against Stephen And of Sergius the 3. against Iohn 9. And in like sort if he had obeyed Celestin 3. when he taught this doctrine that marriage might be dissolued for heresye nay he had vndoubtedly sinned that had obeyed Iohn 22. and beleeued for obedience sake that the soules of the saintes deceased did not see gods face All which I haue heere breifly touched to let the reader see that this assersion that Christian liberty may be lost by disobeying the Pope but not by obeying him may very well carry a good shew but that it is with all deceiptfull and captious beeing deliuered in such a generality and vnlesse it be limitted with this restriction when he commandes according to gods law fourthly where he saith that no Pope did euer attempt to change the forme of gouernment in the Citie of Venice I will be bold to put the auctor in minde that it is very much that he vndertakes to pronounce an absolute negatiue in a point of ecclesiasticall history for the space of nine hundred yeares during which time there haue beene about nine hundred and fourty Popes since the first began to intermedle with temporall matters of which number as it is true that the most part haue fauoured that state so yet can it not bee truely sayd of them all although it hath pleased the diuine prouideÌ„ce almost miraculously to protect and preserue the liberty thereof euen when it was apparant that some did labour mightily to ouerthrow it vtterly And further it may be well replied vnto him that it seemes strange and not to be endured That noe Pope hauing euer before this time according to the authors owne saying attempted or preteÌ„ded to desire to alter the gouernment of that common wealth This Pope should be now so peremptory and confident that he may doe it by offering as he doth to intermedle with the making of their lawes which is the very life and soule of ciuill gouernment At last the author passing ouer that which made not much to the purpose is contented to acknowledge that the translator speakes here of the liberty of a soueraigne Prince which among other things consisteth in making lawes necessary for the good gouernment of his state and punishing offendors And thus he goeth on There remaineth only that liberty which belongeth to an absolute Prince that acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall matters and of this kinde of liberty it is likely that the author of the preface speaketh But out of all question he is deceiued in saying that the Popes holinesse sends out excommunications against the state of Venice for refusing to subiect the liberty which God hath giuen them to the will of another And if any man obiect that to make lawes punish offendors is the proper right of absolute Princes and yet Pope Paule the fift excommunicates the heads and principall officers of the coÌ„mon wealth of Venice because they will not obey him in disanulling recalling some lawes they haue made in temporall matters in setting at libertie certaine offendors which they had put in prison I answere that Pope Paule the fift excommucates the heades of that common wealth for refusing to obey him in disanulling not all lawes or any lawe concerning temporall matters but vniust wicked lawes made in preiudice of the Church and with great offence to God and their neighbour And who can or will deny if he be a true Catholick that the Pope hath authority as vniuersall pastour to rebuke reprooue any Prince or state for their sins if they refuse to obey to compell them vnto it by ecclesiasticall censures For accordingly we see that S. Gregory did very sharply reprooue tht Emperour Mauritius for a law which he had made that was preiudiciall to Gods seruice And Innocent the third as wee may reade in the chapter Nouit de iudicijs doth plainly determine that it belongeth to the Pope to censure the sinnes and offences of all the Princes of the world Non intendimus saith he iudicare de feodo cuius ad ipsum regem viz. spectat iudicium sed decernere de peccato cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura quam in quemlibet exercere possumus debemus And a little after Cum non humanae constitutioni sed diuinae potius innitamur quia potestas nostra non est ex homine sed ex deo nullus qui sit sanae mentis ignorat quin ad officium nostrum spectet de quocunque mortali peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum si correptionem contempserit per districtionem ecclesiasticam coercere Sea forsitan dicetur quod aliter cum regibus aliter cum alijs est agendum Caterum scriptum legimus in lege diuina ita magnum iudicabis vt paruum nec erit apud te except to personarum Hitherto are the very words of Pope Innocent And Pope Boniface in the extrauagant vnam sanctam de maiorit obedient Saith very well that the temporall authority when it erreth ought to be â—â—formed and rectified by the spirituall power For although a temporall prince that is absolute acknowledgeth no other temporall Prince for his superiour yet if he be a Christian he must of force acknowledge the head of