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
point in question and that his meaning is indeed that the Pope doth snatch at the Churches treasures c. No it is no such matter but peraduenture the Author who saith ful wel the reasons why this present fifth consideration maketh for the present purpose he laies it couragiously all at once vpon the Interpretor Now whether S. Pauls example be well alleaged by Gerson or no I will say but this that yet Cardinall Cajetan hath alleaged it to this selfe same purpose in his Opuscula and Cardinall Bellarmine alleageth Cajetan in his second booke de Romano Pontifice to the very same purpose directs vs to see the place yea and this example hath beene yet further alleaged to the same purpose by Dominicus Solus and by Franciscus Victoria and by other most renowmed Doctors It is true which the Author saith that S. Paul resisted not S. Peter for any excommunication matter because it was not then the vse to thunder it out as now it is and that S. Paul proceeded against the incestuous Corinthian precisely according to Christs institution but it is also true withall that S. Peter at Antiochia in the fact we speake of did by his example as it were silently command all them that were present in that place and Saint Paul affirmes it Et simulationi eius consenserunt caeteri Iudaei ita vt Barnabas duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem To this silent precept S. Paul made resistancie and let not the Author tell vs that there was no question or meaning there of any precept and obedience For in deed it was intended and meant but ouermuch but further the consequence of it selfe is very strong that if we may resist a Superior in a precept which he makes out silently by his owne examples much more may we do it against a precept expresse and fulminatory I see not to what end the Author after this brings in the story how S. Paule went to visit S. Peter and to conferre with him of the Gospell which he preached sure I am the scripture saith not so the words are these Deinde post annos tres veni Hierosolymam videre Petrum mansi apud eum diebus quindecim Alium autem Apostolorum vidi neminem nisi Iacobum fratrem Domini Quae autem scribo vobis ecce coram Deo quia non mentior deinde veni in partes Syriae c. There is indeed in the next Chapter Deinde post annos quatuordecim iterum ascendi Hierosolymam cum Barnabo assumpto Tito ascendi autem secundum reuelationem contuli cum illis Euangelium quod praedico in gentibus In his first voyage he speakes of his visiting S. Peter but not a word of any conferring with him in the second not a word of visiting but he speakes indeed of conferring not with S. Peter but cum illis howsoeuer true it is that S. Peter was among them Here the Author hath put for one onely vyage two of S. Pauls seuerall voyages the one more then 14. years distant from the other And that same Contuli cum illis which is meant with the whole Church of Ierusalem or if you will not take it so then at least with the three Apostles Iames Caefas and Iohn for S. Paul names them in this order the Author vnderstands it he conferred with Peter But I would faine know why when he treats of this conferring he doth not here add Mihi enim qui videbantur esse aliquid nihil contulerunt Sed è contra cum vidissent quod creditum est mihi Euangelium praeputij sicut Petro circumcisionis Qui enim operatus est Petro in Apostolatum circumcisionis operatus est mihi inter gentes cum cognouissent gratiam quae data est mihi Iacobus Caefas Ioannes qui videbantur columnae esse dextras dederunt mihi Barnabae societatis vt not in gentes ipsi autem incircumcisionem tantum vt pauperum memores essemus for it may be that out of these wordes he would haue drawen the deduction of the consequence The scripture recounts vs two of S. Peters actions for which he was reprehended after he had receiued the holy Ghost one in the Epistle to the Galathians the second in the 11. of the Actes when the Iewes that were conuerted contended against Saint Peter for hauing receiued the Gentiles into the Church In the first there was a fault on Peters part in the second he was blamed without cause Saint Paul said it of the olde Testament Quaecunque scripta sunt ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt and we may say the same of both old and new For in this second example a superiour is taught with what charitie and with what manner of doctrine he ought to informe his subiects capacitie and vnderstanding in case he doe contend with him yea though it be against reason Saint Peter he did not excommunicate those Iewes but instructed them with the authoritie of diuine reuelations and if there ought to haue beene vsed any other manner of proceeding with the State of Venice let the Author shew me but one example in the scripture that we may rest vpon it In that other example of the Epistle to the Galathians since he doth not repeat that which Saint Peter aunswered but only what S. Paul opposed there is no instruction giuen the Prelate but to the inferiour how he ought to carie himself when the superior abuseth his authority And this selfesame note shews how farre of it is from this scriptures true sense that God should thus dispose that that then fell out to shew Peters humility for that it