est timor dei ante oculos eorum and on the contrarie they feare their false Cods which haue no power all Illic trepidauerant timore vbi non erat timor And now this new Doctor takes the words of the Psalme in a cleane contrarie sense going about to perswade by them that Gods Vicar is not to be feared and consequently that we should not feare the true God himselfe since he hath said it to his Vicars Qui vos audit me audit qui vos spernit me spernit Luc. 10. Verie repugnant are the words of Saint Gregorie to these of our new diuine For he in his 26 Homily speaking of excommunication saith that the sentence of the Pastor is to be feared be it iust or vniust and this man saith that who so feareth the Pastors sentence which he holdes to bee vniust falles into that iudgement of the reprobate which feare where no cause is And the mischiefe that growes out of this doctrine it ceaseth not heere but goes on and spreads out further euen to the vtter ruine of soules for he that feares not the censures of the supreame Pastor much lesse will he feare that of the Bishops and he that begins once to dispise the orders of the head of the Church will make small conscience of disregarding any other order whatsoeuer By this cunning Martin Luther hath perswaded many men that Christian liberty consisteth in hauing a large conscience and in not fearing to transgresse all the orders of the Church and hereupon haue we seene so many Monkes and Nunnes without any scruple at all to abandon their Monasteries cast away their sacred habits and take husbands wiues and so many nations to trample vpon the holy Images to forget the feasts and feast euent not to know any longer what is meant by Lent Confessions vespers and Masse and finally we may see from this beginning of not fearing the authority of Christs vicar in earth how some whole Prouinces are brought to that passe that they haue no note or marke at all of any Christian religion left In conformitie with the Author we may here begin by exclamation alwaies prouided it be not slanderous Behold how farre the confidence of the great ones aspires and attributes that to a defect in others which proceeded indeed from their owne greatnes It is manifest of old to the whole world and the stories are full of it that the very beginning of the separation that fell out some hundred years since in Germany took not it originall from any disobedience of the subiects but out of an abuse of power and greatnes in the Prelats It is wel knowne that it grew out of in discreet extorsions out of extrauagant fashions of granting Indulgences I trust in God that these present alterations shall be determined with the health safetie of the body that remaines intyre not with the ruine perdition of it and tell me for Gods sake whence beganne these alterations but because they could not be contented that a few persons in number who if a man suruey thē well wil hardly make vp 1000 should enioy a fourth part of the riches of the whole state which containes foure millions of persons and because they would in-fine haue stripped all the Laitie out of their goods And euen as they beganne so haue they proceeded on because they would haue brought it to that passe that some which haue nothing else but the bare name of Churchmen might without feare of Iustice vncontrolled offend other men both in their liues and honor Admit now sōme great mischiefe had befallen vs who should haue beene in fault but they that would haue innouated and changed the courses of iudicature that haue beene vsed and established these 1200. yeares past and the lawes that tooke their beginning aboue 300 yeares since It was not greatly to the purpose when the question is made betweene Catholickes of the validitie or nullitie of a Censure to enter into Monasteries Matrimonies Images Feasts and Feast-euens Lents Consessions Vespers Masses and all to enforce other men to answere them and lay open whence the mischiefe growes it had been much better to haue stood vpon the matter treated of it as it comes to hand with charity not to beare themselues in hand that the world is so simple as not to vnderstand whether this present difference be about a temporall matter or a spirituall Now to leaue these digressions into which the Author hath withdrawen me happily beside the question let vs consider of the strength of the opposition he makes against the interpreter touching the meaning of the words in the Psalme And to begin with the very exposition which the author himself giues them which I will not note for false but I wil grant him that for that short verse alone it may passe being peraduenture quoted from some other exposition but he that will read ouer the whole Psalme shall see that it suts not with the letter and that the Interpretor hath cited it indeed in it own true and literall sense according to the cleare light of Gods word For the argument of the Psalme it is an affectionate complaint against the vngodly or if you wil so call him the Atheist together with the consolation he receiueth from seeing him punished and not against him that feares false gods This is cleared by the very beginning Dixit insipiens in corde suo non est Deus Now to understand the fifth verse Deum non inuocarunt illiuc trepidauerunt timore vbi non erat timor we must know that Dei inuocatio in the diuine Scripture is often taken by a Senecdoche for the recognition and acknowledgement of God whereupon the literall sense is they acknowledged not the true God yet neuerthelesse they feared things that were not to be feared for as much as that is the special chastisement which God laies vpon the wicked that though he seeme free from all feare yet he of himselfe frames in his owne apprehension diuers contradictory conceits which cause work in him an apparant feare so may we see some in antiquity that denied the immortality of the soule and yet were infinitly troubled with feare of infamy after death others that denied prouidence no lesse apprehēsiue of coniecturall diuinatiōs other fansies This is the very literal sense let vs now see whether it was alleged to this purpose There are som saith S. Paul which cōfes in words that they know god but deny him in their deeds These are they that liuing at randō care not at al for Gods law they wil not sticke to murder many men to violate many mariage beds and of these wickednesses they will neuer repent they will rob as much as they can finger and consume all their owne goods and other mens but when they are cited to the Ecclesiasticall Court to pay a tieth and there excommunicated being now become vnable to pay it they are more trauersed and