all Christendome which is the Pope Christs vicar in earth to be his Superiour which Soueraigne Bishop or Pope because his chiefe end and care is the spirituall good of mens soules doth not therefore intermedle in the gouernment of temporall princes as long as they vse not their authority to the hurt of their owne soules and their subiects or to the preiudice of Christian religion But when they do the contrary hee both may and ought to put to his hand and to bring them into the right way againe And he that beleeues not this is no true Catholike and if any man shall obiect that those lawes of the Venetians containe in them neither sinne nor hurt to the Church I will answere him that to determine whether any law do containe sin or preiudice to the Church or not belongs likewise to the Pope who is the supreme and highest Iudge of all euen as to iudge whether a ciuill contract offend in the sinne of vsury belongs properly to the same ecclesiasticall Iudge to whom the cognisance of sins generally appertaineth So the Popes Holines blames not the Venetians for punishing their subiects that offend but because they presume to lay hands vpon ecclesiasticall persons which are subiect to no superiour but spirituall make no reckoning of the sacred Canons of the grieuous censures denounced against all such as lay hands vpon persons consecrated to God Therfore whosoeuer will rightly consider of this point without passion shall finde that the Pope goeth not about to bereaue the State of Venice of any other liberty but the liberty to do euill which is not giuen of God but of the diuell and our owne corrupt nature and is the selfe same thing with the bondage of
Faults escaped in the Printing PAge 3. line 6. for these read those p. 5. l. 3. for cerul read serui l. 2◠〈…〉 read that p. 9. l. 30. for each read those p. 10. l. 22. for illustrissime 〈…〉 p. 13. l. 1. read and Blanchâ— p. 14. l. 3. leaue out for that cause â— 15. for sinnes read sinne l. 9. read as Caietan in that place p. 1â— l. 31. for motioâ— mention p. 18. â—â— for the read no. p. â—2 l. 26. for The read That p. 23. l. 〈◊〉 say read saith p. 24 l. 20. f◠〈…〉 l. 22. for iâ—â—ead in p. 2â— l. 15. read 〈◊〉 turne l. 35. for his r. this p. 30. 〈…〉 do because l. 23. 〈◊〉 out then AN APOLOGY OR APOpologiticall answere made by father Paule a Venetian of the order of SERVI vnto the Exceptions and Obiections of Cardinall BELLARMINE against certaine Treatises and Resolutions of Iohn Gerson concerning the force and validitie of Excommunication Printed in Venice by Robert Meietti 1606 IT being necessary as I conceiue to answere the obictions made against the two Treatises Frier Paâ—â—â— concerning the validitie of excommunication written by Iohn Gerson a man famous both for holines of life and learning and that not so much to vphold the reputation and credit of the author as to deliuer the true vnderstanding iustifiable both in Law and Diuinity of a matter of this nature and moment and to maintaine the lawfull power and authoritie which God hath giuen to soueraigne Princes I haue resolued to doe it but with all modesty and reuerence auoiding all biting and reprochfull speeches which I hold very vnseemely in all occasions that occurre betweene Christians and especially betweene Religious or Ecelesiasticall persons in matters concerning the saluation of soules And herein I will not trouble my selfe to repell or retorte any iniurious speeches vttered against so famous a Doctor as Gerson was knowing that himselfe if he were aliue would according to his owne Doctrine and instruction to other men be readie to follow the example of our Sauiour * Qui cum malediceretur non maledicebat Neyther intend I to propose or set on foot any other doctrine then the same which was first taught by the holy Apostles and after them by the holy Fathers and other Catholicke Doctors which haue from time to time vntill our age expounded the diuine Scriptures and instructed Gods people which notwithstanding I will euer submit to the iudgement of our holy mother Church that cannot erre And proceeding in this manner I am verily perswaded that I shall be able to satisfie not onely mine owne conscience which is the chiefest respect that mooues me but all other men likewise that shall see and read this my Apologie who I am sure would as much dislike impertinent raylings and cauelling speeches as they will now be well pleased that I doe with all sinceritie of heart and singlenes of speech vndertake a defence of this kind for the glory of God and the edification of my neighbour And to auoid that tediousnesse which commonly groweth by the repetition of titles though due iustly belonging I that intend to bend my selfe and my discourse chiefely to the substance of the matter I handle resolue to forbeare to name the opponent with his attributes of honour that were fit to be vsed vnto him and to deale with him in all this Treatise by the onely name of the author reseruing neuerthelesse vnto his most honorable and reuerend Lordship that due and