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
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
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
himselfe either to the Church or to the Councell The third that this decree can haue no force saue onely for the redressing of that Schisme for there beeing at that time no Pope in the Councell the Councell was a body without a head and consequently had no authoritie to determine any thing in matters of Fayth or in other matters of like importance And though Pope Martin the fifth did ratifie that Councell yet did he ratifie it onely so farre foorth as the decrees were made Conciliariter as those were which were decreed against the heresies of Iohn Wickliffe and Iohn Husse but that decree of the Superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope was not decreed Conciliariter that is to say vpon deliberation and disputations preceding and by an orderly collection of the voyces of the Fathers but it was a decree simply intended for the redressing of that Schisme wherevpon afterwardes Pius the second in the Councell of Mantua did excommunicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell The selfesame excommunication was renewed by Julius the second as is testified by Siluâ—ster Vâ—rbo excoÌ„municatio 7. Nu. 93. And since that time all the Popes haue renewed it in the Bull intituled In caena Domini Finally Pope Martin the fift by the consent of that Councell of Constance declareth that they which are suspected of Heresie ought to be interrogated of many Articles and perticularly whether they doe beleeue that the Pope hath the supreame power in the Church of God and certainely if the supreame power be in the Pope the Pope cannot be inferiour to the Councell for so the superioritie should rest in the Councell and not in the Pope whereby it doth appeare that the Councell of Constance in that decree of the 4. Ses is so to be vnderstoode as wee haue expounded it otherwise it should be contrary to it selfe and admitting that there is a contrarietie wee ought rather to giue credite to the second decree beeing made by the Pope and the Councell together then to the first beeing made by the Councell without the Pope that is to say by a body without a head Frier Paulo I will not affirme the opinion of Gerson to be true or mayntaine either his doctrine or his reasons in this Apologie but this I will say that the reasons which the Author doth produce against him haue been considered and answered eyther by Gerson himselfe or by some other of his opinion which haue written since his time and here I will set downe some of those resolutions not that I intende to take vpon mee to determine any thing but onely to shew that the question is to be disputed with more sollide arguments and that Writers so excellent both for learning and pietie are not so hastily to be condemned Concerning that Councell of Constance alleadged by Gerson our Author hath three Obseruations The first is that that Councell hath no where declared it Heresie to denie the superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope if the Authors meaning be that these expresse wordes it is Heresie to denie the superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope are not to be found in the Councell he speaketh but the trueth if he will say further that the Councell of Constance hath not said that hee is Anathema which denieth the Superioritie of the Councell hee sayeth as truely Neuerthelesse Gerson doth deny that the Councell hath not determined it which I desire may be taken for Gersons opinion and not mine owne and after such manner as is vsuall in matters of Fayth and sayth that it was reputed Heresie to holde the contrary this is to be seene in the fourth Ses where these wordes are vsed Ordinat disponit statuit decernit declarat And in the fift Ses where the same doctrine is repeated in these wordes Ordinat dâ—fiâ—â—â— decernit declarat And because Gerson sayth in this consideration that it is Heresie condemned by most expresse constitution put in practise by the said councell of Constance as is else where more largely set down The author may read the places mentioned by Gerson in his workes where he shall see that which will serue for answere to these obiections The Councell of Trent hath doubtlesse condemned it for Heresie to denie Purgatorie yet you shall not find where it sayth that it is Heresie to denie Purgatorie or that he is Anathema which doth denie it But the doctrine of Purgatorie is sufficiently expressed in Ses 25. and 22. in such sort as it is euident that it is determined as a matter of Fayth and hee which in the question of Purgatorie should vse the Authors wordes and say that the Councell of Trent hath no where declared it Heresie to denie Purgatorie let him read ouer the Councell againe and againe and no such thing shall there be found should shew that hee is more ententiue to the wordes then to the meaning of the Councell In like manner it may be sayd of Gerson The second Obseruation of the Author against Gerson is That men of most learning doe expounde this Decree of the Councell of Constance as spoken of a Pope vncertaine which is most true and not of a certaine Pope this second Obiection doth in all and euery part of it contradict the former for if the Decree of the Councell bee it what it will doth not make him an Hereticke which is of a contrary opinion and that it be to be vnderstood of a Pope vncertaine then