would haue been pertinent to haue set downe the humble answere of that Saint but contrariwise the scripture omits what S. Peter said and sets downe onely S. Pauls graue rebuke to demonstrate it that the exāple was giuen not for S. Peters humility but to instruct inferiors how they ought to beare themselues toward their superiours and in that there is no mention made of any scandall at all that grew after vpon it we may likewise hope that if now there shall grow any it shall be but an offence taken and not giuen If the Author haue yet any other place of scripture where any superiour hath exceeded his bounds and the inferiour hath not made conuenient opposition let him produce it and we will in like sort rest vpon it We doe conceiue this consequence for formall strong Saint Peter erred Ergo euery Pope may erre Saint Paul a most humble man made him resistance Ergo resistance will not misbeseeme one of lesse humilitie Now to let him know how sound this consequence it is I will tell him that Caietan in his tractat de authoritate papae Consilii where he affirms that he ought to resist the Pope to his face when he abuseth his authoritie after a long discourse he saith thus Abusui namque potestatis qui destruit obuiam eam congruis
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
point concerning the sufficiencie of the decree made touching censures we should haue beene freed of much labour if as well the acts as the decrees of the councell had beene printed To this day if any acts of the Councell of Ephesus be found which was at least 1200. yeares agoe or of the Councell of Nice which is more auncient they are embraced and receaued with all greadinesse The acts of the holy Councell of Trent are extant I leaue it to the authors great wisedoÌ„e to iudge whether it were not good they were published Sure I am that they would resolue and cleare this doubt we haue in hand To the second obiection I could haue wished that he which is so curious to finde faults in the translation of Gerson would haue beene more exact faithfull in translating the words of the Councell The Councell saith Nefas sit seculaeri cuilibet magistratus The author interprets it thus let lay men take heed eueÌ„ those which are placed in publicke authoryty I suppose that any grammar scoller will expound Saeculari cuilibet magistratui for any secular magistrate and not for lay men euen those which are placed in publike office so that of priuat persons there is nothing spoken but the translator of Gerson desired instruction for deuout and religious coÌ„sciences and not for magistrates and the author hath added these words lay men to include priuate persons contrary to the meaning of the Councell Those other words likewise Sub praetextu quod contenta in praesenti decreto non sunt obseruata are not truely rendred by him in these words vpon pretence that it is not done orderly and according to the due forme he should haue sayd thus vpon pretence that the things are not obserued which are contayned in this present decree for there are many other due formes and rules in Saint Mathew Saint Paulâ— and S. Augustine which are not contayned in the decrees of that Councel The Councell forbiddeth lay magistrates that they shall not by their authority commaund any excommunication that is denounced to be reuoked vpon pretence that all things were not therein obserued that are contayned in that decree But if some other things be omitted which ought to be obserued the councell doth not determine whether in such cases lay magistrates may commaund the censure to be reuoked And peraduenture in some case they may according as they vse to doe in the Parliaments of France It is euident therefore that the councell hath giuen no instruction to deuoute and religious consciences that is to such as are vniustly excommunicated and to them which liue among them who are to conuerse and communicate with them what their duty is in that case which is the point that Gersons translator desired But after the Author hath alleaged the words of the councell Nefas autem sit saeculari cuilibet magistratui prohibere ecclesiastico Iudici ne quem excommunicet aut mandare vt latam excommunicationem reuocet sub praetextu quod contenta in praesenti decreto non sint obseruata cum non ad seculares sed ecclesiasticos haec cognitio pertineat thus he goeth on These are the words of the holy councell which hath prouided for euery thing and hath taught vs that the office and duety of secular magistrates is not to resist with force and violence the publishing of excommunications as the magistrates of the common wealth of Venice do at this time Here I cannot choose but be much amased The councell saith that the magistrate ought not either to forbid ecclesiasticall Iudges to excommunicate or to commaund them to reuoke their excoÌ„munication when it is denounced The Author saith that it commaunds them not to resist the publication of an excommunication with force These things are as different as heauen and earth for the publication may be hindred without either forbidding the sentence of excommunication to be pronounced or commanding it to bee reuoked when it is pronounced The one is an act of power and iurisdiction ouer him that doth excommunicate the other an act of naturall defence which