humble respect that at all times belongs vnto him and which I haue long ago professed to beare him when I had occasion to treat with him euen before he was made a Cardinall The proeme of Bellarmine whom he calls the Author How true that saying is of our Sauiour Christ Qui male agit odit lucem Iohn 3. May euidently appeare in this man that hath translated into Italian and published in print two little Treatises of Iohn Gerson For knowing in his owne conscience how many vntruthes he had heaped together in one preface of his though a verie short one and that in the two little Treatises themselues which he translated there were errors of no small importance And withall to how litte purpose those Treatises serued him for the end which he pretended he was ashamed to make either his owne name knowne or the Printers And which is more the better to couer and disguise it he faines that he wrote it from Paris Whereas it is but too wel knowne that it was both written and printed in Venice Now therfore least this man should abuse the simple readers with his hypocrisie we will proceed to examine first the words of his preface and after the words of Gerson which hee hath translated though not so faithfully as he pretendeth Certainely the translator had no cause at all to be ashamed as if Gersons considerations were impertinent to the busines that is now in question Answere Frier Paulo For if his whole works had not beene extant printed aboue a hundred yeeres ago I for my part should easily haue beleeued that these two treatises had beene compiled at this time and vpon this occasion So directly particularly do they touch all those points that are materiall to be touched and handled in this question And indeed it was commonly so beleeued in this country when they came first out vntill many men had compared them with the Ancient copies printed in Paris 1494. But now these old impressions giue vs cause rather to think that there was in Gerson some propheticall spirit ioyned with that extraordinary portion of learning and piety wherewith he was indued And of this euery man that reades him shall easily iudge But in sooth if Gersons treatises be nothing to the purpose now in hand why doth the Author take so much paines and trouble himselfe so much about them Why doth hee labour so much to confute them Euermore hee contradicts his doctrine but no where he goeth about to proue that it is not pertinent to the present case and question Whether the considerations of Gerson containe error or not wee shall see hereafter when the obiections that are made against them shall be examined all which obiections or oppositions do either presuppose things that by the booke it selfe appeare to be false as that Gerson wrote those considerations in time of scisme or they presuppose and assume that which is in controuersie and the very question it selfe as namely that the Popes commandement to the Venetians is iust and lawfull or else taking some ambiguous and doubtfull terme that may haue a double vnderstanding and accordingly setling a position in the one sense which is true and so purchasing it some credyt and assent in the readers minde in the end the obiection concludes in the other sense which is false The preface of the translator of Gerson containes no other doctrine then is contayned in the Bookes themselues Therefore I see no reason why of necessity
Counsell of Lateran Pope Innocent Sent out an Excommunication against all those that molested Iohn King of England for thâ—â— cause and for that cause in the yeere 1216. another Legate called Guallo went to Paris who by vertue of that sentence of Excommunication commaunded Philip Lewis his sonne to forbeare to passe with an Armie into England which they were then prepared to doe But all this notwithstanding Lewis desisted not but entered Iohns kingdome with a great power Although the same Guallo were gone ouer into England and there ceased not daily to thunder out his Excommunications This warre continued vntill the death of Iohn after which Lewis of France who had gotten many places of that kingdome into his hands made truce for fiue yeeres with Henrie the sonne of Iohn who succeeded his father Now to applie this storie to our purpose The Lawyers hold that to shew that you haue commaunded is not sufficient to prooue a Iurisdiction vnlesse the commaundement haue beene obeyed I will leaue it therefore to the authors exquisite iudgement to make the conclusion that followes of this seeing that so many commandements and so many Censures of the Pope were not able to withhold or hinder these two Kings Philip and Lewis from prosecuting these pretensions which they tooke to be iust although the Pope iudged them vniust I will say thus much more That Cardinall Hostiensis who liued shortly after writing vpon this Chapter nouit takes much paines to defend it and proposeth many coniectures of his owne how and with what limitations the matter must be carried to make that rule or precept of the Popes deliuered in that chapter to appeare