as the space of 55. yeares to proceede from a Reader to a Priest In the 3. place hee vrgeth the authority of the councell of Calcedon in the 3. Act whereof Dioscorus is condemned for that hee with the whole second councell of Ephesus tooke vpon them to censure the Pope of Rome concluding that if that Patriarch which next to the Pope possessed the highest place in the Church together with a generall councell had no power to iudge the Pope it followeth that the councell is not aboue the Pope Hereunto they of Paris do answere briefly that the second councell of Ephesus which our author tearmeth a generall councell was onely a Conuenticle and branded with the infamous surname of Predatorium and therefore in that third Act of Calcedon alledged by our author Dioscorus is condemned not onely for the excommunicating Leo but also for receiuing Eutiches to the communion whom his ordinary had excommunicated for vsing violence to Flauian of Constantinople and for many other offences but especially for his contumacie which he vsed that day against the councell If out of these premises any man will goe about to proue that a councell can not condemne a Patriarch of Constantinople I will deny the consequence but this were a good consequence that therefore no Predatorie councell can condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople because he holdeth the true catholique faith and in like sort it followeth that no Councell can proceede against the Pope in fauour of an heresie because hee teacheth the catholique faith There are some others who do obserue that in that third act many complaintes were exhibited against Dioscorus as well viua voce of them which were preseÌ„t as vnder the haÌ„ds of others which were farre off Dioscorus though he were present in the citty yet absenting himselfe from the Councell was at three seuerall times sommoned to appeare which he vtterly refusing to do the Councel resolued to condemne him in this condemnation 186. Bishops pronounced their sentences as it may appeare by the Acts of that councell where these sentences are formally set downe The legate of Pope Leo said thus that Dioscorus against the orders of the church taking vpon him the primacie had restored Eutiches that hee would not suffer Leos epistles to Flauian to be read that for these errors he might haue had his pardon but for that he did afterward presume to excommunicate Leo the Archbishoppe of great Rome and for that he was accused to the Councell of many hainous offences and for that hee beeing thrise suÌ„moned refused to appeare they in the behalfe of Pope Leo that holy Sinode and blessed Saint Peter did depriue him of his Episcopall dignity Anatolius bishop of Constantinople said I also am of the same opinion and do assent to the condemnation of Dioscorus for that he was disobedient to the citation but he made no mention of the excommunicatioÌ„ of Leo. Maximus of Antiochia said I do concurre with Leo of Rome and with Anatolius of Constantinople in the deposing of Dioscorus for that beside other thinges he disobayed the citation After these 184. Bishops pronounced their sentences successiuely and some of them said I condemne Dioscorus for his contumacie others according to the voices of the three Patriarchs others according to the sentence of Anatolius from whence they do gather that the deposing of Dioscorus by the Concell was for diuers faults committed whereupon he being called refused to appeare The excommunication of Leo which the Romanes did insert amongst the causes of his deposing assented vnto by some of the fathers was not they say the generall sentence of the councell and proue it as to them it seemeth manifestly For the intimation of the sentence against Dioscorus is not in the Acts of the councell but alledged by Euagrius in his lib. 2. chapter 18. where making a repetition of the causes of the condemnation the excommunication of Leo is not to bee found These are Euagarius words De his per litteras â Concilio referebatur ad Martianum abdicatio per idem Concilium missa fuit Dioscoro quae ita se habet Scito te tum quod diuinos Ecclsiae Canones contempseris tum quod Sancto huic Generali Concilio minime obtemperaueris tum propter alia mulâ—a crimina praeterea quae coÌ„misisse deprehensus es tum quod tertio vocatus â Sancto hoc celebri Concilio vt illis quae sunt tibi obiecta responderes non veneris scito iuqnam te propter ista omnia a Sancto Generali Concilio tertio idus istius mensis Octobris Episcopatu abdicatum esse aâ— omni iure Ecclesiastico penitus abalienatum Quibus verbis in commentarios relatis missisque c. And to make it appeare yet more plainly that the councell of Calcedon was of a contrary opinion to that which the Author would father vpon it they add that in the first Act of it the Senators and the Bishoppes beeing assembled in the presence of the Emperour and the Empresse the Emperour and the Senate sitting in the middest of the Church and at his left hand the Popes Legates with Anatolius and the Bishoppes vnder his iurisdiction at his right hand Dioscorus of Alexandria Iuuinall of Ierusalem with their Bishoppes the Popes Legates went into the midst of the councell and said that they had commaundement from the Pope of the citty of Rome which is head of all the Churches that Dioscorus should not sit in the councell wherefore they desired that Dioscorus might depart the councell or otherwise themselues would goe forth of it the Iudges and the Senate demaunded what was obiected against Dioscorus one of the Legates answered that hee had assembled a councell without any authority from the Sea Apostolique another of the Legates saide wee cannot transgresse the commandements of the most blessed Pope and another of them said we cannot endure so great an iniury that that Sea should be Iudges The Iudges coÌ„manded that Dioscorus should sit downe and that all the rest should likewise sit downe in their places In the last Act also the fathers and the Iudges being set the Legates of Pope Leo demaunded of the Iudges that they might haue leaue to speak which being graunted they saide yesterday after you departed and we followed you certaine Acts were made in the councell which wee conceiue to bee contrary to the Canons and to the descipline Ecclesiasticall wherefore wee doe require that you cause them to bee read againe to the intent that euery one may see whether they be iust The Iudges commaunded that they should be read and accordingly a Canon was read where it is saide that the auncient fathers haue giueÌ„ great priuiledges to the Sea of old Rome in regard of the Empire of that city therefore also the second councell of Constantinople hath giuen as great priuiledges to the Sea of Constantinople new Rome iudging that a city adorn'd with the Empire and Senate ought to haue priuiledges and
