the holy Apostolick sea neither doth it introduce any nouelty but conserues defends with all godlinesse religion the holy Apostolick faith which it prefers before all humane respects whatsoeuer but onely in causes temporal where the Pope either for not beeing well informed or through other bodies counsells or for some other cause doth thunder out his censures notoriously against all iustice they intēd within the bounds of the Catholick religion to maintaine their owne liberty the authority giuen them from God it beeing conforme to the lawes of God nature according to the doctrine of the godly catholick doctors But now whether Gersons considerations make or make not to the purpose whether they be erroneous or not let vs peruse them euery one a part as the Author shall present occasion The first consideration is that excommunication irregularitie are founded principally vpon a contempt of the keyes of the Church that is to say Gerson of the Ecclesiasticall authority This consideration is true so you vnderstand by contempt disobedience or if you wil so terme it contumacie Bellarmine it is not contrary to our Lords practise 2 The second consideration is that the contempt of the keyes may be in three sorts directly or indirectly or appearingly as the interpreter mistranslates it For Gerson expresses not his third sort with the word apparenter Gerson but with the word interpretatiue which two words are in a manner quite contrarie For Apparens is that which appeares or seemes to be and is not and interpretatiuum is that which seemes not and yet is But this scape little imports the matter in hand For the first consideration since he allowes it for true I shall not neede to defend it or adde any thing else vnto it The second consideration he admits likewise for true and reproues not Gerson but onely the traslation And in deede the interpreter shold haue stood greatly bound to him for his instruction if hee had not troubled and confounded all with an aequiuocation True it is that sometimes Interpretatiue signifies that which is appeares not and some times it signifies as much as tacite implies that which is not manifest but needs interpretatiō is not opposite to the worde vere but to the word expresly in this sense we call it licentia interpretatiua that is to say tacita non expressa But otherwhiles it signifies also that which seemes is not as when we say not to salute a man is interpretatiue a kinde of disdaine that is as much as it seemes a disdenie but peraduenture it is not here interpretatiue is opposit to vere I can not tell what edition of Gerson the Author hath but in mine which was printed in the yeare 494 in the very end of this consideration his formal words are Et isto modo reperit contemptus in omni peccato praesertim mortali directiue vel indirecte vere vel interpretatiue If then vere be opposed to interpretatiue then cannot interpretatinum be that which appeares not but yet is because that which appeares not but is in it selfe is verum And if this suffice to cleare the Translators integrity I will yet adde that Gerson in his third consideration sayth that a contēpt of the third sort which is contemptus interpretatiuus doth not alwaies deserue the Churches excommunication if it deserues not excommunication alwaies ergo it deserues it sometimes but that which is and appeares not can not be subiect in any sort to the Churches censures as all the diuines Canonists affirme therefore interpretatiuum is not that which appeares not and yet is I hope well that the Author will now rest satisfied for this point cōsequētly that his obiection of mistranslating made against the Interpretor is auoyded which when I first read in the Authors proeme I expected that in further reading I should haue found many more places taxed for infidility misinterpretation but whē I had done reading ouer all I foūd no one word so noted but this alone that with this additiō But this scape little imports the matter in hād Me thought it strange that a man should be noted as an vnfaithfull one for one poore word that of little importance that in the very noting taxing it the Author should serue his turne with an aequiuocall word which in the very same place is explaned by Gerson Bellarmine 3 The third consideration is That the contempt of the keyes in the first and second kindes do iustly deserue excommunication and by consequence irregularitie but that of the third kinde doth not alwaies deserue excommunication from the Church but from God because he that sinneth mortally is excōmunicated by God In this consideration there is nothing much amisse sauing the last words for if a man will speake properly of excommunication it is not true that euery one that committs a mortall sin is excōmunicated by God For then sinners might not come to Masse nor to diuine office without committing new sin which is false as euery man knowes Frier Paolo In the third consideration it is apparant that an inordinate affection to finde fault doth transport a man no lesse then any other affection whatsoeuer Since he doth not