iust But it sufficeth that in France it was not so esteemed nor obeyed Therefore from the authoritie of that chapter nouit there can be no such thing concluded as our author would inferre The proposition of Pope Innocent 3. alledged by the author Intendimus decernere de peccato cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura and the other which followeth nullus qui sit sanae mentis ignoart quin ad officium nostrum spectet de quocunque peccato mortali corripere quemlibet christianum were not meant by him in that generalitie wherein some doe vouch them First because there must be excepted according to the doctrine of saint Thomas all internall motions of the minde whereof the Pope hath no power at all to iudge vnlesse it be in foro paenitentiae And of this sort are the greatest number of sinnes And all diuines and Canonists do agree that in the excommunications graunted against hereticks those are not comprised which erre onely mentally And that any Canon that should be made to comprehend them were of no validity So as here will be a generall proposition framed That the Pope may iudge of all sins which when we come to defend we must be forced to except the greater part of particular sins Besides a prince may sin by breaking his owne lawes without iust cause as saint Thomas proues 1.2 quaest 96. art 5. And yet of this sinn a he cnnot be iudged of any but god alone Caietan in that place declareth shewing that in foro poenitentiae and in the sight of God is all one in sense Certainly to affirme that a prince doing against his owne lawes should be therein subiect to the censures of the Pope were wholy to take away the power and authority of princes And one the other side to affirme that he should be subiect to them in other crimes and not in that were to ouerhrow the very ground of the reason presupposed in that chapter nouit Namely that it belongs to the Pope to take care of the soules and saluation of men and to remoue all things that be aduerse or repugnant thereunto But a Prince may incurre damnation by the sinnes he committes against his owne lawes therefore as well of these sinnes as other it belonges to the Pope to iudge which as I sayd before is directly contrary to the doctrine of Saint Thomas Moreouer it is necessarie well to obserue the very words of Innocent where he saith that the censure of euery mortall sinne belongs vnto him quam censuram in queÌ„libet exercere possumus debemus And a little after ad officium nostrum spectat de quocunque peccato mortali corripere queÌ„libet christianum Now if he be bound by the duty of his place to denounce censures against euery mortall sinne against euery christian so offending surely if he do it not he sinnes himselfe But we do not see that the Pope sends out any censures against the courtisans and profest harlots who yet persist and abide notoriously in their sinnes Therefore eyther he must needes sinne grieuously or it will behooue him to do nothing else but thunder out censures so as those words de omni peccato mortali are not to be vnderstood generally of sinnes seeing we haue already shewed so many instances of particulars to be excepted And therefore Gabriell Biell vpon the Can. Lec 75. Laboureth much to giue some tollerable interpretation to this place but can find none but this that this decretall and all other of the same tenor must be vnderstode in foro poenitentiae only I wil not trouble my selfe to proue that the words of the decretall are to be vnderstood as Gabriell interprets them I will only say this that whosoeuer wil affirme that they are to be vnderstood in foro exteriori shall haue much to doe to auoyd the absurdities and the vtter ouerthrow of the seculer power ordeyned of god and the confution of the world which will arise out of this doctrine besides the state of damnation whereinto he plungeth all Popes by the same In which point some canonists and Nauarro among the rest haue taken much paines but with no good successe neyther need we trauell much to reconcile and fit the words of this Pope to the true doctrine which distinguisheth the seculer power from the spirituall authoritie especially seeing the same decretall conteyneth some other things which had need to be well expounded as namely this that K. Philip Augustus was of the ofspring e genere as he saith of Charles the great which is not true vnlesse he suppose and imagine some mariage and so deriue the descent by the way of some woman a thinge neuer vsed in France A certaine french Historiographer deriues the howses of Charlemaigne and Capet from Merone by linial descent of seuerall women But to shew that the house of Capet comes of Charlemaigne wil be very hard without deuising some thing without the compase of al stories It is time to get out of this chapter nouit which the author in reason should haue bin careful rather to haue expounded then to inlarge it and extend it as he hath done for coÌ„trary to the meaning of InnoceÌ„t who saith that to him did belong the correction of euery christian our author hath interpreted these words quemlibet christianum