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
hee come not to knowe that the Superiour himselfe holds it doubtfull as well as he 7 The seuenth consideration is Gerson that to discouer aright the contempt of the keyes we must obserue the lawfull power and withall the lawfull vse of this power and therefore that same common saying that the sentence of the Pastor or of the Iudge it ought to be feared yea though it be vniust it needes a good glose This is a good consideration Bellarmine and the glosse of that common saying it is extant in the sacred cannons among which also is the verie same saying viz. in Gratians decreetum causa 11. quaestione tertia and that in sundry Chapters And the summe of all is that the Pastors sentence is to bee feared when it is vniust so it bee of force and good in Law as when there wants not any one essentiall part but onely some accidentall matter for example a lawfull Prelate excommunicates one that is vnder his iurisdiction for a iust cause hauing before admonished and aduised him but he doth not excommunicate him for pure zeale of iustice but for some particular grudge he beares him or he doth not warne him three times or he doth not put downe the sentence in scriptis this excommunication is vniust but it is strong in law therefore ought to be feared Yea admit yet further that it were indeed voide but the inualiditie were not knowen here it ought likewise to be feared at least in respect of the scandall I doe not straine my selfe to prooue these things for that they are cleare such as Gerson himselfe would not denie them And from this consideration any man may gather that the sentence of of our Lord Paulus Quintus published against the heads of the State of Venice hath all the requisites aswell essentiall as accidentall and ought therefore to be feared it beeing not onely of validitie but most iust withall For if you looke into the lawfulnesse of authority you shall finde that there is a supreame power giuen him from God and most vniuersall ouer all them which pretend to bee sheepe of Christs flock and members of the mysticall body of the Church and citisens of Gods citie and domestiques in the house of the same God That the power is vniuersall it is cleerely seene in those words Quodcunque ligaueris quodounque Solueris Math. 16. And that it is ouerall it is seene in those other words pasce oxes meas Iohn 21. Where it is not restrayned to these or those sheepe but includeth all those that are his and hee that beleeues not this is no Catholick If you looke into the lawfull vse of this power you shall finde that there wanted not diuerse admonitions nor any of those things which the order of iudgment requires Finally if you looke into the cause you shall finde that it was in defence of the Churches immunitie which the sacred councell of Trent Sess 25. Cap. 20. affirmeth to bee founded vpon diuine ordination and vpon the constitutions of the holy canons and for which wee knowe that many holy prelates haue combated euen to the death God hath honoured Saint Thomas of Canterbury with infinite miracles hath declared him to be his owne true Martyr as the Church also declared him to be afterward for hauing spilt his bloud for the liberty of the same Church Frier Paulo In this seuenth consideration it pleased the Author to bring in the Glosse vpon that common saying That the sentence of the Pastor or of the iudge it is to be feared yea though it be vniust which Gerson thought good to let passe as a glosse most knowne and handled of all the Doctors Yea further I for my parte doe not onely subscribe to that which the Author saies but I adde this more that euen such a sentence as is notoriously voyde in lawe ought notwithstanding to be feared after a sorte that is to say wee ought not proudly to disdaine and contemne it but with modesty and reuerence to hinder the execution of it But howsoeuer the glosse he brings in conteine good Doctrine yet is not the consequence for all that currant which he would collect thereupon that therefore the Popes sentence which is now in question hath all the due requisites aswell essentiall as accidentall and that it is not onely in force but withall most iust This hee proues thus If you inquire into the lawfulnes of the authority you shall finde that there is a supreame yea and that a most vniuersall authority giuen him frō God which is proued by Quod cūque ligaueris and by Pasce oues meas Iohn 21. If it be taken in the right sense such as be Catholicks make no difficultie to admit of this proposition but this same new termed Vniuersalium most vniversall is one of those ambiguous words which though it be first broght in in a good sense that is to say bounded limited in things only belonging to the kingdom heauen and to the edification of the Church according to the Euangelicall rules yet in tract of time it will after extend and straine it selfe further euen to mundane and worldly matters S. Gregory lib. 7. epist 30. held this very word for suspicious and in exceeding iealousie when he was styled Papa vniuersalis and he said it was a proud title and imported as much as if he were the onely Bishop and no other man were Bishop but he And so to haue authoritie most vniuersall is after a sort to say if Saint Gregories discourse may be allowed that there is no other authority but it For if the stile of vniuersall Bishop take away other Bishops Ergo a most vniuersall authority must needs take away all other authorities But we will not contend about the word so that they wil giue it it owne true meaning Let vs consider now how this most vniuersall authoritie is proued It is said to Peter and in his person to all Popes Quodcunque ligauereis c. Quodcunque solueris c. Ergo their authoritie is vniuersall But in the 18. of Mathew it is said to all the Disciples and in their person to their successors Quaecunque ligaueritis c. Quaecunque solueritis c. Ergo there shall be sundrie most vniuersall authorities which implies a flat cōtradiction Indeed the Quodcunque is vniuersall but it is bounded and restrained by the words before Claues regni coelorum All that perteins to the kingdome of heauen is subiect to Peter who doubts it but that which appertaines to the kingdoms of the earth Christ cōmitted it not to him The other profe by Pasce oues meas it is indeed vniuersall in respect of Oues meas but god denieth by Ezechiel in his 34. that to cloth our selues with the wool of his sheep is to feed them he denieth that to dominier ouer thē cum austeritate cum potentia is to feed them he denies that to drink the clear water by our selus