reprehend Gerson for that which is here concluded which he allowes all for true but fastning vpon one word spoken immediately he charges him to haue spoken amisse for saying that who so sinnes mortally is excommunicated of God his reason is that this cannot be true if we speake properly of excōmunication because that then sinners could not come to Masse without sinning anew Now I affirme against him that it is a proper speach to say that euery sinner is excōmunicated of god because excōmunication is a generall word which imports all seperation from the communion of Saints but there be two communions of Christians one internall in caritie with God and with the Saints and this is properly the communion of Saints either for a separation or priuation for this is the true and proper excommunication another communion there is betwixt the members of the Church militant which doth not so necessarily exact charity to this communion we oppose that excommunication which is the censure ecclesiasticall auoiding to this kinde of excommunication euery sinner is not excommunicate and may therefore repaire to the Masse it beeing a matter which doth not so necessarily require charity Now Gerson neuer said that he was excommunicated by the excommunication which is the churches censure S. Augustine 12 de Gen. ad literam cap. 40 vseth the same fashion of speech Adam ab esu ligni vitae excōmunicatus fuit Gratianus causa 11. Quaestione 3. after the Chap. Ad mensam saith thus scilicet Adam ab esu ligni vitae excommunicatus est and after the Chapter Non solum he saith quia ex natu adulterij iādiu apud deum excommunicatus fuerat which is iust
absolutely to be allowed that that Pope is head of all Christendome by reason of the Equiuocation of the word Christendome Among the ancient writers we finde him thus stiled The Bishop of Rome the successour of Saint Peter by some Saint Peters Vicar and in the latter times Christs Vicar Gods Vicar head of the Church fashions of speech which begets no ill meaning But it is otherwise in the vse of the word Christendome in this place by reason of the ambiguitie and double sense which it hath For it signifieth not onely the Christian Church but the Christian states and kingdomes and this latter signification is the more vsuall as when wee say that Asia or Aegypt are not within Christendome we doe not meane that there is no Christian Church in them but that they are not within the compasse of the Temporal states of the Christians So it is apparent that vnder this new forme of speech the fallacy is hidden For his purpose is to conclude that the Pope is head that is hath the gouernment command in temporall matters ouer all Christian States and Princes Let vs therefore keepe our antient formes and let vs call him head of the Christian Church But seeing the Authors drift is out of this whole discourse to draw this conclusion that where Princes vse their power to the hurt of their owne soules or their peoples and to the preiudice of Christian religion the Pope may take the matter in hand to redresse it although wee haue spoken much of this point before in the exposition of the Chapter Nouit it will not bee impertinent to our present purpose to consider what notable inconueniences will follow in this Doctrine thus generally deliuered There is no action of a man in indiuiduo but either it is a good worke or a sinne Now if it belong to the Pope to exercise iurisdiction ouerall sinnes and withall to take vpon him to determine what is sinne and what not I say there is no longer any Prince but the Pope nay further that there is no place left for any priuate gouernment For suppose the Prince make a lawe to exact some contribution for the extraordinary reliefe of the state by occasion of some warre that hee is forced to vndertake this lawe is not iust but a sinne vnlesse the end and ground of it bee lawfull and vnlesse the subiects doe submit and binde themselues to contributions according to the rules of iustitia distributiua hereupon the Pope may say I will know the end why this taxe is imposed and so he may diue into the secrets of that estate hee may also examine the distribution whether it bee equally and proportionably made and thereby come to the knowledge of the secret of the forces and wealth of that state And beeing a temporall Prince himselfe who in that right and quality may haue occasion of warre with an other Prince by this course it will bee an easie matter for him to infeable his enimie and to get the maistery of him at an easie rate In summe the Pope may by this Doctrine examine all lawes all edicts all conuentions all successions and all translations of Princes what shall I say hee may call in question and examine all inheritances and contracts of priuate men because it belongs to the sheepherd as the Author saith to haue a care of what his sheepe doe feede of what waters they drynke and where they haue their walke and this inference doth not onely necessarily follow of this supposition but is also allowed by all the Canonists that write vpon that chapter Nouit and