he was to put his name to it vnlesse it bee taken for a rule that euery translator is bound to doe the like But neither is there any commandement to that effect in any of the holy counsels or elsewhere neither doth the common vse and practise require or exact it Wee do rather vse commonly to blame those men that thinke to winne themselues credyt by making a preface or a table to some booke or by translating some little Phamphlet And there are diuers workes extant of the greeke Fathers translated into Latine that cary not the names of the translators although I confesse some doe Christ approoued not the aduise of his kinsfolkes Transi hinc vade in Iucinam vt discipuli tui videant opera qua tu facis nemo quippe in occulto quicquam facit sed quaerit ipse palam esse Si haec facis manifestate ipsum muÌ„do But hee answered that which in many cases his seruants may answere Tempus meum nâ—ndum aduenit tempus autem vestrum semper est paratum God be thanked the world is long since come out of his infancy begins now to relish and iudge of meates not by the quality or condition of them which serue it to the Table but by the sauory taste it hath of it selfe And surely the glorious lustre of the Authors titles is not a matter of such preiudice as should ouerthrow the cause of one who proposed it without manifesting his owne name according to the course holden in the counsel of the Areopagites That the printer did not put his name to it I will giue no reason because I haue not vndertaken his defence but this I will say that by occasion of these present controuersies there came forth a writing or phamphet from Milan without name of Author or Printer and without mention of place or time containing withall certaine doctrine which how dangerous and pestilent it is time will discouer and hereunto no other answere can be made but this We will haue one law for our selues and another for other men Whether the translation be faithfully performed or not we wil consider as we proceede when wee shall come to any exceptions that are taken against it But now let vs see what the Author saith further The first wordes of the translators preface are these A common report being spread throughout this Citie that vpon Christmas day last there were censures and excommunications publikely denounced against the most glorious renowned and religious common wealth of Venice because they refused to submit vnto the will discretion of an other that liberty which God had giuen them If we shall carefully examine all the kindes of liberty which a priuate person or a common wealth is capable of we shall finde no more but these six following Liberty or fredome of wil opposit to naturall necessitie Christian Liberty opposite to the bondage of sinne Ciuil liberty opposite to slauish bondage liberty of a common wealth or free state opposite to the subiection of a King or Monarch Liberty of an absolute Prince which acknowledgeth no superior in temporall matters opposite to the rightfull subiection of an inferiour Prince to a greater or superior And lastly Libertie to doe euill opposite to the seruice or subiection of righteousnesse which liberty to doe euill Saint Paule affirmes to bee all one with the bondage of sinne Cum cerui essetis peccati liberi fuistes iustitiae Rom. 6. I do not thinke that the Author of this preface meant to speake of the freedome of will which is naturall and cannot be lost by any meanes but in the erronious conceipt and fancy of Lutherans and other such heritickes Neither can hee with any reason meane Christian liberty which is opposite to the bondage of sinne for that is not lost by obeying Christs vicar but rather by not obeying him Nor can we thinke that he intends to speake of ciuill liberty wherof all slaues are depriued nor of the liberty of an Aristocracie or Democracy that is where some few of the better sort or the generality of the people beare the rule which kinde of liberty those people doe lacke that are subiect to a kingely power or as wee may call it a monarchy for neither the present Pope nor yet any of his predecessors hath euer attempted to change the forme of gouernement of the Cittie of Venice as knowing very well that there is noe forme of regiment bee it of a Monarch or of some few principall personss or of the whole people but may well stand with ChristiaÌ„ religion whereof the Pope hath the principall care and charge Nay rather this varietie doth not a little adorne and beautifie the Cittye of god which is the vniuersall Church I know not to what purpose the author makes such a florish of six kindes of liberty seeing it is apparant to euery man of what kinde of liberty the question is now betwene vs. But if he will needes set forth all kindes of liberty that are incident eyther to a priuate person or a commoÌ„ wealth why doth he not as well mention the Ecclesiasticall liberty and tell vs clearely what this is being a matter so much debated and doubted of among the Canonists as to this day it is not determined The ecclesiasticall Hierarchie is surely a common