but in the Bull it selfe it is not sayd so It is true that it prohibites such appeales but the reason is because they haue reference to that which is not and of which there is no certaintie when it shall bee In the meane time the poore are oppressed by the mightie offences remaine vnpunished Rebellion is fostered against the first sea it is free for euery one to offend all Ecclesiasticall discipline and Hierarchicall orders are confounded where you may perceiue that Pius 2. doth not alleadge his superiority for a reason which had been an euident and pregnant argument because there is no appeale but to a Superiour Let no man reply that though it be not expressed yet it may be collected out of those wordes for there is no likelihoode that hee would so slightly passe ouer that which is most substantiall and insist with such diligence vpon so many thinges that are but accidentall Besides this before he doth alleadge these causes aboue mentioned he affirmeth that he omitteth others manifestly contrary to this corruption which argueth that the causes alleadged are the most principall and that the others are of lesse importance and therefore that poynt of Superioritie is of no force in this place Moreouer these wordes of our Author in the Councell of Mantua serue onely to abuse the Reader for it was neither done in a generall nor prouinciall nor any other Councell at all It is true that Pius the 2. was in Mantua as it lay in his way but he had no body with him saue onely his owne Court as by the wordes of the Bull it appeareth which sayth By the aduice and consent of our reuerend brethren the Cardinals of the holy Church of Rome and all the Prelates with the Ciuillians and Canonists which follow the Court But yet that which followeth in the Author is worse that Pius the 2. did excommunicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell And that Iulius the 2. did renew this Excommunication and that all the Popes succeeding them haue done the same in the Bull intituled In Coena If this Bull of Pius the 2. and that of Iulius the 2. and all the other Bulles of that title were not extant this Obiection would remaine vnanswered But I will maintaine that no Pope did euer excommunicate for appealing to a Councell Vnlesse it were to a future councell all these Bulls may be seen and read And because Poenae sunt restringende No Canonist will say that appellantes ad praesens concilium when any such is shal be excōmunicated by virtue of these Buls this then will not serue him to proue that the Pope is superiour to the councell But why did the author leaue out the word futurum If Gersons interpreter had committed such a fault what censure would haue beene thought seuere enough for him the reason of Pius 2. is good against those which do appeale to that which is not neither is it certaine when it shall bee that is a future councell but it is not good against appealing to a present councell and this is the reason that all Popes haue excōmunicated appellantes ad futurum concilium Let not vs then leaue out the word futurum howsoeuer our passions could bee contented to conceale it After this digression the author returnes once againe into Constance and saith that Pope Martin 5. with the consent of that councell did ordaine that they which should be suspected of heresie should be interrogated whether they did beleeue that the Pope had the Supreame power in the Church of God from whence he doth conclude that the councell did intend the Superiority to be in the Pope and that the decree in the 4. Ses is to be vnderstood of a Pope vncertaine according to his owne exposition for that otherwise the councell should be contrarie to it selfe but how this interrogation is vnderstood whereof the Pope and the councel do make mention let the author vouchsafe to peruse the 8. Ses where amongst the 45. condemned errours of Wickliff the 41. is Non est denecessitate salutis credere Romanā Ecclesiam esse supremam inter alias Ecclesias The councell followeth Error est si per Romanam Ecclesiam intelligat vniuersalem Ecclesiam aut Concilium vniuersale aut pro quanto negaret primatum summi Pontificis super alias Ecclesias particulares This one point being read doth make it manifest that the councell of Constance did intend that the Pope had the superiority ouer all churches seuered but not vnited And here the author leauing the councell of Constance walks another way Bellarmine and takes vpō him to proue by authority of scripturs by the consēt of councels and by reason that Gersons opinion is manifestly erronius saying But laying aside the councell of Constance it is most easie to bee proued by the authority of Scripture by Councells and by Reason that Gersons opinion is manifestly erronious The Scripture doth no where giue authority to the Church and to the councels aboue their Pastors much lesse aboue the supream Pastor but contrarily that Bishops are ordained to gouerne the Church of God appeareth Act. 20. where Saint Paul saith that God hath placed Bishops to gouerne the Church of God And by these wordes of our Sauiour in the 16. Mat. where he saith to his Viccar Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam where Christ making Saint Peter the foundation of his Church did make him the head of that mysticall body for that which a foundation is in respect of a house the same the head is in respect of the body and we see that the head hath power ouer all the rest of the body but the rest of the body hath no power ouer the head In like manner Io. 21. when Christ said to Peter Pasce oues meas he made him sheapheard ouer all his flocke and doubtles the flocke hath no authority at all ouer the sheapheard but the sheapheard ouer the flocke Lastly where as our Sauiour Luc. 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator prudens quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam saith Doubtlesse hee doth declare that a Bishop in his particular Church and the Pope in the church vniuersall is as it were a high Steward in Gods family and as the high Steward hath authority ouer the familie and not the familie ouer him so hath the Bishop ouer his Dioces and the Pope ouer the Church vniuersall and not the Diocesse ouer the Bishop nor the Church ouer the Pope though assembled in a generall councell and to this end it is that our Sauior in the same place addeth these wordes Quod si dixerit Seruus ille in corde suo moram facit Dominus meus venire coeperit percutere seruos ancillas edere bibere inebriari veniet Dominus serui illius in die qua non sperat diuidet eum partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet Out of which words it may be gather'd that
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
