The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe/Volume 3/The Council of Basil (continuation)
Doubts or questions of the Bohemians.Thus, hitherto, we have declared the decree of the council. As touching the other doubts and questions which were afterwards moved by the masters and prelates of Bohemia, the ambassadors of the council answered thus:
Answer. Permission of both kinds granted to the Bohemians, not of sufferance, but by full authority.First they said, That it was not the meaning of the sacred council, to suffer the communion under both kinds by toleration, or as the libel of divorcement was permitted to the Jews; forasmuch as the council, intending even to open the bowels of motherly charity and pity unto the Bohemians and Moravians, doth not mean to suffer it with such kind of sufferance, which should not exclude sin, but so to grant it, that by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his true spouse the church, it may be lawful, profitable, and healthful, unto those who worthily receive the same.
Punishing of offences considered.Also, as touching that which was spoken by the said Bohemians, of the punishing of offences, that it is in the Scriptures, how that God offences oftentimes stirreth up the hearts of private persons to the correcting and punishing of sins, and so it should seem lawful unto the inferiors to correct and punish their superiors: they answered, alleging the text of St. Augustine in the thirty-third decree, How and by whom offenders ought to be punished. To do that God commandeth, is obedience, and no sin, though it be extraordinary."He that striketh wicked men in that they are wicked, and hath cause of death against them, is the minister of God: but he who, without any public administration or office, murdereth or maimeth any wicked thief, sacrilegious, punished, adulterous, or perjured person, or any other offender, shall be judged as a homicide; and so much the more sharply, in that he feared not to abuse and usurp the power not granted him of God." And truly this city would take it much more grievously, if any private man should attempt to punish an offender, and set up a gallows in the street and there hang him, than if one man should kill another in brawl or quarrel. They alleged, also, other texts of St. Ambrose and St. Jerome, agreeable to the same. They said that no man doubteth that the law of God is duly and holily appointed, and therein is simply written, "Thou shalt not steal;" and, notwithstanding, by the commandment of God, The Israelites did steal from the Egyptians without sin.
Samson killed himself without sin.the children of Israel carried away the goods of the Egyptians, which they had borrowed of them. Also, in the same law it is plainly written, "Thou shalt do no murder." Whereupon St. Augustine, in his first book 'De Civitate Dei,' proveth that it is not lawful for any man to kill himself; and when he maketh example of Samson, he answereth with these words: "When God commandeth, and doth affirm himself to command, without any doubt, who is he that will call obedience sin? or who will accuse the obedience to God? Here,
in this proposition, you have the words of St. Augustine for answer. But let every man well foresee, if God do command, or that he do intimate the commandment without any circumstances, and let him prove the spirits, whether they be of God. Of extraordinary commandment no general law to be made.But in such cases there are no laws to be given, neither are they much to be talked of; for thereby there should easily arise occasion to make sedition, and for inferiors to risc against the superiors. For, when any man had stolen any thing, or killed any man, he would say that he was moved thereunto by the Spirit of God: but without manifest proof thereof, he should be punished.
Objection.
Answer.
How the laity hath power over the clergy, and wherein. The pope will be judged by his own law.Again, they said that there were certain cases wherein the laity had power over the clergy. It was answered, That there were certain cases in the law, wherein the laity had power over the clergy, and oftentimes over cardinals. For if, the pope being dead, the cardinals would not enter the conclave to elect a new pope, the king, prince, or other lord or secular power, may compel them: but, in these cases, he is now no private person, but useth his jurisdiction by the authority of the law. The like is to be understood of all other cases expressed in the law.
Objection.They said further, That no common law hath any right or justice, except God's law do allow the same. Answer.It was answered. That no common law hath right or justice, if it be against the law of God; because the law of God is the rule of all other laws. But there is great cunning and knowledge in applying the rule to that which is made by the rule; for oftentimes it seemeth that there is diversity in the thing made by the rule, when there is none indeed; but the default is in the applying, because the rule is not duly applied to the thing made by it.
Objection.As touching the article of preaching the word of God, it was moved that oftentimes some prelates, through their own envy and malice, without any reasonable cause, do inhibit a good and meet preacher that preacheth catholicly and well. Answer.