al the Princes of the world So as now it shal belong to him to excōmunicate the Turke the Kinge of Persia the Kinge of Samarcanda the Tartar And diuerse others of whom we haue yet no knowledge And Saint Paule may no longe◠say Quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare But of priuate Christians which Pope Innocent intended to comprehend the author thought not good to make any motion as if it were sufficient to haue commaund and rule ouer Princes and an Indignity and an abasement to intermedle with other To interpret quemlibet Christianum all the the princes of the world is both at once to inlarge and restraine the true sense of the decretall It is restrayned by excluding priuate Christians and it is inlarged by extending it to Princes that be no Christians Concerning the Authority cited out of the extrauagant vnà m sāctam I would be glad the Author would resolue vs of a doubt which groweth by the reading and comparing of this extrauagant with an other of Pope Clement the fift who came not long after him which begins thus Meruit de Priuilegiis Where Clement saith that he determineth and declareth that by the aforesaid extrauagant Vnam sanctam there shall be no preiudice or iniurie done to the King and Kingdome of France nor that the said king and kingdom shal be any more or otherwise subiect to the Church of Rome then they were before but that all things shall continue in the state they were in before that extrauagant And this he professeth to do to shew fauour to that King who was worthy of it both for his owne good affection and for the merits of his ancestors and in respect the whole nation of the French had deserued it by their true pietie and sincere deuotion Hereupon I aske this question Whether Boniface in this extrauagant Vnam sanctam did make a declaration of Ius diuinum in this point that is expound and declare the iurisdiction which the Pope hath De iure diuino ouer Princes or whether he did thereby impose a new subiection ouer Princes in some matters wherein God had not made them subiect before vnto the Popes If any man shall answere it was the latter I may then reply that is was an innouation after 1250. yeares a void act an vsurpation an incrochment and an abuse of the power giuen them by God Besides in this case it was not fit that Clement should declare or meane that France alone should bee exempted from that constitution but it behooued him to declare and determine the same for all other Princes and Kingdomes Neyther was it a matter of fauour to be yeelded as in recompence of the good desertes of that King or Kingdome but a thing due vnto them of right and Iustice But if it be answered That it was a declaration of ius diuinum I would faine know then how Clement could free the King Kingdome of France from that subiection which God had appointed them vnto the case beeing very cleare that the Pope cannot exempt any man from his owne power and Iurisdiction which he holds de iure diuino But to come to the very point of that extrauagant which the Author alleadgeth if that which Boniface saith to wit That the authoritie temporall when it erreth ought to bee corrected and rectified by the spirituall bee a declaration of the lawe of God I say that it ought to bee vnderstood onely for so much as concernes the saluation of their Soules and in foro Dei and without any temporall power of that kinde which the Lawyers terme Coactiue and that all the Ecclesiasticall power ouer Princes is therefore onely spirituall And heerein we shall not neede to goe so farre as to the Pope of Rome for this kinde of authoritie is as well in euerie Prelate though betweene him and them there be this difference that other Prelates haue no such generall power and commaund ouer all as the Pope hath and that their authoritie is subordinate vnto his But whereas out of those three authorities before mentioned he concludes that a temporall absolute Prince although he recognize the other temporall Prince for his superiour yet of necessitie he must recognize the head of all Christendome I would not that any man should be deceiued by the Equiuocation and ambiguitie which rests in these two words Recognize and Superiour for in one sense to recognize him is as much to say as to be subiect to his lawes and doe homage vnto him and to acknowledge that you hold your state by his fauour In an other sense to recognise him is no more but to account him the Minister of God in matters which concernes the kingdome of heauen In which sense I say and affirme that Princes doe not onely acknowledge or recognize the Pope but the Bishop also The word Superiour likewise in the former sense signifieth that which in our common speech we terme Lord of the fee or Superiour of Dominium directum But in the latter sense Superior signifies no more but one that teacheth the Law of God ministreth the Sacraments and generally directeth men the right way to eternall saluation In which sense I say that euen the