requires no iurisdiction at all doth not only appertaine to magistrates but to priuate men also as wee may see in Caitan Soto and Victoria who doe all intreat at large of the resistance that both priuate men and secular magistrates ought to make against all vnlawfull commandements especially the Popes And with them agreeth also Cardinall Bellarmine in his treatise de Romano Pontifice written in a time when this controuersie not beeing as yet begun he iudged without all passion and parciality where then doth there appeare or whence is there proued any such vntruth as the Author affirmeth that Gersons translator hath vttered against the counsell and that other point that if he had read out the whole decree hee should haue found c. So in conclusion the obiection that is made against the translator in this point is grounded onely vpon three vntrue and improper interpretations made by the Author contrary to the true sense and words of the Councell But let vs passe to the fourth point where he saith But the Author of this translation proceedeth and saith And whiles not finding that which I sought for Bellarmine I turned ouer many Authors I chaunced among the rest to light vpon Iohn Gerson a most Christian Doctor worthy of eternall memorie â—tc It cannot be denyed but Iohn Gerson was a Doctor of very great learning and piety but the vnhappines of those times by reason of the long continuance of the scisme in the Church of Rome gaue occasion to that Doctor as well as to some other of that age to thinke somewhat vnderfoote of the authority of the Apostolick seat Because that while they sought by meanes of the generall Councell to remedie the scisme to induce the Popes of seueral obediences to submit their claimes pretensions to the Councels declaratioÌ„ hereupon they set themselues to intrance the authority of CouÌ„cells beyond mesure as much to debase that of the supreme Bishop And hereupon it grew that they fell into manifest errors contrary to the holy Scriptures and to the generall iudgment of the diuines that haue beene before and since so that Gersons Authority in those matters which concerne the Popes power is not of any moment and there were enow other writers more sound which might haue beene quoted to giue vs to vnderstand how farre the force of an excommunication extends as are Saint Thomas S. Bonauenture S. Antonine and infinit others without bringing in an Author suspected yea and apparantly erroneous in the point that is now in question It had beene good dealing in the Author since he hath reported some of the honourable titles which the Interpreter giues to Gerson to haue put them downe all that so the obiection which he makes against him of beeing a debaser of the supreme Bishops authority might happily haue beene refuted For if he had adioyned the opinion which
that age held of him stiling him the most Christian Doctor and his so long continued exercise in teaching sacred diuinity and the things hee effected by his teaching his example and his publicke authority withall hee could hardly haue perswaded his reader that Gerson was a man likely to bee stirred by indiscreet affections But so powerfull is the will of contradiction that it transporteth him to detract not from Gerson alone but from the rest of the Doctors of that age and to taxe them as manifestly erronious and suspected and contrarie to the Scriptures Wee cannot denie the vnhappinesse of those times and the long durance of that scisme in the Romane Church but withall wee must needes acknowledge a much greater infelicitie in these of ours wherein so great Kingdomes haue made a totall separation from the same Church whereupon there is bred an appetite in some to supply and make vp by an intensiue way of improuement within those few regions that remaine all that was so lost in extent and territory abroad yea an infelicitie indeede may wee rightly tearme that of our times when there is not that father of the auncient Church that is not censured and when they dare take vpon them to say that if they had liued in these dayes they would not haue spoken as they haue spoken Neither is it to be beleeued that the occasions of those times did transporte men more to fauour the authority of Counsells more I say nay or any thing so much as the present occasions transport some to depresse them since it is euident that all the Kingdomes that are sequestred from the Church do desire and grone after a Councell Forasmuch as in very deede to speake in fauour of a Councell can not touch any one mans proper interest since no one person can aspire to become a Councell whereof hee must bee content to be but a fiue hundreth parte so as it is more to bee misdoubted the vnhappinesse of the present times caries on an affectation of excesse then that of the ages past did of any diminution A good zeale to cure scisme such as was that of Gerson and the rest of that age by the Authors owne confession it is not wont to transport to any peruerse opinion specially such as are no way interessed but this catiue zeale of inlarging ones own greatnes is a perilous motiue to seduce into blindnes Here I must not omit to note that it is a kinde of taxing of Gods prouidence to say that he suffered an age to fall into a manifest error contrary to the deuine scriptures