authority in Ecclesiasticall affaires equall to old Rome and to haue the next place after her The Canon being read together with the subscription one of the Legates said you see with what subtilty holy Bishops are dealt with all in that they haue bin enforced to subscribe without producing the copie of the Canon whereof they haue made mention The Bishops cryed out no man is enforced and the contention being prosecuted the Iudges did order that both the parties should propound the Canons the sixt Canon of the Nicene councel was read in the behalfe of the Romanes and in the behalfe of the Constantinopolitās the reading was different for in that which the Romans read these words were in the beginning of it Quod Ecclesia Romana sēper habuit primatum which are not in the other copies after this a Canon being read of the councel of Cōstantinople the Bishops reasoned sufficiently finally the Iudges demanded of thē what was their opinion whereunto they answered that that which was determined was iust one of the Romane Legates did protest that either the decree might be annihilated or that his protestation might be recorded against it let the reader therefore Iudge what opinion the councell of Calcedon held of the Popes superiority As to the Romane councell vnder Simachus the Parisians doe not deny that the Popes of Rome haue held that they ought not to be iudged of any also that the prouincial councels they haue assembled in Rome haue not confirmed the same but they say with all that neuer any Roman councel neither this fift nor any other came to specification that the Pope may not bee iudged of a general councel and when they say that the Pope can bee iudged of none they vnderstand that hee can bee iudged of none that hath not generall authority in the Church For the Pope hauing generall authority it stands not with reason that he should bee iudged by him that hath but particular authority wherewith they answere also to the history which he alledgeth of Leo the third But here I am inforced to set downe a little thing of mine own Paulus Emilius in the third of his history reporteth this fact Where yet it shal not be found that he saith there being assembled a great councell of Bishoppes as the author maketh him speake He saith simply first that Charles sent Leo to Rome with many Bishoppes and secular noblemen and enterteined himselfe elswhere about publique businesse Afterwarde hee went to Rome and there heard the accusations against the Pope and hauing diligently examined them hee required their opinion and the Bishops made answere that it were well that the Pope should iudge himselfe and it was acceptable to Charles to bee deliuered from proceeding to that iudgment Let the author read the place and hee shall see no mention there of a councell and that it was rather a conuocation of the imperiall councell where were both seculars and Bishops and that the Bishops did fauour the cause of the Pope And let the author also remember himselfe that hee opposed before against the decree of Constance because there was no debaiting of the matter before hand and let him not here plant such a maine foundation of a thing which was spoken by some Bishops in a particular fact thus assembled and hauing their opinion vnpremeditately demaunded For peraduenture the Popes innocency being known vnto them they spake by way of exaggeration not therefore will Gerson say to the preiudice of generall councels which represent the Church vniuersall and haue vniuersall authoritie But see Reader the cunning of our author Who saith that the first councell of Rome vnder Pope Simachus approued as their owne decree that sentence of Ennodius aliorum hominum causas c. It shall neuer bee found in that councell that that sentence was particularly approued no nor yet so much as mentioned It will bee found indeede that the councell saide let a little booke bee brought hether which hath beene written by Ennodius against them which haue murmured against our fourth Sinod and it beeing read the councell saide let the booke bee held of all men for most sound and for Sinodical and let it be entred amongst the actions of our fourth and fift Sinods Integerrime Synodaliter and let it be held as the other decrees of the Sinodal actions because it is written and confirmed with Sinodall authority And Pope Simachus answered bee it done according to your will and bee it placed among the decrees Apostolicall and held for such Here say the Parisians that it is to be vnderstood that by decrees Synodall or actions Synodal or decrees Apostolicall is not ment a Canon which can determine an article as de fide that is to bee held for matter of Faith But all the Epistles of a Pope entred in the Register are called the decrees of such a Pope and hee that shall peruse the book of Councells shall see this inscription vpon euery Pope The decrees of Pope N. and then his election his life and afterward his Epistles if there be any And likewise in the Councels he shall see that their actions containe many communications of interchanged speaches yea not fore-thought on somtimes the epistles of sundry persōs al which things are not de fide neither doth any man receiue them for such No man can possibly say that the Popes epistles especially before Siricius nor all that which at this day is found contained in so many narrations of the Actes of the councell of Ephesus of Calcedon and other ensuing is de fide The determinations of Councels are receiued which in the auncient for the most part will not passe one or two sheetes whereas their actions will containe fortie or fifty And concerning the Papall decrees their greater part conteineth no other matter saue such as doth not concerne the Faith Sometimes in a long epistle there shall be one onely Article as in that most famous and most holy epistle of Saint Leo to Flauian Wherefore there is great ods to say such a proposition of Ennodius was approued which would intend that it were approued as an Article of faith or Ennodius booke was approued which intends no more saue that it is a good book made to good purpose but not that whatsoeuer is in it should be de fide to establish well this answere it might bee said to the author This booke is of many sheets printed in folio it conteineth aboue 200. Propositiones among which that is one which the author produceth It is demaunded whether they will that they be all de fide and it shall be shewed him that there is some there that is not such If he will not accept them all as being de fide what reason why hee would haue this to be de fide and not the rest Hee hath thought to escape this obiection by telling vs that one onely sentence of Ennodius was approued Let vs speake frankly the