Bishop also is Superiour to a Prince although the Pope be Superior in a higher and greater measure It is not fit therefore that the Author should without distinguishing these two significations affirme in grosse and in one breath as it were that an absolute Temporall Prince although he acknowledge the superioritie of no other Temporall Prince ought yet to recognise the Pope for his superiour and so confound the two superiorities For if it should be thus proposed that an absolute Temporall Prince though he acknowledge no other Temporall Prince for his superiour yet must acknowledge the Bishop to be his superiour no man would allow of it because the fallacie would be apparant to all men Therfore if Recognising be vnderstood in the former sense in case of Dominium directum I say that it is not true that a Prince ought so to recognise the Pope For the Pope is not such vnto him but that in the same manner that he recognizeth no other Prince he ought as little or lesse to recognize the Pope himselfe But if superiour be vnderstood in the second sense for a Spirituall superiour it is not true that any Temporall Prince though otherwise a Feodatary or Homager doth or can acknowledge any other Temporal Prince for such a superior For in this sense to acknowledge one for a superiour is as much as to account or accept him for a spirituall Father And for such a one the homager ought not to acknowledge his Lord. How ought wee therefore to beware of deliuering such diuinitie whereby both the kingdome of God and the kingdomes of the world are disordered and confounded and the simple people abused and made to beleeue that in all things they are bound to obey the Pope Neither is the manner or Phrase of speech
saith But in this sense no Prince can make lawes hurtfull to the Church but withall they must be hurtfull to himselfe also who iâ— a principall member of it and hee must needs sinne in so doing Likewise if by the Church he vnderstand the ministers thereof iâ— as much as they be ministers I am of the same opinion But I adde this withall that these lawes of Venice are not any way hurtful or preiudiciall to them but rather as may easily be prooued they tend in some sort to the fauour and benefit of their calling But if by the Church he vnderstand some temporall power or state I denie that the Pope hath any right to hinder or prohibite lawes to be made to the preiudice of the Church in that sense The ambiguitie of the word doth deceiue vs. It is true that no man ought to make lawes that are hurtfull to the Church but this must be vnderstood of the Church in the first or second signification But if a Law be made against carrying of corne to Ancona a Towne of the Popes Dominions this must needes be vnderstood in the third signification And therefore to say that such a Law is against the Church is an Equiuocation In like sort where he saith that the Pope ought not to suffer Christian Princes to make lawes that may hurt or hinder the saluation of mens soules we will put him in remembrance that it is Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine That ecclesiasticall persons haue their exemption in criminall causes onely iure humane be it eyther by the graunt of Princes or by the constitutions of Popes or by both together Hereupon I would aske this question whether before such graunts and constitutions were made secular magistrates which punished the offences of Clergy men committed any sin or did any wrong to the Church If it be said they did it cannot be maintayned for they neither brake any lawe of God as both himselfe and other truly hold nor any law of man for there was then no such lawe made et vbi non est lex nec preuaricatio therfore it was no sin It was not against the saluation of mens soules it was no wrong or preiudice to any man why then could not the Popes suffer it so to continue But the Author will say it was so then Perhaps for there was no lawe yet to the contrary But now the lawe is made it is so no longer Then say I they haue stopped and straightned the way to heauen without them it would haue beene more easie and therefore this they haue done is not to edification If it were once lawfull for Princes by punishing such ecclesiasticall persons as did offend to maintaine the publicke peace of their states and to giue satisfaction to the parties grieued without committing any sinne themselues what neede was it or to what purpose to inuent this deuise so contrary to the common good and so likely to breede confusion in all estates whereby the punishing of malefactors which is agreeable to the law of God shall now become sinne to them that doe it Can this auaile any thing to make the way of eternall saluation more easie Can it bee for the good of wicked clergy-men themselues who take the more liberty and boldnes hereby to doe euill Can it bee of any vse in respect of them that are iniured or do they not rather by this occasion conceiue the deeper malice and practise priuate reuenge Do the Princes reape any good by it whose states and