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
incidentally in a decree without the compasse of the principall which is intended to dâ—fine â—ut in the Bâ—ll whereof wee speake the intent is onelie to disanull the Pragmatick and this is the substance of the decree Now whereas in disanulling it answer is made to him that maintained it by virtue of the councell of Basill and it is said that the councell it selfe was remoued by Eugenius and that therfore it is of no validitie seeing the Pope hath power to transfer the councels as he that hath authority aboue them this doth not appertaine to the substance of that Bull but is an auoiding of a contrarie reason and is not therefore a determination For which cause very well the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine in the second place alledged hath reuoked that which he had saide in the first that is that that councell hath most expresly determined and hath said that it is in doubt whether that be a determination The common iudgement of all the divines is that the reasons which are vsed in a determination are not intended themselues also to be determined And it should be a maruailous strange matter that framing a decree of a particular thing such as is the reuocation of the Pragmatick which is no matter of Faith an article of Faith should incidentally be determined so that the principall should not be of Faith and the accessary should of necessity bee of Faith The Parisians adde farther that to proue that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie aboue the Councell there are brought in that place a number of histories not so few as fifteene and lastly the book of Aimarus de Synodis whereupon we were to say that all those histories were de fide And the Parisians shew plainely that some of those histories recited faithfully do say the contrary But it woulde be too long here to produce so many particulars Some also mak answere that the Bull doth not say that the Pope hath authority aboue the Councels but it saith that it is to be auerred out of the diuine scriptures and out of the sayings of the Fathers and Bishops of Rome and Canons Councels that the Bishop of Rome hath authority aboue the generall Councels so that it is not intended to be otherwaies true then so far forth as that auerment may be iustified Therefore first that proofe must be produced Quatenus inde constat and the sense of the scriptures and sayings of the Fathers must be seene seeing the Councell doth not affirme it as of it selfe but with reference that is so farre forth as the scripture and those other thinges alledged make proofe thereof An other doctor proposeth another difficulty much greater that in the beginning of the Bull of this Councell it is said that Christ ordained Peter and his successors to be his vicars vnto whom as is testified in the book of Kings obedience is so necessary that hee which doth not obay is to dye the death Which if it bee an article of faith is a very seuere one that all disobedience to the Pope shold be punished with death And certainely the worlde hath not receiued it neither happily euer will The same Doctor addes farther that he cannot conceiue how so many yeares before there was any Pope there should be speech of him in the book of Kings Afterward he saith that he hath read all the 4. books of the Kings and neuer yet found there any such matter But let vs leaue the authority of this Councell seeing the Doctors which follow Gerson do not receiue it And each of the eight answeres made vnto it doth of it selfe dissolue the argument For a conclusion the author brings forth as it were for an Achilles a reason founded vpon the word of God saying But let vs see if the reason founded vpon the word of God Bellarmine doe testifie the selfe same verity The holy Church is not like to the Common-wealth of Venice or of Geneua or of other Citties which conferre vpon their Duke that power which themselues please in regarde whereof it may be sayde that the Common-wealth is aboue the Prince neither yet is it like to an earthly kingedome in which the people transfer their owne authority vnto the Monarck and in certaine cases may free themselues from Royall dominion and reduce themselues to the gouernment of inferiour Magistrats as did the Romanes when they passed from dominion Royal to Consulare gouernment For the Church of Christ is a most perfect kingedome and an absolute Monarchie which hath no dependance vpon the people neither from them had his originall but dependeth onely vpon the diuine will And I saith Christ in the second Psalme am constituted a King by him ouer Sion his holy mountaine And the holy Angell said to the virgin Luc. 1. Our Lord God shall giue him the seat of Dauid his Father and he shall raigne in the house of Iacob for euer and of his kingdome there shal be no end And in a thousand other places the same is read And that this kingdome doth not depend on men Christ sheweth when he saith you chose not me but I chose you Ioan. 15. And we shall ackhowledge it at what time we shall say thou hast made vs to our God a Kingdome Apoc. 5. And this is the cause why this kingdome is in the Scriptures resembled to a family Who is a faithfull and wise seruant whom his Lord hath appointed ouer his family Mat. 24. because the father of a family doth not depend on the family neither from thence hath his authority Now this being most true there followeth thereof by necessary consequence that the Vicar generall of Christ doth not depend of the Church but onely of Christ from whom he hath his whole authority as also wee see in earthly kingdoms that the Viceroy hath not his authority from the kingdom but from the King neither can be iudged or punished by the people but only by his Lord Master Behold therefore how Gerson is deceiued and he also that doth follow him and goeth contrarie to the doctrine of the holy scriptures of the sacred Councels and of manifest reason â—rier Paolo Thou shalt see here Reader a meruailous peece of Art wherewith the Author will leade thee from Christ the eternall high Bishop to an high Bishop Temporall and when he shall haue setled with thee the relation which the holy Church hath towards the diuine maiestie he will afterward conclude of the relation towards the Pope The Parisians do answere that thus the doctrine of the Catholiques doth hold that God hath called the Church to the faith and his worship and that he hath placed Christ ouer it for an head for euer who first himselfe mortall did gouerne it on earth with corporal presence but ascended into heauen doth rule it with inward influence assistance inuisible vnto the end of the world This is meant by I am constituted a King by him This meaneth that our Lord God shall
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
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