an age that was moued out of a Godly zeale to reduce the holy Church to vnitie Men of much knowledge and godlines such as the Author confesseth that Gerson and the other most excellent Doctors of that age were are not suffered to fall into such errors since to fall into open errors repugnant to the Scriptures it is a defect so enormeous and exhorbitant that by the Authors good leaue I will auerre it that who so falleth into it hath no sparke of either godlines or knowledg To erre manifestly against the Scriptures is the greatest blindnesse that can happen to any Christian the greatest chasticement that God can impose in punishment of him whosoeuer shall make vse of the deuine authority to serue his owne turne in mondaine interests It is too to grose expresse a contradicton to be forced to confesse the great learning piety of Gerson and to say withall that he fell into open errours contrary to the Scriptures It is not as yet decided who holds the better opinion touching the authority of the sea apostolick whether Gerson or our Author that he should presume to pronounce it so absolutely that Gersons authority in the question of the Popes power is of no moment Moment is a terme relatiue and that which is of no moment with him is neuerthelesse of moment with others and if the Authors opinion be of value in any place then that of Gersons is esteemed of in many more But to leaue this apart in all these twelue considerations the Author could find no fault but at one only point that propounded incidētly the rest of the doctrine he must needs allow howsoeuer he streines him selfe what by limitations what by extensions to make a shewe of the contrarie yet in fine he approues all so that in direct dealing hee ought not to haue made this point of the superioritie of general councels for his principall question since that is not the point now in question nor any man affects to make any such vse of that point to drawe in his holinesse purposely for his obiect that it might beare any such construction that the defence of Gerson were in offence of his holines There wāted not saith the Author other writers more sound which might haue beene alledged and he nameth Saint Thomas S. Bonauentura S. Antonine in particular But Gersons doctrine That excommunications abusiue and nulle are not to be feared That we ought not to obey them but defend our selues against them That in cases doubtfull we ought to take aduise and that all ought to be vnited to the cōmon good it is the doctrine of both S. Thomas and of S. Bonauentura of S. Antonine of infinit others more but it is not indeed cōpacted all into one place so as it may be seene vnder one view in one small tractat as it is in this of Gersons He that will collect places out of these and out of their schollers he shall finde their doctrine I speake not here of that head touching the superiority of the Councell but of the rest to be in all and through all points conforme to that of Gersons Here I will adde this that if the author shall protest vnto me that he will admit of all S. Bonauentures doctrine who was a man of so great sanctity and knowledge I wil vndertake to produce him places that shall giue him much more trauerse then Gerson and those other of his time haue done and wel he might haue forborn these terms of suspected erronious not haue ascribed thē to one whō himselfe acknowledgeth for one of great learning religiō But let vs now heare another greater reprehension But the cause Bellarmine which induced the Author of the praeface to translate and publish Gersons two treatises is most blame-worthy of all the rest To the end saith he that euery godly and religious conscience in reading them may take comfort and not incurre that great iudgement which God sends vpon the reprobate to conceiue a feare of those things which are not to be feared Trepidauerunt timore vbi non erat timor Behold how farr mans blindnesse aspires to abuse and misapply the word of God to take away the feare of God The holy Prophet in the 13 and in the 52 Psalme he saith The vngodly feare not the true God who is most worthy to be feared Non
genus peccati This proposition is most true most expresly formall Manslaughter is worse then theft yet a manslaughter may haue such circumstances to extenuate it and a theefe such to agrauate it that the theft shall be the greater sinne He that shall hold this Authors doctrine for sound shall neuer bee able to make comparison betwixt two sins And yet for all this Gerson hath declared himselfe that hee meant not to compare them ex circumstantijs but ex genere since hee saith it making the comparison onely in the abuse Surely the Author marked not these words for then he would neuer haue made this obiection Hereupon out he comes affirmes the contrary saying that if we shall simply consider the misusing of this power and the dissobaying of this power it is the greater sin not to obay it then it is to vse it amisse And he brings his reason because he that abuseth this power offends but a man subiect to him but he that wil not obey the Prelate that commands iustly and despiseth his excommunication commits a sinne of rebellion and offends Gods Ma. in his Vicar because of qui vos spernit me spernit c. Et qui haec spernit non hominem spernit sed Deum Samuel