it is no Heresie to denie that a Pope vncertaine is subiect to a Councell But to say that such a Pope is not subiect to a Councell is manifestly heresie so that whosoeuer will affirme that the Decree is to be expounded of a Pope vncertain must acknowledge it to be such a Decree as maketh the contrarie opinion to be Hereticall And whosoeuer will affirme that it is not a Decree of this nature must affirme also that it is vnderstood of a Pope certaine It is true as the Author sayth that very Learned men doe expound it as spoken of a Pope vncertaine but it is as true that very Learned doe expound it as spoken of a Pope certaine yet this difference is to be obserued that they which doe expounde it of a Pope vncertaine were not present at the Councell But they which doe vnderstand it of a Pope certaine were all those which were present at the Councell and haue left any writings and besides them all those which suruiued and beeing not otherwise hindered were present in the Councell of Basill which of necessitie must be many because betweene these two Councels there was the space of fifteene yeares Furthermore the Author ought to obserue that Gerson doth not onely say condemned but practised and to consider the practise of that Councell and obserue if that Councell did not commaund as well the Popes certaine as vncertaine let him read the Ses 17. and there he shall finde that the Councell doth decree that no
future Pope shall haue power to depose Angelo Corrario formerly called Gregorie 12. eyther from beeing a Cardinall or from his office of Legate Della Marca which the Councell bestowed vpon him or haue any power to call him in question or proceed against him for any thing which he had taken vpon him to do in the Papacie Let him read also Ses 39. which insued the deposing of all the Popes vncertaine where it commaundeth all future Popes within a time limitted to summon a generall Councell And here let him marke the wordes whereby it bindeth all Popes to the execution of it let him then turne ouer to the Ses 44. where Martin the .5 after he is elected executed the Decree and let him obserue the word Teneatur which is both in the Decree of the Councell and in the execution of it Afterwardes in the last Ses the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania made humble supplication to the Pope that before the dissolution of the Councell a certaine Booke of a Frier call'd Iohn Falkembergh might be condemn'd in publike Session otherwise protesting in the behalfe of their Maisters De grauamine de appellando ad futurum Concilium Neither did the Pope finde himselfe any way agreeued at this protestation nor the Councell thinke it strange and by the practise of this Decree the Author may vnderstand how it may be from hence collected that a Pope Canonnically chosen and vndoubtedly accepted for Pope is bound to the obedience of the Church and of the Councell which conclusion the Author doth affirme cannot be collected from that Councell of Constance and therefore let him compare the Decree with the practise alleadged and he shall see that Gersons speach deserueth no reprehension The third Obseruation is that the Decree can haue no further force saue only for redressing of that Scisme because it was the worke of a body without a head but foreseeing an Obiection that might be made against him drawne from the confirmation of Martin the 5. the Author notes that the Councell was approoued by the Pope onely so farre foorth as the Actes were decreed Conciliariter but this was not so that is vpon disputation preceding and with an orderly collection of the voyces of the Fathers And where I pray you doth the Author finde that this Decree was made without deliberation and disputation or without collection of the Fathers voyces Peraduenture he meanes because it is not set downe in wryting by that reason in the Councell of Trent nothing was decreed Conciliariter because there is no mention made either of suffrages or disputations So then though the disputations wherevpon that Decree was made were not set downe in writing yet it is to be beleeued that there were disputations and the rather for that the workes of very worthy men were written at that time of this subiect amongst which that learned Booke of Gerson was one De potestate Ecclesiastica origine viris Legum as any man may knowe who will read it Moreouer Gerson in this consideration doth declare that this question was very much disputed for that it was begunne in the Councell of Pisa which was fiue yeares before that of Constance And who then can doubt but that in the Councell of Pisa in the Councell of Constance and in the interim of those fiue yeares but that the difficulties were exactly considered in the determination of it the suffrages orderly collected But if any man will read the confirmation of Martin .5 hee shall euidently perceiue that Conciliariter doth not signifie that which the Author would haue it but is an interpretatiue In the 45. and last Session of that Councell it is sayd That the Masse and Letanie beeing ended the Cardinall of S. Vito by the commaundement of the Pope and of the Councell sayd Domini ite in pace wherevnto Amen was answered and afterward a Bishop beeing by order from the Pope about to make a Sermon for the conclusion of the Councell The Ambassadours of the King of Polonia and of the great Duke of Lituania did demaund in the name of their Maisters as hath been already touched that Falkembergh's Booke might