gouernments are disordered and disturbed thereby Or can it bee any credyt or reputation to such Clergy men as are good and vertuous that the lewde should continue amongst them Is God honoured and glorified by any but such as bee obedient to his lawes But here I foresee an obiection that by this opinion I seeme to dislike all those immunities and exemptions which so many Princes worthy of euerlasting memorie haue graunted to the Clergye in Criminall causes No I am so farre from disliking them as I doe much commend them and propose them as worthy patterns to be followed by all Princes present and to come But this is that which I say That if wee beginne at Constantine the great and goe along to Constantine the sonne of Irene and from him through all the greeke Emperours vntill the finall destruction of that Empire and among the Latines from Charles the great to Fridericke the second inclusiue wee shall not finde that any Prince did euer exempt the Clergy from his owne authoritie But all the exemptions they graunted were from their inferiour offiicers and Magistrates some from all and other from some onely And some in certaine kindes of offences and other in all respectiuely But there remayned still vnto the Princes themselues that supreame authority which could not bee seuered from them Now so as offences be punished to what Magistrate it shall belong to doe it and to what not and ouer what persons hee shall haue authority and ouer whom hee shall not it belongs to the Prince to appoint according to the congruety and fitnesse of tymes places and matters And accordingly wee see that when the state of their affaires so requires it Princes doe sometimes graunt priuiledges and exemptions vnto souldiors and sometimes to men of other conditions In like sorte when it is requisite for the planting or propagating of religion in their dominions they are content to giue conuenient priuiledges and exemptions to ecclesiasticall persons and therein they deserue to bee much commended as I doe highly commend all tha forenamed Princes and likewise the common wealth of Venice which though not by a written lawe yet by a laudable vse and practise hath exempted Ecclesiasticall persons from the ordinary Magistrate in ordinary crimes and such as cary no enormity with them But for such a Lawe as shall take away from a Prince all authority to punish offences euen when the necessitie and peace of his state doth require it I doe not see how any man can eyther allowe it or account it agreeable to the lawe of GOD or nature It followeth not therefore that because wee commend many holy priuiledges which Princes haue graunted in this kinde wee must of necessitie commend also an exorbitant exemption which tends so directly to the confusion and generall disturbance of the state Therefore let vs conclude that it is true that the Pope neither can nor ought to giue permission or allowance of any of those thinges which in their owne nature are euill and opposite to the saluation of mens soules and which though hee should permitte them would neuerthelesse continue to bee sinnes and exclude him that doth them from attaining saluation And surely those Popes are worthy of exceeding praise that haue indeauored to remooue such abuses and other things forbidden by God which remayning make it impossible for men to bee saued These many yeares the worlde hath sighed and groaned for such a reformation and so many a time haue they
for the Prelate I ought not to obey him if it fall out to bee preiudiciall to the profit of my soule though it would proue exceeding greatly behoofefull to those ends which were aimed at by my Prelate The whole error stands in this that we giue power to the Prelate ouer matters temporall and transforme the ecclesiasticall ministery into a secular Court judiciall For to the secular power hath God committed the care of publique tranquillitie and giuen them authority to impose temporall punishments for feare of which it is requisite that wee bee subiect to them which is meant by for wrath besides the commaundement of God which enioyneth vs to obey them which makes vp the other branch for conscience sake But to the Ecclesiastical ministery hath God committed the care of soules which is not to meddle directly with temporall punishments and therefore hath he not commaunded to obey them for wrath Of the temporall power Saint Paul saith For he beareth not the sword without cause but of the ministery ecclesiasticall it is exercised by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God The conclusion therefore which the author makes that to the Viccar of Christ all Christians are by the law of God obliged to bee subiect obedient is to be meant in things spirituall and appertayning to the saluation of soules and in the court of God and when hee commaundeth according to his diuine law But in temporall thinges absolute Princes are not s biect to any other then to God himselfe from whome their power is immediately deriued And if the weake hold the Pope to be a God and