incidentally in a decree without the compasse of the principall which is intended to dâ—fine â—ut in the Bâ—ll whereof wee speake the intent is onelie to disanull the Pragmatick and this is the substance of the decree Now whereas in disanulling it answer is made to him that maintained it by virtue of the councell of Basill and it is said that the councell it selfe was remoued by Eugenius and that therfore it is of no validitie seeing the Pope hath power to transfer the councels as he that hath authority aboue them this doth not appertaine to the substance of that Bull but is an auoiding of a contrarie reason and is not therefore a determination For which cause very well the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine in the second place alledged hath reuoked that which he had saide in the first that is that that councell hath most expresly determined and hath said that it is in doubt whether that be a determination The common iudgement of all the divines is that the reasons which are vsed in a determination are not intended themselues also to be determined And it should be a maruailous strange matter that framing a decree of a particular thing such as is the reuocation of the Pragmatick which is no matter of Faith an article of Faith should incidentally be determined so that the principall should not be of Faith and the accessary should of necessity bee of Faith The Parisians adde farther that to proue that the Bishop of Rome hath authoritie aboue the Councell there are brought in that place a number of histories not so few as fifteene and lastly the book of Aimarus de Synodis whereupon we were to say that all those histories were de fide And the Parisians shew plainely that some of those histories recited faithfully do say the contrary But it woulde be too long here to produce so many particulars Some also mak answere that the Bull doth not say that the Pope hath authority aboue the Councels but it saith that it is to be auerred out of the diuine scriptures and out of the sayings of the Fathers and Bishops of Rome and Canons Councels that the Bishop of Rome hath authority aboue the generall Councels so that it is not intended to be otherwaies true then so far forth as that auerment may be iustified Therefore first that proofe must be produced Quatenus inde constat and the sense of the scriptures and sayings of the Fathers must be seene seeing the Councell doth not affirme it as of it selfe but with reference that is so farre forth as the scripture and those other thinges alledged make proofe thereof An other doctor proposeth another difficulty much greater that in the beginning of the Bull of this Councell it is said that Christ ordained Peter and his successors to be his vicars vnto whom as is testified in the book of Kings obedience is so necessary that hee which doth not obay is to dye the death Which if it bee an article of faith is a very seuere one that all disobedience to the Pope shold be punished with death And certainely the worlde hath not receiued it neither happily euer will The same Doctor addes farther that he cannot conceiue how so many yeares before there was any Pope there should be speech of him in the book of Kings Afterward he saith that he hath read all the 4. books of the Kings and neuer yet found there any such matter But let vs leaue the authority of this Councell seeing the Doctors which follow Gerson do not receiue it And each of the eight answeres made vnto it doth of it selfe dissolue the argument For a conclusion the author brings forth as it were for an Achilles a reason founded vpon the word of God saying But let vs see if the reason founded vpon the word of God Bellarmine doe testifie the selfe same verity The holy Church is not like to the Common-wealth of Venice or of Geneua or of other Citties which conferre vpon their Duke that power which themselues please in regarde whereof it may be sayde that the Common-wealth is aboue the Prince neither yet is it like to an earthly kingedome in which the people transfer their owne authority vnto the Monarck and in certaine cases may free themselues from Royall dominion and reduce themselues to the gouernment of inferiour Magistrats as did the Romanes when they passed from dominion Royal to Consulare gouernment For the Church of Christ is a most perfect kingedome and an absolute Monarchie which hath no dependance vpon the people neither from them had his originall but dependeth onely vpon the diuine will And I saith Christ in the second Psalme am constituted a King by him ouer Sion his holy mountaine And the holy Angell said to the virgin Luc. 1. Our Lord God shall giue him the seat of Dauid his Father and he shall raigne in the house of Iacob for euer and of his kingdome there shal be no end And in a thousand other places the same is read And that this kingdome doth not depend on men Christ sheweth when he saith you chose not me but I chose you Ioan. 15. And we shall ackhowledge it at what time we shall say thou hast made vs to our God a Kingdome Apoc. 5. And this is the cause why this kingdome is in the Scriptures resembled to a family Who is a faithfull and wise seruant whom his Lord hath appointed ouer his family Mat. 24. because the father of a family doth not depend on the family neither from thence hath his authority Now this being most true there followeth thereof by necessary consequence that the Vicar generall of Christ doth not depend of the Church but onely of Christ from whom he hath his whole authority as also wee see in earthly kingdoms that the Viceroy hath not his authority from the kingdom but from the King neither can be iudged or punished by the people but only by his Lord Master Behold therefore how Gerson is deceiued and he also that doth follow him and goeth contrarie to the doctrine of the holy scriptures of the sacred Councels and of manifest reason â—rier Paolo Thou shalt see here Reader a meruailous peece of Art wherewith the Author will leade thee from Christ the eternall high Bishop to an high Bishop Temporall and when he shall haue setled with thee the relation which the holy Church hath towards the diuine maiestie he will afterward conclude of the relation towards the Pope The Parisians do answere that thus the doctrine of the Catholiques doth hold that God hath called the Church to the faith and his worship and that he hath placed Christ ouer it for an head for euer who first himselfe mortall did gouerne it on earth with corporal presence but ascended into heauen doth rule it with inward influence assistance inuisible vnto the end of the world This is meant by I am constituted a King by him This meaneth that our Lord God shall