yet neuerthelesse haue the wisest men and of most vnderstanding noted and taxed it to bee full of absurdities Which to auoide some men haue out of that Chapter Nouit framed a distinction That it is one thing to iudge of the matter or of the action or of the cōtract and an other to iudge of the sinne But they make a deuision where there can bee none for if it be the Popes right to iudge of all things as they are sinnes and to forbid them and inforce all men to obey his determinations therein what is there more left then for the Prince to do for example if there should be any bargaine and sale made wherin there were Iniquitie and Iniustice and the Pope should determine it to be sinne and cause it to be reuoked I would gladly knowe what there remaines for the Prince to intermedle in or to determine further touching that contract And I will hold my selfe satisfied if any man can shew me that there is left for the Prince as much as one of Democritus motes Surely by this Doctrine either all authority of Princes must be abolished or Christendome must bee holden in perpetuall combustion And here I vse not the word in any ambiguous sense but I vnderstand by Christendome all Christian states Kingdomes And because the Author hath taught vs a very generall doctrine that to iudge whether any lawe containe in it sinne or not It belongs to the Pope as it belongs to the ecclesiasticall Iudge to determine whether a ciuill contract containes in it the sinne of vsurie I must bee bold to tell him that from hence it will follow that not onely the Pope but euery ecclesiasticall Iudge shall haue power to determine of all matrers for it can belong no more to him to iudge whether a contract offend in vsury then whether it cary with it any other wrong or hurt to a mans neighbour for all that doe so are sinnes aswell as the other And by the same reason it will belong to the ecclesiasticall Iudge to determine of all manner of murther or killing of a man because it may be so done as it shall be a sinne and it may be otherwise And to them it shall likewise belong to iudge of the price set vpon Corne and other marchandise whether there bee sinne in it or not and to appoint that it shall either stand or be altered and whether a morgage containe extortion or not or a warrant for the apprehending and imprisoning of a man containe violence or Iniustice for euen in these matters there may bee sinne and whether the womens attire be scandalous or the men bee too superfluous or too sparing in the expence of their table for euen all these are sinnes And as they may by this meanes intrude themselues into the gouernment of all kingdomes so may they likewise into the gouernment of particular families and examine how the father gouernes his children or the husband vseth his wife And in conclusion because there is no action or affaire other publick or priuate wherunto sin is not incident if it shall be in the power of the ecclesiasticall Iudge to determine iudge of it either to allow it or forbid it to inforce obedience vnto his owne determination All Courts of iustice all places of contracts and all priuate families may well be transferred into the Bishops pallace
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
this worke of Gersons was written after the yeare 1418. and before 1422. when Charles the sixt dyed If then Martinus Quintus was elected in 1417. it is plaine the booke was written in his Popedome beside that Gerson himselfe in the fourth proposition doth nominate the councell of Constance as then past Then must it needs bee that the Commissary commaunded the execution of some Papall prouision contrary to the orders set downe by the foresaid conuocation which according to Gerson was to commaund an vniust thing and did therfore conteine intollerable errors against publicke iustice and in his opinion did tend directly to an vndue vsurpation All which if it had beene obserued by our author hee had surely forborne to say that the Commissary spake of vniust sentences but such as were of validity seeing plainely in the fourth proposition that this Commissaries sentence is a protestation made against the foresaid actes and decrees and for this reason Gerson held it of no validity This Commissary if he had beene a man of conscience could not haue held his own seÌ„tences vniust but like one that how euer the world went would be obeyed to ease himselfe of trouble in iustifying his mandats writ in a common processe that his sentences whether they were iust or vniust were to bee obeyed If vniust sentences might suffer a distinction of such as were of validitie and such as were not of validitie hee had not freed himselfe of all difficulties because hee might yet bee encountered with the question of validitie and therefore the Commissary endeauoured in one ambiguous word to include the generall that necessary it was to obey all his sentences and by this meanes thought to purchase obedience to that which hee particularly intended not much vnlike to this present occasion wherein many distrusting their own abilities in shewing