that he hath al power in heauen in earth more pleasing to almighty God is this their weakenes then their strength who seeming to be wise endeuour to abase the authority of the vicar of Christ as at this day all Heretiques do It is not so great a matter that the Pope should be reputed a God vpon earth seeing in the psalme he saith of all Princes I haue said ye are Gods Neither is it incoÌ„uenieÌ„t that one shold say that the Pope hath all power in heauen and in earth seeing Christ hath said whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shal bee bound also in the heauens Which yet is expounded and meant soundly by true and learned Catholiques And in summe I think it may be said with all truth that the power of the high Bishoppe is so great that few men arriue to comprehend it For hee is able to do all that which is necessary to the conducing of soules to Paradise and can take away all the impediments which the world or the Deuil with al their force or craft are able to oppose Whence it is that Saint Cyril cited by S Thomas in his Opuscle de primatu Petri saith that as Christ had from the Father all plenitude of power ouer all the Church so Christ gaue to S. Peter and to his successors all plenitude of power ouer all the Church Frier Paolo Because Gerson saith that they of weake and scrupulous conscience must be instructed who repute the Pope for a God to haue all power in heauen and in earth The Author makes answere that this their weaknes is more pleasing to God then the strength of Heretiques who esteeme themselues wise in despising the authority of the vicar of Christ As if we would contradict him that condemned auarice by saying it more pleaseth God to be a niggard of his own then to spend it in riot other superfluities as though there were not the true meane which is liberality The right maÌ„ner of speech were it lesse displeaseth God to be niggardly then to be prodigal in riot but both displease him The sinne is most grieuous to deny the true authoritie graunted by Christ to his vicar yet his ignorance that giueth him more authority then is conuenient is not praiseable Truth is acceptable to God ignorance when it is inuincible is not good but excusable it implieth great contradiction to say that any false thing pleaseth God The Author beâ—ing accustomed to speake properly might haue said this weaknes of theirs is lesse displeasing to God then the strength of Heretiques and we would haue commended him For so should the truth haue beene vnfolded that neither the one nor the other of the foresaide extreames do please at all And let not the Author think it inconuenient if one should say that it is good to instruct the simple people not to giue more authority to the Pope then that which is right lawfull for so saith S. Gregory 2. Quest 7. and yeelds his reason Admonendi sunt subditi ne plusquam expedit sint subiecti ne cum student plusquaÌ„necesse est hominibus subiici compellantur etiam vitia eorum venerari could this holy personage more plainely confirme the doctrine of Gerson Gerson saith that those who in scrupulosity of conscience take the Pope for a God must not be suffered to rest in their simplicity and S. Gregories words are that subiects must be admonished that they make not themselues more subiect then is conuenient but that which is more of importance giues the reason of it because they are inforced to flatter them in their vices whose subiects they make themselues more then they should be Then can you not err if you adde hereunto that mans custome is to imitate the thinges he reuerenceth and you may conclude it to be both good and necessary to take away this false suggestion That which follows in the Author that it is no great matter though the Pope be thought a God since all Princes haue the stile of Gods hath no inconuenience in it so as we be not ouertaken in the ambiguity of the words but whilst that out of this proposition which hath good sense in it we draw a consequence Papa et Deus constituunt idem tribunal Papae Dei idem consistorium we shall ascribe to him a kind of diety which Gerson doth not allow The Author thinks it no inconuenience to say that the Pope hath all power in heauen and in earth because it is said quodcunque ligaueris superterram erit ligatum in coelis and yet may it appeare to any that this conclusion is not well drawne from this place because power belongs to the actiue property and quodcunque appertaines to the matter If I should say the Parish-priest is he that makes all marriages it doth not therefore follow that he hath all power in matter of marriage For to say quodcunque ligaueris super terram erit ligatum iâ— coelis therefore quocunque modo ligaueris followes not And this is it which Gerson doth not approue and thus do I thinke would the Author himselfe vnderstand it wheÌ„ he saith that thus it is declared and truly vnderstood by true and learned Catholiques because that this proposition The Pope hath all power in heauen and in earth being taken absolutely is false or being tied