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
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
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
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
the family ouer him Saint Cyprian saith that the supreame power of choosing such Priests as are worthie and refusing vnworthy doth principally rest in the people and if the author will read the place he shall perceiue that hee speaketh of Bishoppes particularly though in the wordes alledged he mentioned Priests and withall that it is not onely Cyprians Epistle but the Epistle of 36. Bishoppes and written to the common people of Leon Asturia and Emerita and if hee will let him read the 14. Epistle of the 3. Booke such authorities as these wee ought to alledge for the maintenance of our cause and not come in with such misticall and those inforced explications as the author doth in this place where if he had bin disposed to deale sincerely hee should haue alledged that place of Saint Luke intirely Quis putat est fidelis dispensator prudens quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam vt det illis in tempore tritici mensuram and then it maketh against the author for this seruant cannot bee a generall dispenâ—er of all the Lords treasure to whom he hath committed nothing saue onely the distribution of the Corne there are many other things to bee distributed as meat drinke and apparrell all which his Lord will commit vnto him if hee behaue himselfe faithfully in this particular office for thus he saith Beatus ille Seruus quem cum venerit dominus inuenerit ita facientem vere dico vobis quoniam super omnia quae possidet constituet illum Let him read the place and see whether it can receiue any other interpretation If either the Pope or any other to whome the charge of all thinges is already committed be that faithfull Steward what are those other thinges which shal afterwardes bee committed vnto him for hauing so wel discharged his duty in this administration if the author will say that wee are to vnderstand those wordes of the Coelestiall Paradise wee must answere that the charge thereof is peculiar to Christ and the Angels the holy Popes entring into the kingdome of heauen receiue from God a rewarde of their labours but their gouernments they leaue behinde them and are for euer exempted from labour as for the wordes that follow Quod si dixerit seruus ille in corde suo c. From whence the author will gather that if Gods high Steward doth misbehaue himselfe hee reserueth the punishment of him to himselfe and will not impart it to his family I answere that the consequence doth not hold in all Stewards neither can the example which hee bringeth of a vice roy availe him to this purpose it is one thing when the father of a family being absolute Lord of it doth commit the gouernment to another but if the father of the family shall giue leaue to his family to choose them a gouernour with such and so great authority ouer their Maisters treasure as hee himselfe shall set downe it is a case of far different consideration in like sort different it is when a King who hath no dependence of his kingdomes shal constitute a Vice-roy and when he giueth leaue to his subiects to choose theÌ„ one with such authority as hee himselfe shall prescribe for in the first case I acknowledge that the family hath no power ouer their gouernour nor the subiects ouer the Vice-roy but in the 2. case as the family hath power to institute him so hath it also power to censure his actions And the subiects in like sort the actions of the Vice-roy and as the Cardinall Bellarmine saith that the authority which the Church hath of choosing the Pope is nothing els but an applying of the power to the person so Gerson in his book which he writeth vpon this occasion saith that when the Church doth iudge the Pope it doth no more but separate the power from that person if Christ had so instituted the Popes as it should haue bin in their powers to appoint their successors peraduenture that might haue followed which the author would inferre that the Church should haue no power ouer the Pope but hee which affirmeth that God hath giuen power to the Church to annexe power to the person should also haue shewed that it hath not the selfe same authority to remoue it but the common doctrine that the pope hath no authority of electing a successor doth euedently declare that he is not a gouernor of the first sort deputed immediatly from the father of the family but of the secoÌ„d elected of the family by the fathers appointment and with this doctrine doth Gerson answere that of Pasce oues meas and all other places of Scripture like vnto it Namelie that although hee which is by the owner appointed to bee ouer the flocke is not subiect to the flocke yet if it be such a flocke as hath power to chuse a sheepheard the sheapheard when he is chosen shall be subiect vnto it the faithfull flocke of Christ ought to resemble sheepe in humblenesse and innocencie yet ought they not to be so sheepish or foolish as to forgoe the authority which their owner hath bestowed vpon them either of choosing them a good sheapheard or of judging a wicked Saint Augustine doth proue with reasons vnanswerable that doctrines are to be grounded only vpon the literall sense of the scripture and not vpon any mysticall interpretation whosoeuer will read all that chapter shall easily vnderstand the meaning of our Sauiour and the literall sense of the Gospell Hee spake to his disciples and consequently to all Christians beginning at those words about the middle of the chapter dixitque ad discipulos suos that they should not take thought for the things of this world because God had prepared another kingdome for them that they should be watchfull in wel doing as not knowing wheÌ„ the Lord will cal that if the goodman of the house knew at what hower the thiefe would come hee should find him watching in like sort they should be prepared because Christ will come at an hower when we thinke not then Peter said vnto him Master tellest thou this parable to vs or euen to all Christ replied who thinkest thou is that dispensator fidelis prudens c. inferring therby that he spake to all whereas if it had bin spoken onely to his Viccar it would follow that the commaundement of watching of not regarding the thinges of this world of waiting for the kingdome of heauen and the vnexpected comming of Christ should haue beene giuen to him alone but because such commaundements as these are equally giuen to all the faithfull the litterall meaning is that they all are these faithfull stewards which God hath commaunded to exercise their charity by imparting their goods and other abilities which God hath bestowed vpon them to the rest of his familie this is that measure of wheate and that office for the faithfull administration whereof God will multiplie his blessinges vpon them this then as all interpreters