Abuse of prelates inhibiting true preachersAnswer was made, how that they understood well enough that the abuse of certain prelates, who did inordinately behave themselves, gave a great occasion of those troubles. Also, that they never heard of any such complaints in those parties, but that the prelates do favour good preachers, and stir them up to preach, by entreaty, favour, and promotion. Remedy of appeal.In all such cases there are remedies already provided by the law; for, when any man is so prohibited to use his right, he hath remedy to appeal: and if he do trust his appeal to be just, he may use his right, all violence both of the spiritual and secular power set apart; for the end of the matter shall declare, if he had just cause to appeal. Then shall it be declared that the superior hath done evil in prohibiting, and the plaintiff justly in doing, and the superior, for his unjust prohibition, shall be punished. But if he be justly prohibited, and that through his temerity he do contemn the just commandment of his superior, he is worthy to be punished with condign punishment.
Objection.Where it was moved concerning the third article, Whether it were lawful for the ecclesiastical prelates to exercise in their proper person, the "acts of secular dominion," Answer. Acts of secular dominion to be exercised of the clergy, after a double respect, 'vel per se vel per alium.'hereunto it was answered, That if by these words, "acts of secular dominion," are understood acts which a secular lord may do or exercise, then it is to be said, that a prelate may lawfully exercise some such acts in his proper person, as to sell, pawn, or pledge, to enfeoff by manner and form ordained by law: but there are some acts which it is not lawful for them to exercise in their proper person, but they ought to have, afterwards, a vice-gerent or proctor to do the same: whereupon there is prohibition made in the law in the rubric, "Ne Clerus vel Monachus secularibus negotiis se immisceat, et in aliis rebus."
Objection.It was also moved, whether that coactive power, which ought to be exercised by a steward, &c. be in the hands of an ecclesiastical prelate. Answer.
Coactive power, whether it belongeth to the clergy, and how.Whereupon John Polomar answered. That this question pre-supposeth another, whereof there are divers opinions amongst the doctors. In whose power the dominion of the church should be: and furthermore, whether the actions be in the person of the tutor or proctor; or, if they be not in their person, they be notwithstanding, by the constitution of any actor or proctor, whose exercising of those actions doth give authority under the actor or proctor; with other difficulties, whereof it is not needful to speak at this present. But forasmuch as he was urged to say his opinion, he said, that to such as had either leisure or pleasure in disputation, and would argue against him, he would be contented to give the choice, to take which part he would: but his opinion was rather that the dominion of church matters should be in the power of Christ; and the prelates, with the other clergy, are but canonical administrators in manner of tutors, but they have more power and administration than tutors, and by constituting a steward or vicegerent, &c. their constitution being made, the steward or vicegerent hath the same coactive power and exercise of jurisdiction.
Also, as touching the fourth article, for the declaration of the first conclusion, it is agreed that these words, "juste requisita," i. e. "justly gotten," alleged therein, determine all things contained in the same.
The goods of the church, in whose possession they be properly.Also, as touching the second conclusion, where the sacred canons and holy doctors speak thus: "The goods of the church, the substance of the church, and the possessions of the church;" and divers other opinions there be amongst the doctors, in whose power the possession they rule thereof should be; as it is noted in the Glossary, cap. "Expedit." 12 Quæst. 1. "They do not intend to constrain any man to any of those opinions neither to exclude any of them; but that every man should have liberty probably to maintain which of them he thinketh best."
The clergy be administrators, not lords of the temporalties of the church.Moreover the Bohemians said, That they did believe that the clergy are but administrators of the temporalties of the church, and not lords thereof, according to the manner of speaking of the Scriptures, holy doctors, and canons. Also the Bohemians said. That on all of the occasions which should hereafter arise, they would wholly stand to the determination of the judge agreed upon at Egra, with one consent. In this manner did the ambassadors make answer unto the Bohemians.
At last, after much communication had to and fro, a concord and unity was concluded and confirmed by setting-to their hands. The Bohemians promised to receive the peace and unity of the church, and the declaration of the three articles. A. D. 1438.This was done A. D. 1438, about the feast of St. Martin. It was afterwards agreed, both by the ambassadors of that council, and of Bohemia, that whatsoever remained should be determined and agreed upon, first at Ratisbon, afterward at Brunn, in the diocese of Olmutz; then at Alba in Hungary, before the emperor Sigismund. But the matter could not be ended in any place.
At last the concord was confirmed by writing with their seals at Inglavia, a city of Moravia, the fifth day of July, in the presence of the emperor.