wealth yet I see not vnder which of those six kinds that liberty may be reduced which is commonly attributed vnto it And therefore in saying that there are no more kindes of liberty but those six he makes vs wonder as if he meant to exclude or renounce that whereof notwithstanding there could not be a fitter place to speake nay to treate fully and at large then this wee haue now in hand But forasmuch as in this discourse of the six kindes of liberty the Author vseth an ambiguous proposition it is necessary before wee go any further to restraine and limit it to the true sense least any man be deceiued by it Speaking of christian liberty he saith that well a man may loose it by not obeying Christs vicar but neuer by obeying him this must bee thus limited when Christs vicar commands according to Christs institution But when he commandes according to his owne priuate opinion and passions wherevnto as being a man he is subiect and may be more subiect then many other as Caietan saith 2. 2 quaest 39. art 2. then christian liberty is not lost by disobeying him but indeede by obeing him As for example that man should no doubt haue lost his lyberty that had obeyed Honorius the first commanding that no man should affirme that in Christ there was eyther on will or two or he that should haue obeyed Gregory the 3. ordeyning that it should be lawfull for a man that had a wife vnfit by reason of any infirmity for the vse or act of matrimony to take an other besides her And likewise that should haue obeyed the seuerall censures of Stephen 6. against Formosus and of Iohn 9.
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
beene deceiued and disappointed of their hopes But in those things which are not repugnant vnto the will of God the Princes liberty ought to be reserued vnto him to doe that which the good and weale of his state requires And if the Pope go about to debarre him of this hee shall vsurpe temporall authority contrary to Christs commandement hitherto the Author hath maintayned this dispute in some friendly manner but in the second place by occasion of these wordes of the translators where hee saith that hee had bent his studie and indeauour to finde out what force and validity excommunications cary when they are denounced vppon so vniust causes hee falles very fiercely and violently vppon him as followeth The Author proceedeth to another vntruth saying Bellarmine I haue bent my indeauour to search in approued Authors of what force validity they are when they are denounced vpon so vniust causes This is the second vntruth coupled with incredible rashnes and vntollerable pride in this that the Author of the preface dares pronounce that the causes of the Popes excommunication denounced against the common wealth of Venice are vniust And peraduenture if he that writes this might be spoken with hee would bee found not to be well informed of the matter nor acquainted with the causes why it was â—enounced especially since him selfe confesseth that he was mooued to write onely vpon a fame or report spread in Paris so as hee must needes bee one of those of whom the Apostle speakâ—th Non intelligentes neque quae loquntur neque de quibus affirmant 1. Timoth. 1. Is it possible that thou shouldest be â—orash as without perfit information of the matter without any great labour bestowed in studying the point wtthout conference or consultation with men of learning thou shouldest presume to pronounce so absolute a sentence against Gods Vicar And if thou haddest stuâ—yed it throughly and conferd with other and wert fully informed of euery point did it become thee to be so sawâ—y as to condemne the highest iudge of the world of iniustice and to publish this thy presumptuous sentence in print to the sight of all men But seeing that all the reason which mooueth thee to iudge the cause of the Popes Censure to be vniust is grounâ—ed vpon nothing else but report and fame spred abroad that the State of Venice was excoÌ„municated for refusing to subiect vnto the will of an other that liberty which God had giuen theÌ„ I haue clearely proued that this reason is false And for that the iustice of the Popes proceeding in this excoÌ„munication is apparant to the whole world approued of all men but of the parties interessed who are rather transported with passion then guided by reason we wil spend no more words to confute this vntruth Surely in reading well ouer againe the translators words I cannot finde that he doth absolutely define that the Popes sentence is vniust Fryer Paulo for in a Parenthesis he hath these wodrs which seemes to mee neither reasonable nor credible which parenthesis the Author hath purposely omitted But admit that there were no such parenthesis and let vs take his bare words without it A report being spread that the Common wealth was excommunicated for refusing to yeelde or giue away her liberty I haue laboured to finde out in approoued auctors c. Heere the translator presupposeth one thing as certaine That an excommunication denounced against those that shall