be condemned in publike Session which was formerly condemned by those that were deputed in causa fidei and of the Nations of the Councell and of the Colledge of Cardinals the Popes answere was that he did confirme whatsoeuer the Councell had concluded and determined in matters of Fayth Conciliariter and not otherwise whereby it doth appeare that Conciliariter is apposed to that which the Ambassadors had alleadged Namely that the Booke was condemned seuerally by those that were deputed in causa fidei by the Nations and by the Colledge of Cardinals and that Conciliariter doth signifie as much as if he should haue sayd In publique Session But let vs yet come somewhat nearer the matter if this answere of the Pope were giuen vpon some vnexpected proposition happening made after the end of the Councell then neither was the Councell approued before neither was it the Popes intention to approue it And if these Pollaxes had not profered this proposition the condemnation of Wickliffe and Husse had not been authenticall and it will follow that a generall Councell was accidentally confirmed And yet this is as tollerable as many other thinges which are vsuall with our Author That Councell was a body without a head to conclude that in the vacancie of the Chaire Apostolique the Church is to be reputed vnperfect as beeing defectiue in some Essentiall part After the death of Marcelinus the Church continued seauen yeares a halfe without a Pope vnder Diocletians persecution as Damasus doth testifie And who will therefore affirme that the Church was defectiue in some Essentiall part in that time of so great perfection I know that some men do not beleeue that the vacancie had so long continuance mooued therevnto by some probable inducementes But it is more credible that Damasus should know the truth of it being himselfe a Pope 69. yeares after the death of Marcelinus and borne shortly after that vacancie then wee in our time vpon vncertaine coniectures But let this be as it will let vs speake of things which are certaine Vpon the death of Clement the fourth in the yeare 1270. the Church was without a Pope wel-nie three yeares Shall it therefore be said that the Church was all that while without a head No rather let vs hold the doctrine of S. Ciprian and S. Augustine 24 quaest 1. C. Quodcunque C. lequitur The author concludeth his Discourse of the inualiditie of this forenamed decree of the Councell of Constance saying Wherevpon afterwardes Pius the second in the Councell of Mantua doth excommunicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell Heere we are to obserue that there may be a Fallacie in the worde Onde Wherevpon for it may import as though Pope Pius the second did excommunicate such appealance because the Pope is superiour to the Councell
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
to the true construction there is much more power both in heauen and in earth which the Pope hath not then that he hath and therefore that proposition which by one instance onely doth proue vntrue hauing more instances against it then examples for it is most false The Author saith he thinkes he may most truly say that the Popes authority is so great that few can comprehend it And I belieue it too because truth is one and the same thing and falshood infinite Many ascribe to him lesse then is requisite and many more so as the residue is but small which giue him iust that which is his due The Cardinall Bellarmine in his worke de Romano Pontifice makes a long discourse prescribing limits to the Popes authority and touching many thinges which the Pope him selfe cannot do now were this discourse very impertinent if his authority could not exceede And for that he saith the Pope can doe all thinges which are necessary to conduct a soule into paradise can take away all impediments which the world or the Diuell can lay in the way with all their strength and subtilty This proposition is faire in shew but false in deed To conduct the soule of an infant into paradise which is yet in the mothers belly and cannot be brought forth aliue necessary it is one way or other to make it partaker of grace can the Pope then do it no truly for neither can he institute a sacrament for this purpose nor graunt that the childe shoulde bee cut out of the mothers belly and therefore can not the Pope do any thing necessary to conduct this soule into Paradise A man beeing actually in some mortall sinne and in this case depriued of his wits cannot be saued vnlesse he recouer his sense againe and repent himselfe can the Pope restore him to his wits againe I beleeue he cannot and yet is this necessary for this mans saluation Nothing is more necessary to saluation then the internall motions of the minde ouer which S. Thomas denieth that the Pope hath any power Infinite are the things which are necessary for the cōducting a soule into paradise which I can shew not to be subiect to the Popes authority Yet if it were Gods will I wish he could as the Author saith remoue all impediments which the world and the Diuell can lay in the way with all their subtilty for then shold we haue neither Turks nor Hereticks The impedimēts are likewise infinite which are dayly cast in the way by the enemies of the kingdome of Christ for which the Pope must content himselfe without further remedy then onely to pray nonos inducas in tentationem c. God hath not onely not giuen authority to the Pope to remoue all impediments which are laide in the way