the iustice of the Popes mandats to the common wealth of Venice say that the Pope is to bee obeyed though hee commaund vniust things Surely I cannot but much wonder how the author treating of a question which is grounded vpon a thing in fact should conclude coÌ„trary to the truth of the story See then I pray you how all Gersons discourse is built in the ayre And now as if in the eight propositions following Gerson had swerued from his purpose and treated of another matter the author saith Bellarmine To this discourse Gerson doth add certain propositions to shew that which the most Christian king was both able and ought to do in defence of the liberty of the French church of which propositions it is not very necessary to discourse in this place First because they are all grounded vpon this principle that the authority of a councell is aboue the Popes authority for vpon no other reason will Gerson haue it that the Pope cannot change the auncient Cannons vpon which the French Church did then ground their liberty but because hee did belieue that those Canons which were made by the councel could not be subiect to the Popes will and authority Now that this principall is declared to be false let vs not belieue that the Venetians can hould it for true Secondly because that since Gersons time In the councell of Lateran vnder Leo the tenth that pragmaticall act was abrogated which the French churches defended agrement was made betwixt Pope Leo and the most Christian king so as now there is no more talke of the liberty of the French church in preiudice of the Pope But the most Christian king and all the Bishops of France are at peace and vnitie with their mother which is the church of Rome and likewise with their Father which is the Pope Christs vicar Saint Peters successor Thirdly because this liberty of the French church which Gerson writes of hath no sympathie with that liberty which is now pretended by the state of Venice because that was founded vpon auncient Canons and this is contrary as well to the ancient Canons as the moderne â—rier Paâ—â—o Gerson hauing intention to demonstrate in eight propositions that which the most Christian King was to doe in defence of the liberty of the french Church defending it from Buls of reseruations and Papal prouisions and other abuses of the court of Rome vsed in those times sets downe eight propositions which the Author doth wisely obserue to bee better dissembled and past ouer then handled seeing plainly that to endeuour to confute them were to confirme them and to establish that which before he contradicted That Princes both ought and might oppose themselues to such commandements of Prelates as were exorbitant and vnlawfull and therefore excuseth himselfe from treating of these eight propositions for three causes First because they are grounded vpon this principle that the authority of a Councell is aboue the Popes authority and this he saith he hath declared before to bee false But he might haue added that notwithstanding his declaration it is both held and maintained by the Vniuersities of France of which Nauarra and others giue sufficient testimony Secondly because that in the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Leo that pragmaticall Act was abrogated so as at this day there is no more talke of the liberty of the French Church The Author takes vs here to be very simple and ignorant in matter of history as if we knew not that the liberty of the french Church of which Gerson speakes was one thing and the pragmaticall decree another The one being before Gersons time but the decree was made by Charles the 7. about the yeare 1440. long after this booke was written in which his father Charles the 6. was mentioned as then liuing But why saith he not here as wel that vpon the annulling of this pragmatical decree by Leo the Vniuersity of Paris made an appeale to the next councell Hee presupposeth furâ—her that wee doe not so much as know what is a pragmaticall decree and what a particular order and whether this latter doth abrogate the former in the whole or in certain parts onely But the most bold and wilfull part of all is to belieue that we are lockt vp in a prison and know not so much as the present occurrences of the world and are ignorant whether in France there be dayly appeales from ecclesiasticall sentences to the Court of Parliament tanquam ab abusu and whether that Court doth take knowledge of them Surely the Author would be well content we were meÌ„ of this sort and that we knew no more of the world then what stood with the benefit of Church-men onely and blinded in extreame ignorance wee should hold them in admiration iust like Gods and Oracles The third cause which he alleadgeth for not touching the eight propositions of Gerson is because the liberty of the French Church which Gerson writes of was grounded vpoÌ„ antient Canons and this of the Venetians is contrary both to the antient Canons and those of latter time What truth there is in this last saying of his
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