refuse to subiect their lawfull liberty is vniust and two other things remaine doubtfull the one in law to wit what force such an excommunication carrieth the other in fact whether this excoÌ„munication now spokeÌ„ of be such a one as common fame had deliuered it to be The latter point he could not gather by his studie out of bookes therefore he bent himselfe to study the former So it seemes that he doth not definitiuely pronounce any thing as the Author affirmeth If a man should vse such a speech as this A common report being spred in Venice that Demetrius Prince of Muscouia with many of his followers was murthered for suffering himselfe to be led by the Iesuites and perswaded to attempt diuers things against the lawes and orders of the state I haue bent my selfe to search in approoued Authors what punishment those religious persons are worthie of which intermedle in matters of state with the losse of many mens liues and extreame danger to the common peace and quietnesse of the states they liue in Could any man iustly say heere This man pronounceth that the Iesuits are disturbers of the common peace No truly But in this sentence the point which is certaine and out of doubt is this That whosoeuer doth disturbe the common peace sinneth the two points in doubt are the one in law which may be studied out of bookes to wit what punishment a religious person merits that doth so the other in fact what indeede fell out in Muscouia the certainetie whereof may be knowen in time Such for all the world is this point that we haue in hand And I am verily perswaded that the Author in his iudgement thinkes the same But to take the better occasion and fitter scope to inuey against any man that should affirme this excommunication of the Popes to be vniust he makes a shew to beleeue that the translator had said so The Author is wont to reprooue very sharpely such as drawe and wrest to a sense of their owne framing another mans words to the end to confute them But in this particular it fitted his purpose verie well thus vnder a colour of confuting a person vnknowen to raile vpon all them that withstand the Popes Excommunication Now if a man should take occasion of that which the Authour hath said in the Text before alleadged to wit that the lawes of Venice are vniust and impious returne vpon him his owne verie words and tell him that it is an vntruth coupled with c. to determine that the lawes of so great and worthie a Common-wealth agreeing with the lawes of all Christian Kingdomes are vniust and impious and that if a man might conferre with him he would be found peraduenture to haue but little vnderstanding of the matter and should by way of Interpellation or Apostrophe direct his speech thus vnto him is it possible that you should be so c. as to presume to pronounce the lawes to be vniust of so wise and religious state which hath mainetained and gouerned it selfe these 1200 yeares to the great admiration and notable patterne of the whole world especially those lawes not being singular and peculiar onely to that state but receiued and admitted in all Christian states and also accounted iust and so approoued by all but such as are interessed who are rather transported with passion then guided by reason The Author could not much complaine being but fettered with his own gieues and reprooued with his owne proper termes But we will forbeare to vse
centum Nintie and nine are a kind of hundreth And this I had not noted if he himself had not plaied the toto harsh Censor against Gersons translator where he deserued it not but to returne to the sense and meaning Reader behold his cunning all sins are against God but some touch his diuine Maiestie immediately as the blaspheming of his name Idolatry and such like other are against our neighbour immediately for this cause against God as are adultery murther theft now of this latter sort are both those sins we feare of Disobedience of the subiect towards his superior immediatly is against a man and in the end it reacheth vnto God The tyrannicall gouernmēt of the superiour bends immediatly against the subiect but mediately against God Our Author to delude our simplicity when he is to speak of the abuse of authoritie saith it is but against a subiect when he speakes of disobedience he saith it offends Gods Maiestie in his vicar If a man to incounter him should say The Prelate that abuseth his authority offends God in his Creature he that contemnes excommuninication offends a man what could he replie But let vs proceede syncerely and lay these things togither euenly Disobedience offends God in the superior he that abuseth the authority giuē by god offends God in the subiect Now let vs see if these two offences made to God whether is greater S. Thomas who often makes the comparison of sins betweene themselues saith alwaies that sin is a priuation of that which is good and therefore that a sinne is so much the greater the greater that the good is which is depriued by it The reader may see for this in 2. a 2. a quaestione 150. art 154. art 3. 