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
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
when the high steward of Gods house doth mis-behaue himselfe it is not Gods pleasure that the familie should proceede against him but reserues to himselfe the power both to judge and punish him so that according to the Scripture the Church and consequently the Councell which is a representation of the Church hauing no power ouer the Pope it followeth that it is vnlawfull to appeale from the Pope to the Councell but contrarily that it is lawfull to appeal from the councell to the Pope There was no necessity of writing so much vpon this matter in regarde of those few words wherewithall Gerson hath touched it and for my part I would forbeare to alledge that which Gerson others of the same opinion do answere Frier Paulo were it not that I woulde not interrupt the course which is begun of handling euery pointe in that order which is obserued by the author First he affirmeth that the holy Scripture doth nowhere giue the Church power ouer the pastours much lesse ouer the supreame pastor to this Gerson answereth that our Sauior Christ sent S. Peter to the Church when he said vnto him dic Ecclesiae for Gerson in his time read the place according to the auncient Missall and not according to the newly corrected Respiciens Iesus in discipulos suos dixit Simoni Petro si peccauerit c. As the author may see both in his workes as also in the text of the scripture which hee alledgeth to this purpose But to proue that the contrary is to bee founde in the scripture the author doth alledge a place Act. 20. where S. Paul saith that God hath placed the Bishops to gouerne his Church be it that S. Paul saith so although in truth there bee great difference betweene Posuit vos Episcopos and posuit Episcopos But though that bee granted he can conclude nothing out of this place that the Pope is aboue the Church no otherwise then any other Bishop is But from hence a man might strongly conclude that all Bishops haue their authority immediately frō God which peraduenture would not be very pleasing to our author Who would euer haue inferred this consequence God hath placed Bishoppes to gouerne his Church ergo Papa est supra concilium but this had beene a strong inference God hath placed Bishops to gouerne his Church therfore if they do not gouerne it they do not discharge that office whereunto they are assigned This is a true proposition God hath placed a King to gouerne a kingdome doth it follow therfore that a king is superior to his whol kingdom assembled together the author anone will tell vs that it is no good consequence and certainely it is not good neither in our authours opinion nor in the opinion of Iohn Mariana the Iesuit but I may say truly that it holdeth not in all kingdomes In the second place he alledgeth Matthew 16. Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam c. where he saith that Christ maketh Peter the foundation of his Church which as Gerson will not deny because S. Paul affirmeth that the Church is builded vpon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And in the Apoc. the wall of Gods Citty hath twelue foundations with the name of the twelue Apostles so he will not beleeue that the authour would condemne another exposition which doth interpret super hanc Petram vpon Christ and vpon the confession of the faith of Christ especially seeing S. Augustine admitting both the expositions doth notwithstanding allow best of the second By this it doth appeare that the authour vppon a place of scripture which hath two interpretations and both probable will cull out that which serueth best for his purpose and make it absolutely a ground of an article But because it is true that Peter is a foundation is hee therefore superior to all the building Gerson will say it followeth not because hee is not a principall foundation but such a one as is it selfe founded vpon Christ and not a totall foundation but onely a twelfth part according to the meaning of the Apoc. And lesse then a 25. parte according to the meaning of S. Paul as concerning our authors comparison where he saith that when Christ maketh S. Peter the foundation of his Church he maketh him the head of his Church because a foundation to a building is the same which a head is to a body although it be true that S. Peter be a head notwithstanding the Analogie is not intelligible viz. that there should bee the same proportion betwixt a foundation a building as there is between a head and the body I do not see where it is possible to finde any part of this proportion who will say that as the foundation supporteth the house for that is the property of a foundation so the head supporteth the body this doth not hold Againe who vvill say that as the head giueth sense and motion to the body that the foundation doth so likevvise to the building vvhat then doth it communicate the propositions that wee entend to establish for doctrines ought not to be grounded vpon similitudes especially vpon such similitudes as are them selues grounded vpon similitudes but why do we trouble our selues with the proofes seeing we are both agreed of the conclusion that S. Peter is a head but what then the Illustriss Cardinall Pinelli is the head of the inquisition is he therefore superiour to the whole congregation of the inquisitors being assembled this followeth not in my vnderstanding vpon the like reason it is that Gerson will not admit this proposition viz. that the rest of the body hath no power ouer the head especially being such a head as the body it selfe hath constituted but as I said before articles are not to be grounded vpon similitudes In the 3. place he bringeth in Pace oues meas and lastly he to doth alleadge the 12. Luke Quis est fidelis dispensator prudens c. both which places Gerso will make one answer to wit that it cannot bee collected out of any place of Scripture that Christ instituting pastors in the Church hath exempted them from the Churches obedience shee being the common mother of all Christians as well Ecclesiasticall as secular the practise of those times which were freest from corruption euen when the holy Martyrs were Bishops was that Pastors were subiect to the censure of the Church whereof Saint Cyprian Lib. 1. Cap. 4. giueth an expresse testimony where speaking of the people he saith Quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes velindignos recusandi quod ipsum videmus de diuina auctoritate descendere vt Sacerdos plebe praesente sub omnium oculis deligatur c. Lib. 1. Epist 4. Our Author affirmeth that Christ doth euidently declare that a Bishoppe in his particular Church and the Pope in the Church vniuersall is as it were a high Steward in Gods family and hath power ouer the family and not
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
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