such a one as was of validitie as this is not which commaunds sinne which enforceth mee to make a little digression to declare the fact which is the subiect of this booke Before the councell of Constance and about the yeare 1399. Henry the sixt king of France called an assembly of the Clergy Scholemen of his kingdome where amongst other thinges it was concluded that the Romish Buls of reseruatioâ—s and papall prouisions should not be admitted but that electiue benefices should be conferred by election and the presentations of others should be made by the Ordinaries which decree that it might be the better obserued was many times renued within the twenty yeares following as well by other decrees made by Churchmen of that kingdome as by acts of Parliament which were often renued and reuiued notwithstanding all lets and impediments which were laid in the way by Briefes and Commissions from the court of Rome against the obeying of them Now it plainely appeares in the second proposition that Gerson spake of a Commissary which went into France vpon some such occasion and that the time in which Gerson wrote was in the Popedome of Martinus Quintus may bee seene in the same Proposition where it is said that for 20. yeares space the king held a councell of Prelates which councell as Guagninus reports was first assembled in the foresaide yeare 1399. And in the third proposition when Gerson spake of the Sonne of Charles the sixt he vsed these words To his lawfull sonne now Regent who as Francis Belforest doth testifie tookel to him this title in the yeare 1418. So as by all these circumstances it is to bee gathered that
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
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
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
this worke of Gersons was written after the yeare 1418. and before 1422. when Charles the sixt dyed If then Martinus Quintus was elected in 1417. it is plaine the booke was written in his Popedome beside that Gerson himselfe in the fourth proposition doth nominate the councell of Constance as then past Then must it needs bee that the Commissary commaunded the execution of some Papall prouision contrary to the orders set downe by the foresaid conuocation which according to Gerson was to commaund an vniust thing and did therfore conteine intollerable errors against publicke iustice and in his opinion did tend directly to an vndue vsurpation All which if it had beene obserued by our author hee had surely forborne to say that the Commissary spake of vniust sentences but such as were of validity seeing plainely in the fourth proposition that this Commissaries sentence is a protestation made against the foresaid actes and decrees and for this reason Gerson held it of no validity This Commissary if he had beene a man of conscience could not haue held his own seÌ„tences vniust but like one that how euer the world went would be obeyed to ease himselfe of trouble in iustifying his mandats writ in a common processe that his sentences whether they were iust or vniust were to bee obeyed If vniust sentences might suffer a distinction of such as were of validitie and such as were not of validitie hee had not freed himselfe of all difficulties because hee might yet bee encountered with the question of validitie and therefore the Commissary endeauoured in one ambiguous word to include the generall that necessary it was to obey all his sentences and by this meanes thought to purchase obedience to that which hee particularly intended not much vnlike to this present occasion wherein many distrusting their own abilities in shewing the iustice of the Popes mandats to the common wealth of Venice say that the Pope is to bee obeyed though hee commaund vniust things Surely I cannot but much wonder how the author treating of a question which is grounded vpon a thing in fact should conclude coÌ„trary to the truth of the story See then I pray you how all Gersons discourse is built in the ayre And now as if in the eight propositions following Gerson had swerued from his purpose and treated of another matter the author saith Bellarmine To this discourse Gerson doth add certain propositions to shew that which the most Christian king was both able and ought to do in defence of the liberty of the French church of which propositions it is not very necessary to discourse in this place First because they are all grounded vpon this principle that the authority of a councell is aboue the Popes authority for vpon no other reason will Gerson haue it that the Pope cannot change the auncient Cannons vpon which the French Church did then ground their liberty but because hee did belieue that those Canons which were made by the councel could not be subiect to the Popes will and authority Now that this principall is declared to be false let vs not belieue that the Venetians can hould it for true Secondly because that since Gersons time In the councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth that pragmaticall act was abrogated which the French churches defended agrement was made betwixt Pope Leo and the most Christian king so as now there is no more talke of the liberty of the French church in preiudice of the Pope But the most Christian king and all the Bishops of France are at peace and vnitie with their mother which is the church of Rome and likewise with their Father which is the Pope Christs vicar Saint Peters successor Thirdly because this liberty of the French church which Gerson writes of hath no sympathie with that liberty which is now pretended by the state of Venice because that was founded vpon auncient Canons and this is contrary as well to the ancient Canons as the moderne â—rier Paâ—â—o Gerson hauing intention to demonstrate in eight propositions that which the most Christian King was to doe in defence of the liberty of the french Church defending it from Buls of reseruations and Papal prouisions and other abuses of the court of Rome vsed in those times sets downe eight propositions which the Author doth wisely obserue to bee better dissembled and past ouer then handled seeing plainly that to endeuour to confute them were to confirme them and to establish that which before he contradicted That Princes both ought and might oppose themselues to such commandements of Prelates as were exorbitant and vnlawfull and therefore excuseth himselfe from treating of these eight propositions for three causes First because they are grounded vpon this principle that the authority of a Councell is aboue the Popes authority and this he saith he hath declared before to bee false But he might haue added that notwithstanding his declaration it is both held and maintained by the Vniuersities of France of which Nauarra and others giue sufficient testimony Secondly because that in the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo that pragmaticall Act was abrogated so as at this day there is no more talke of the liberty of the French Church The Author takes vs here to be very simple and ignorant in matter of history as if we knew not that the liberty of the french Church of which Gerson speakes was one thing and the pragmaticall decree another The one being before Gersons time but the decree was made by Charles the 7. about the yeare 1440. long after this booke was written in which his father Charles the 6. was mentioned as then liuing But why saith he not here as wel that vpon the annulling of this pragmatical decree by Leo the Vniuersity of Paris made an appeale to the next councell Hee presupposeth furâ—her that wee doe not so much as know what is a pragmaticall decree and what a particular order and whether this latter doth abrogate the former in the whole or in certain parts onely But the most bold and wilfull part of all is to belieue that we are lockt vp in a prison and know not so much as the present occurrences of the world and are ignorant whether in France there be dayly appeales from ecclesiasticall sentences to the Court of Parliament tanquam ab abusu and whether that Court doth take knowledge of them Surely the Author would be well content we were meÌ„ of this sort and that we knew no more of the world then what stood with the benefit of Church-men onely and blinded in extreame ignorance wee should hold them in admiration iust like Gods and Oracles The third cause which he alleadgeth for not touching the eight propositions of Gerson is because the liberty of the French Church which Gerson writes of was grounded vpoÌ„ antient Canons and this of the Venetians is contrary both to the antient Canons and those of latter time What truth there is in this last saying of his