giue him the seat c. and hee shall raigne for euer This is that you chose not me but I chose you This is the kingdome in the Apocalips and thou hast made vs to our God a kingdom This Christ is the Father of the family who is owner of it and it his child and seruant Which for that it is composed of visible men the Father himselfe would that it should bee gouerned also by a man visible and hath appointed the authority which hee should haue and instituted one of them before the Church was founded but for the residue of time after it was founded hath left on earth the power to choose a successour Now with this doctrine which I am assured the author will admit yea rather will say that without it no man is Catholique the reason is answered that the Church is not a commonwealth as Venice or as Geneua which giue as much authority as themselues please to their Duke nor a kingdom which may chaunge the manner of gouerning it neither inuisibly nor visibly because that Christ hath prescribed the manner much lesse is it such a kingdom as France which hath a bloud royall where the Kings succeede by birth neither as some other by testament but as touching the inward gouernment and meerely spirituall it is not like vnto any because it hath a perpetuall and immortall King In the visible gouernment it hath a Minister as concerning his authority instituted by Christ and vndepending of the Church as concerning the application of the authority to the person electiue and depending of it Wherefore when he alledgeth and I am constituted a King by him Our Lord God shall giue him you chose not me Thou hast made vs to our God a kingdome All these places and such like others are meant of the inuisible kingdom the spirituall interior where the Pope hath no gouernment at all but onely the Sauiour which knoweth the hearts and can inflowe into them and bestow on them the graces and guifts whereby they are made Citizens of the heauenly Ierusalem Christ also is that Father of the family which depeÌ„ds not of it The high Bishop is a seruant â—et ouer the family by the Fathers therof in respect of the authority but which the family it selfe hath placed ouer it selfe in respect of the election of the person So as touching the authority it is from Christ as touching the application it is from the Church But the Author maketh the Church a family depending of the Father whom he acknowledgeth to be Christ and this beeing setled hee concludeth that the Father doth not depend of the family nor hath his authority from it Therefore the Pope cannot be subiect to the Church and passeth froÌ„ the father of the family which is Christ to the steward elected by the family it selfe which is the Pope Let him stand firme in the similitude for he shal neuer find in the Gospell that any other is called father of the family but God the father or else Christ his Son by nature The minister is a seruant it is not fit to attribute the proprietie of God to another For which cause the example serues meruailously for Gerson as also the example which the author brings of a Vice-roy is much for the same purpose If a King of France as S Lewis the 9. should go to the conquest of the holy land shold say to the kingdome I leaue you my cosin for Viceroy with authority to administer iustice but not to make lawes not to assemble the states c. and in case he happen to faile choose ye another in his place with the same authority the authority of the elected should be from the King and master the person which the kingdome should choose should be subiect to the kingdom This is that which Gerson teacheth throughout all his works where it is seene that verily the force of the reason concludeth for him Out of the things abouesaid I will not conclude that the opinion of Gerson in this point of the supreame power Ecclesiastical either is true or is false but onely that the authors conclusion that Gerson is deceiued and that he is deceiued that doth follow him and goeth contrary to the doctrine of the holy scriptures of the sacred Councels and of manifest reason hath need of other proofes then those abouesaide The Author proceedeth Bellarmine And if he should say that which Gerson himselfe wont to say that it is written in Saint Mathew in the 18. chapter tell the Church And if hee will not heare the Church let him bee to thee as the Heathen and the Publican I would answere that in that place by the Church is ment the Prelate who is the head of the Church and so doth Saint Iohn Chrysostom expound it Homilia 61. in Mathew and Pope Innocent 3. cap. Nouit de iudiciis and so doth the practize of the vniuersall Church of all the world and of all times declare that he who will denounce a sinner to the Church and obserue this precept doth not assemble a Councell but hath recourse to the Bishop or to his vicar It is not sufficient to the Author to haue disputed with Gerson but he also giues solution to his reasons But in this place of many which Gerson bringeth and deduceth Frier Paolo the author contenteth himselfe to produce one onely and to dissolue it And this is taken from the authority of Saint Mathew tell the Church vnto which hee answereth the Church that is the Prelate and of this exposition hee maketh Chrysostome the author although the Parisians say that Chrysostom doth not say so but it seemes when a thing is accustomed to bee alleadged euery man alleadgeth it without once viewing it Chrysostome expoundeth tell the Church namely the Bishoppes and Praefidents This is that which Gerson saith to the Church representatiuely because it being not possible to assemble the whole it be comes represented by the assembly of Bishops and Praesidents And therefore they adde that vnder the name of the Church their cannot bee ment one person For in vaine should that ensue If two of you shall consent vpon earth concerning euery thing whatsoeuer they shall aske it shall bee done to them of my Father which is in heauen For where there bee two or three gathered in my name there am I in the midst of them And for confirmation of this sense they bring that Saint Paul who receiued the information against the incestuous there is plainely heard fornication among you c. It followeth I indeede absent in body but present in spirit haue already iudged as present him that hath so doone in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ you beeing gathered together and my spirit with the vertue of our Lord Iesus to deliuer such an one to Satan Where they note that Saint Paul who was then in Philippi did not write by his Briefe I excomunicate such an one but wrote to the Church that beeing