tearmeth this despising of God in his Vicar a kinde of Idolatre Here we haue two Authors one in cōtradictiō to the other one void of passiō hauing slept in the Lord now boue 150 yeares the other a man yet liuing a partie sided in the cōtrouersie Let vs therfore examine both their reasons 1. these of this Author The words qui vos spernit me spernit we haue shewed before that they were spoken to the Preachers which publish Christs doctrine It may please the reader to peruse what we wrote in that place he will rest sufficiently informed of their meaning But let him ad this withall that at the day of iudgement Christ will say to the reprobate Quandiu non fecistis vni de minoribus his nec mihi fecistis So that there is aswell authority of Scripture to shew that Christ takes it for an iniury done to himselfe that is done to any of his faithfull and this saying of our Sauiour in the Gospell Quandiu non fecistis is not alleadged forth of it own literall sense for that admonition correction is indeede a worke of charity as on the contrary cum autoritate imperare cum potentia is against charity That of S. Paul Qui haec spernit non hominem spernit sed deum I cānot see how it is cited any thing to the purpose when S. Paul saith qui haec spernit he speakes of the things there spoken by himself how then can it now be applied to the cōmandements of the Prelate S. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to labour proceed according to the lessons of God ye know saith he what cōmandements we haue giuen you from the Lord Iesus he names them viz. that they should bee cleane they should fly fornication deceiuing their neighbors hee concludes Qui haec spernit non hominē spernit sed deū qui etiā dedit spiritum sanctū in nobis Euery man will plainly vnderstand out of S. Paules owne words that his meaning was this God hath commanded such and such things I haue intimated you his cōmandemēts he that despiseth you despiseth god who hath giuē me the holy spirit to intimat his preceps vnto you Let vs now make the applicatiō to our matters in hād thogh it be not here written downe concluded withall that when the Pepe shall intimate Gods owne precepts he may subioyne Qui haec spernit nō hominem spernit sed deum But surely to equall any one man of this age to S. Paul and a decree of what person soeuer to a canonicall scripture I doubt how reasonable it will be thought by any godly conscience S. Paul penning a canonicall Scripture hauing an assured faith that God assisted him in that very particular to the end he should not commit any the least error he might freely say Qui haec spernit nō hominē spernit sed deum but a man that will not say he hath the assistance of the holy Ghost for certaine sauing only when he doth determine a matter de fide ex cathedra he cannot freely in a decree which is not in a matter of faith say Qui haec spernit non hominē spernit sed deum It is again a presumptuousnesse as great as the former to cite for this purpose the saying of Samuel 1. Regum 15. Quasi Peccatū ariolandi est repugnare quasi scelus idololatriae nolle acquiescere Samuel as a prophet had cōmanded Saul by Gods expresse precept that he should not leaue an Amalechite aliue ye that he should slay all their beasts Saul saued King Agag and the heards of cattell to sacrifice Samuel tels him how god would rather his precepts should be obeyed thē that sacrifices should be offered to him and that it was as the sinne of Idolatry not to rest vpon his commandement And will our Author now put a humane precept subiect to errours into the same ballance with an expresse precept from God which is of canonicall authority Were there any mā here that had the authority of a Prophet of a Canonicall writer that should denounce any thing in the name of god Esset quasi scelus Idololatria nolle acquiescere but religious eares cannot heare it with patience that humane things should in this fashion be equalled with diuine It is a dangerous matter to match any man with God It is a godly office to perswade due obeysance and reuerence vnto Prelats but to extend it beyond it own bounds and to value it equally with the Canonicall scriptures this doth rather depresse it then aduance it Who can here conteine himself from extreme meruailing at the least Samuel 1100 years better before there was any Pope saith that not to obey Gods expresse precept deuered by the mouth of his Prophet is as it were Idolatry our Author saith To dispise God in his vicar is called by the Prophet Samuel 1. Reg. 15. a kind of Idolotarie Now I hope our Author will not denie that S. Peter was Gods first vicar that in the old Testament God had no vicar that the authority of a Prophet in the old Testament was infallible yea euen in the least things that Christs vicar in the new Testament he may erre hauing in matters of of faith and of manners in vniuersall ex Cathedra How can the Author then vnlesse it be his pleasure to dally iest with vs say that the Prophet Samuel termes this dispising of God in his vicar a kinde of Idolatrie Among so many weightie matters I am drawen a little aside to one lighter Our Author translateth here Quasi scoelus Idololatriae a kind of Idolatry as if he should translate Nonaginta nouem sunt quasi
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