by the world and the Diuell but hath thought it for the good of the Church to permit many of them The Reader may well perceiue with how good reason Gerson doth giue admonishment that the simple people be wel instructed because that here are foure propositions pronounced with one breath by a great man of great learning which are manifestly false all to inlarge that power which God hath giuen beyond the bounds within which his diuine maiesty hath restrained it We will soone rid our hands of the 12. consideration because the obiection is but short The 12. consideration is Gerson that those do nourish the contempt of the keyes who when they should resist the abuse of them are diuided within themselues and hinder each other The truth is that all fauourable and humble endeuours must bee vsed with the Pope when vpon ill information hee pronounceth an vniust sentence But if this humble diligence will not preuaile then is hold to bee laide of a stout and manlike liberty Bellarmine This consideration was to good purpose in Gersons time because there being then a schisme of three Popes which did thunder out excommunications each vpon others adherents it was fit at that time that the faithfull should vnite themselues to extinguish this schisme and make small accoūt of those excommunicatiōs since it stood in doubt which of them was the Vicar of Christ and notwithstanding the saide excommunications might still intend the businesse of the vnion of the Church But now that by Gods grace we haue but one onely Pope and hee vndoubted and certaine this consideration is nothing to the purpose nor serues for any thing but to make a new schisme of the members against their owne head If the Author conceiue that Gerson wrote this doctrine in a time of schisme let him but looke backe to the eight cōsideration and hee shall plainely perceiue this treatise was written after the councell of Constance Frier Paolo and at such time as there was but one onely vndoubted Pope But if the Author haue some more subtile meaning by himselfe it is hard to bee guest at though it may well be suspected because there is no likely-hoode that hee should not obserue the time when the treatise was written but this consideration being written by Gerson I see not in what manner it can be applied to a former time It doth likewise plainely appeare that it can haue no reference to a time of schisme which happily Gerson might misdoubt would follow because there is nothing saide of the vnion of the Church but onely of the meanes how to take away the abuses And further as long as the Pope is certaine and vndoubted that reuerend respect which Gerson doth aduise vnder the stile of fauourable and humble endeuours is not due vnto him but doth onely belong to the true vndoubted Bishope of Rome And to dispute no longer of this matter the Reader reading Gerson and that which the author obiecteth considering whether there may not be abuse of the keyes euen when there is no schisme and how those which should make resistance are diuided amongst themselfes and out of simplicity or basenesse hinder each other some giuing countenance to the abuses which others would willingly take away may see what it is that is here truely and precisely spoken of and whether the obiection may goe for currant But that which he saith in the conclusion that this consideration serues for nothing but to raise new schisme can not bee saide but by him that will likewise affirme that Saint Gregories doctrine in the chapter Admonendi which we haue before alledged is false and that it serues to raise schisme when he saith that subiects must bee admonished that they make not themselues more subiect then is conuenient lest they should bee enforced to flatter them in their vices to whome they haue made themselues more subiect then they should be But this 12. consideration doth fitly serue to take away abuses in the Church of God which the faithfull for many ages past haue earnestly desired It serues to keepe the holy Church in peace and tranquillity Nay rather it serues to preuent schisme
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
him say the contrarie that the abuses of the keyes in the Pope are more daungerous then the abuses of inferiours from whence it may bee gathered that lesse respect is due to that Sea then to the Seas of other Prelates Is this to dispute or is it to enforce men to hould opinions to bee sure of something to contradict How can the Author answere it Gersons principall scope in this consideration is nothing else but to make it appeare that in opposing against the commaundements and censures of prelates wee must also haue a further regarde that wee oppose not against those of the Pope and tells the reason of it because from inferiours wee may haue recourse to the Pope And maketh an obiection against himselfe if any man should say that wee may appeale in like sorte from the Pope to a Councell hee answereth that this allegation hath sometime beene held of no force namely when the Popes haue beene said to bee aboue the Councell But howsoeuer this cannot bee said saith hee at this instant for those reasons which hee alleadgeth neuerthelesse euen acknowledging that this is true yet for another reason it is more dangerous to resist him because Councells cannot easilie bee sollemnized nor ought not vppon so small occasions as the hearing of appeales Lo here the true sense of this consideration from which if you remoue that point of Superioritie you