gathered together with his spirite they should do it It is not therefore repugnant to Chrysostome that to the Bishops and Praesidents may bee also ment of a generall councell Aboue there was also proposed the doubt that tell the Church were as much as to say tell thy selfe As touching the practise which sheweth that tell the Church doth meane the Prelate because recourse is had to the Bishope or his Vicar of the auncient practise I haue spoken to him with the authority of Saint Paul as touching the modern it is true that at this day the Bishope or his Vicar excommunicateth without the aduise or participation of any many times also the Register onely and that which is more important by authority delegated a Clerke of the first tonsure deputed commissary in some very light particular cause doth excommunicate a Priest Yea Leo the tenth in the councell of Lateran in the eleuenth Session by a perpetuall constitution of his hath graunted faculty to a secular person to excommunicate the very Bishoppes and that which doth more import Nauar saith chap. 27. Num. 11. that if any man shall obteine an excomunication of some Prelate if the obteiner shall not haue an intent that the party bee excommunicated hee shall not bee excommunicâ—ted Moreouer the same author saith cap 23. Num. 104. that the excommunication pronounced by the law it selfe against him that payeth not a pension for exaample sake on the vigill of the natiuity is not incurred by him that payeth it not no not in many moneths and yeares after if the creditor thereof would not haue it incurred But if on the other side after many monethes or yeares hee would haue it incurred it is reputed to haue beene incurred from the day of the debt that is from the Vigil of the natiuity and so is the stile of the Court These are the practises which are now in vse of which I say nothing else but that they growe from the interpretation which the author doth approue Gerson The ninth consideration is that contempt of the keyes is not incurred when the Pope doth most enormously and most scandalously abuse his power This consideration is true in it selfe but withall is most iniurious to the holinesse of our Lord and to the holy Sea Apostolique Bellarmine as though it did vse to abuse in such sort the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen Like to this are the arts of the moderne Hereticks who to make the Papall power odious to the world doe spread abroad the most infamous slaunders that the malignity of Satan their head can teach them And the Venetians themselues ought to abhorre and punish such defenders Here it is most easie to defend Gerson seeing hee that handles that which falleth out in a case possible yea and such as hath happened Frier Paolo doth not wrong them which doe well but notes them that doe ill This consideration therefore is not iniurious to the holie Sea Apostolique which neuer doth ill howsoeuer by humaine fragility some sitting in it haue committed some falt whatsoeuer They which write the liues of the Popes and Platina in particular doe recount so many falts that taking the time from 820. downewarde it will bee an hard matter to tell whether the number of the good or of the bad bee the greater It might bee saide by the authors reason that the C. Si Papa of Boniface Martyr is greatly iniurious to the person of Pope Gregorie the second and to the Sea Apostolique where hee saith if the Pope shal bee negligent of the saluation of his brethren vnprofitable and remisse in his actions silent of good and lead innumerable people by heapes vnto Hell no man may reproue him as though Boniface did therefore say that the Apostolique Sea were wont to commit such falts It followeth not neither is it true that the Heretiques alone reprehend their euill actions but much more the Ecclesiasticall writers and the Historians catholique I will not speake of Platina who is all full of it But all the German Historians Regnius Eâ—ithprandus Segebertus Otho of the French Annonius Addo and so the Italians of all times And not to goe seeking the old Frances Guicâ—arden is in euery mans handes though many thinges of that nature haue beene cut out and you may see how hee speaketh There is difference betweene the manner of the Heretiques speaking and that of Gerson they reproue the doctrine Gerson speakes of abuses Whosoeuer shall read Saint Bernard de consideratione ad Eugenium wil not finde fault with foure wordes in Gerson and that considering his considerations are in a necessary cause Euery man may be in a meruaile at such a great contradiction that the consideration of Gerson is true in it selfe and it most iniurious to the Sea Apostolique as though the Sea Apostolique receiued iniury from the truth Hee cannot receiue iniury from the truth that doth not ground himselfe vpon falshood And so likewise that it is true in it selfe but like to the arts of the moderne hereticks as though Gerson now an huÌ„dreth and fifty yeares since could haue learned of the moderne hereticks This is like to the prohibiting of the vse of the diuine scripture because the hereticks serue their turnes with it That the consideration is true in it selfe and that the Venetians ought to abhor it seemeth no very good doctrine to teach to abhor the truth and a truth necessary for the maintenaunce of the liberty and power which God hath giuen them Now the last part where the author saith that they ought to punish such defenders is not well vnderstood I defend at this present the innocency of Gerson but I know not who were his defenders when the author wrote Besides that to punish the defenders of truth seasonably spoken and in a necessary cause is not wont to be done by any just and godly prince and especially by that commonwealth which hath euer professed the Catholicke truth It may bee well saide to him whom a necessary truth displeaseth Euery one that doth ill hateth the light And hee should not say amisse that should say that the doctrine of the author were most iniurious to al the Cleargie and to all the Church because he will not haue him reproued that would ravin the treasures of the church vsurp vpon the possessions or reduce the Clergie with their goods into abiect seruitude or causlesly spoile them of their rights For these are the wordes of Gerson which it had bin well that the author had here produced Gerson The tenth consideration is that they do not incurre contempt of the keies who procure defence for themselus against such pretensed judgements by meanes of the secular power seeing the law of nature teacheth to resist force by force This is a pernicious doctrine and from which infinite Scandals may ensue For although that sentence is true Bellarmine Vim vi repellere licet that is it is lawfull to resist violence with violence yet
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