39. art 2. and in many other places Now the good which disobedience depriues a man of is the priuate good of a subiect which is the vertue of his obodience the good which the abusing of authority depriues vs of is the good gouernance of the Church This is a farre greater good aswell for that a publike good is greater then a priuate as also for that to commaund well is a greater vertue then to obey well and this is the reason vpon which Gerson is grounded which is found and stands not vpon authorities forced from their proper states He that would yet further consider of the grieuousnesse of a sinne by the mischiefe that insues vpon it or by the person that committeth it howsoeuer these be but accidentall considerations and we ought therefore to ground vpon the former and not on them yet neuerthelesse one abuse of power authoritie giues a greater scandall to the world and is a cause of greater mischiefe then a hundreth disobediences and the person of the superiour as the more eminent is much more bound by his greater obligation to God to doe his duty Secondly Bellarmine I say that although in some case it may be meritorious to resist a Prelate to his face yet for the most part it is a thing of much scandall and of most grieuous excesse And to apply this consideration to the present purpose to incite thē that are subiect to dispise the commandements of Christs vicar it is a thing not to be indured For Saint Paul made no resistance against Saint Peter in matter of obedience but in matter of a certaine obseruation legall and it pleased God to shew the world S. Peters humility to permit that in a certain article of legall obseruance S. Paul should be illuminated beyond S. Peter to S. Peter willingly accepted S. Pauls brotherly correction specially for that S. Paule was an Apostle and no lesse full of the holy ghost then S. Peter himselfe but in matter of obedience and reuerence we are to know that S. Paule alwaies exhorteth those that are subiect to obey their Prelates and he himselfe came in person to Ierusalem to visit S. Peter and to conferre with him touching the gospell he preached notwithstanding that he had it by reuelation as himselfe testifies in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galathians Now what consequence were this Saint Paule an Apostle and an elect vessell tooke vpon him to admonish S. Peter Ergo the people shall doe a meritorious worke to resist the supreame Bishop to his face though he commaund them vnder paine of Excommunication This should not be the consequence of a good Logician but of a peruerse scismaticke I see not why it should be heere laid in for a second opposition against Gerson Gerson that although it be sometimes meritorious to resist a Prelate yet it is ordinarily a thing of much scandall since Gersons words be that sometimes it is a thing meritorious and turnes to the honour of the power Ecclesiasticall that resistance be made to such a Prelate with such a moderation as extends not the bounds of a lawful defence as S. Paul opposed himself to S. Peter The Author to my vnderstāding hath said in effect the same with Gerson but that Gerson hath with all integrity expressed all that was to be said in this point hauing added the limitation of such a defence as was not to be reproued for some thinks Gersons Latine phrase is more clearely expressed Cum oppositione inculpatae tutilae If the defence be vnreproueable what would the Author haue more who will be so rash to say that in an vnreproueable defence there may be scandal or excesse Let not the Author come in here with his ordinarily or for the most part it is a scandal for we will maintaine it vniuersally by his fauour that whensoeuer there shall be a notorious abuse of iurisdiction in the Prelate an irreproueable defence in the subiect it shall alwaies hold true that it is a meritorious deed to resist And this is the very case which Gerson vnderstands when he saith sometimes and limits it besides as we see with those goulden words so that where the Author saith that in some case it may be meritorious it sounds to me that heere is put in by way of opposing against Gerson a flat confirmation of Gersons owne opinion But the Author followes it further To apply this consideration to the matter in question that is a thing not to be indured This makes nothing against Gerson but against the Interpretor as though when he had translated the twelue Considerations he had said with all that all the twelue made expresly for the case in hand He should haue done well to haue set downe the whole booke intier as it lies and then it had beene the Readers part to apply that which is to be aplied By the same manner of dealing because Gerson saith in his ninth consideration If the Pope would seaze vpon the Churches treasure or vsurp vpon it inheritance or reduce all the Clergy their goods into seruitude or spoyle them of their rights without cause the Author may obiect it against the Interpretor that he hath applied all this to the
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