shall finde nothing which euen in the Authors opinion can bee worthy of reprehension And this is spoken by the way But the Author mindeing onely his owne ends and looking no further hath taken this for a principall parte of the consideration saying it containes a very great and manifest errour and that hee which did produce it with a purpose to apply it to the businesse nowe in hande discouereth himselfe not to bee Catholiquely affected hee knoweth verie well that his Common-wealth neuer thought it conuenient to take the benifit of an appeale for both the Prince and Senate haue made publique declaration whereupon they intend to insiste this then cannot bee produced with a purpose for the present affaires What intention hee had which did interpret Gerson before the publishing this declaration no man can coniecture neither is it charitable to iudge But whereas hee saith that hee is not catholiquely affected it may bee hee doth not remember the Doctrine of the Cardinall Bellarmine who in his second booke of the authoritie of a Counsell and thirteenth chapter intituled An consilium sit supra Papam saith quamuis postea in concilio Florentino Lateranensi vltimo videatur questio diffinita tamen quia Florentinum Concilium non ita expresse hoc diffimuit de Concilio Lateranensi quod expressissimè rem diffiniuit non nulli dubitant an fuerit vere generale Ideo vsque ad hanc diem quastio superest etiam inter Catholices Let him reuiew this doctrine written before this passion wherewithall the present affayres are accompanied because to free himselfe from this contradiction I see not what he can alleage saue only that in the 17. chapter he speaketh otherwise saying as followeth of the Lateran Councell Quod vero Conciliū hoc rem istam non diffinirit propriè vt decretum de Fide Catholica tenendum dubium est ideo non sunt propriè haeretici qui contrarium sentiuut sed à temeritate magna excusari non possunt Certainely there seemeth to be little agreement betweene these two so neere neighbouring places for to charge them with rashnesse whom himselfe cannot denie to be Catholickes seemeth to proceede from no great aboundance of Charitie but this last place will not inable him to prooue that the interpreter is not Catholickely affected for an opinion may sometimes be rash and yet more true then the contrarie In times past the common opinion was that the Angels were corporall and it was then accounted rashnesse to affirme that they are incorporall at this time the common opinion is that they are in corporeall and it is no longer rashnesse to maintaine it and so for our purpose But Martin Nauara vpon the Chapter Nouit de iudiciis alleaging the words of Iohn Maior doth verie well declare that the question is in controuersie and that in Rome it is not permitted to holde the doctrine of Panormitan which vpholdeth the Souerainety of the Counsell neyther doth the vniuersitie of Paris allow that any man should hold the contrarie 4 What shall we say of Iohn Mariana a moderne Iesuite who in his booke de Rege approoued by the publicke examination of the Iesuits as also by another examination made by the authority Royall of Spayne saith plainely that great Authors are of contrarie opinions in this question but certainely this cannot be cald a rash opinion because rash opinion according to Melchior Canus who hath exactly handled the definition of it is such a one as hath lney ther reason nor authority to approoue it or otherwise is ouer bold y maintayned but an opinion which hath the consent of as many and 〈…〉 if not a greater number of Vniuersities Countries and Kingdomes cannot be sayd to be mayntained without reason authoritie nor yet audaciously It is not a charitable course so hastily to condemne men of rashnes but if the Author would needs Discouer his affection he should haue expressed his meaning in three or foure wordes and saued the labour of so long a Discourse to shew that Gerson held a false opinion and enforce men to thinke of so great an Author that hee affirmeth that which hath no affinitie with his wordes for he makes a solemne entraunce to the handling of the question and sayth thus And to begin with the Councell of Constance Bellarmine three thinges are to be obserued in it The first that that Councell did neuer declare it heresie to denie that the Councell was superiour to the Pope let him ouerlooke that Councell againe and againe and nothing shall be found in it tending to that purpose The second that the aboue-mentioned Councell in the 4. Sess maketh a decree wherein it doth declare that that Councell of Constance doth represent the Church vniuersall and hath authoritie immediatly from Christ wherevnto euery one is bounde to yeelde obedience euen the Pope himselfe which decree as by men of most learning it is interpreted is not to be extended to all Popes but onely to those of whom men are not certaine whether they be Popes or noe which was the case at that time when three seuerall persons tooke vpon them the Papasie and had their seuerall followers And in this case it is most certaine that the Church hath power to declare to whom the Papacie doth appertaine and that they which in time of Scisme doe contende for it are subiect to the determination of the Church and of the generall Councell But when once the Pope is canonically chosen and vndoubtedly accepted for Pope it cannot be gathered out of that decree that he is bound to submit
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