IT being necessary (as I conceiue) to answere the obictions made against the two Treatises, Frier Pa [...] concer­ning the validitie of excommunication, written by Iohn Gerson, a man famous both for holines of life and learning, and that, not so much to vphold the reputation and credit of the author, as to deli­uer the true vnderstanding, iustifiable both in Law and Diuinity, of a matter of this nature and moment, and to main­taine the lawfull power and authoritie which God hath giuen to so­ueraigne Princes; I haue resolued to doe it, but with all modesty and reuerence, auoiding all biting and reprochfull speeches; which I hold very vnseemely in all occasions that occurre betweene Christians, and especially betweene Religious or Ecelesiasticall persons, in mat­ters concerning the saluation of soules. And herein I will not trou­ble my selfe, to repell or retorte any iniurious speeches, vttered a­gainst so famous a Doctor as Gerson was, knowing, that himselfe if he were aliue, would, according to his owne Doctrine and instru­ction to other men, be readie to follow the example of our Sauiour, * Qui cum malediceretur, non maledicebat. Neyther intend I to propose or set on foot any other doctrine, then the same which was first taught by the holy Apostles, and after them, by the holy Fathers, and other Catholicke Doctors, which haue from time to time vntill our age, ex­pounded the diuine Scriptures, and instructed Gods people: which, notwithstanding I will euer submit, to the iudgement of our holy mo­ther [Page] Church that cannot erre. And proceeding in this manner; I am verily perswaded, that I shall be able to satisfie, not onely mine owne conscience (which is the chiefest respect that mooues me) but all o­ther men likewise, that shall see and read this my Apologie: who I am sure would as much dislike impertinent raylings and cauelling speeches, as they will now be well pleased, that I doe with all sinceri­tie of heart, and singlenes of speech, vndertake a defence of this kind, for the glory of God and the edification of my neighbour. And to auoid that tediousnesse, which commonly groweth by the repetition of titles, though due & iustly belonging: I that intend to bend my selfe and my discourse, chiefely to the substance of the matter I handle, re­solue to forbeare to name the opponent, with his attributes of honour that were fit to be vsed vnto him, and to deale with him in all this Treatise, by the onely name of the author: reseruing neuerthelesse vn­to his most honorable and reuerend Lordship that due and humble respect, that at all times belongs vnto him, and which I haue long ago professed to beare him, when I had occasion to treat with him, euen before he was made a Cardinall.

Certainely the translator had no cause at all to be ashamed, as if Ger­sons considerations were impertinent to the busines that is now in que­stion: Answere. Frier Paulo. For if his whole works had not beene extant, printed aboue a hundred yeeres ago, I for my part should easily haue beleeued, that [Page 3] these two treatises had beene compiled at this time, and vpon this oc­casion. So directly & particularly do they touch all those points, that are materiall to be touched and handled in this question. And indeed it was commonly so beleeued in this country, when they came first out, vntill many men had compared them, with the Ancient copies printed in Paris. 1494. But now these old impressions giue vs cause rather to think that there was in Gerson some propheticall spirit, ioyned with that extraordinary portion of learning and piety, wherewith he was indued. And of this euery man that reades him shall easily iudge. But in sooth, if Gersons treatises be nothing to the purpose now in hand, why doth the Author take so much paines, and trouble him­selfe so much about them? Why doth hee labour so much to con­fute them? Euermore hee contradicts his doctrine, but no where he goeth about to proue, that it is not pertinent to the present case and question.

Whether the considerations of Gerson containe error or not, wee shall see hereafter, when the obiections that are made against them, shall be examined: all which obiections (or oppositions) do either presuppose things that by the booke it selfe appeare to be false, as that Gerson wrote those considerations in time of scisme, or they pre­suppose and assume that which is in controuersie, and the very questi­on it selfe, as namely that the Popes commandement to the Venetians is iust and lawfull, or else taking some ambiguous and doubtfull terme, that may haue a double vnderstanding, and accordingly setling a po­sition in the one sense, which is true, and so purchasing it some credyt and assent in the readers minde, in the end the obiection concludes in the other sense, which is false.

The preface of the translator of Gerson, containes no other doctrine then is contayned in the Bookes themselues: Therefore I see no rea­son, why of necessity he was to put his name to it; vnlesse it bee taken for a rule, that euery translator is bound to doe the like. But neither is there any commandement to that effect, in any of the holy counsels, or elsewhere, neither doth the common vse and practise require or ex­act it: Wee do rather vse commonly to blame those men, that thinke to winne themselues credyt, by making a preface, or a table to some booke, or by translating some little Phamphlet. And there are di­uers workes extant of the greeke Fathers, translated into Latine, that cary not the names of the translators, although I confesse some doe. [Page 4] Christ approoued not the aduise of his kinsfolkes. Transi hinc & va­de in Iucinam, vt discipuli tui videant opera qua tu facis, nemo quippe in occulto quicquam facit, sed quaerit ipse palam esse: Si haec facis, manifestate ipsum mū ­do. But hee answered that which in many cases his seruants may an­swere. Tempus meum n [...]ndum aduenit, tempus autem vestrum semper est pa­ratum.

God be thanked, the world is long since come out of his infancy, & begins now to relish and iudge of meates, not by the quality or condi­tion of them which serue it to the Table: but by the sauory taste it hath of it selfe. And surely the glorious lustre of the Authors titles, is not a matter of such preiudice, as should ouerthrow the cause of one, who proposed it without manifesting his owne name; according to the course holden in the counsel of the Areopagites: That the printer did not put his name to it; I will giue no reason, because I haue not vnder­taken his defence, but this I will say, that by occasion of these present controuersies, there came forth a writing or phamphet from Milan, without name of Author or Printer, and without mention of place or time, containing withall certaine doctrine, which how dangerous and pestilent it is, time will discouer; and hereunto no other answere can be made, but this: We will haue one law for our selues, and another for other men.

Whether the translation be faithfully performed or not, we wil con­sider as we proceede, when wee shall come to any exceptions that are taken against it. But now let vs see what the Author saith further.

I know not to what purpose, the author makes such a florish of six kindes of liberty, seeing it is apparant to euery man, of what kinde of liberty the question is now betwene vs. But if he will needes set forth all kindes of liberty, that are incident eyther to a priuate person, or a commō wealth, why doth he not as well mention the Ecclesiasticall li­berty, and tell vs clearely what this is? being a matter so much debated and doubted of among the Canonists, as to this day it is not determi­ned? The ecclesiasticall Hierarchie is surely a common wealth: yet I see not vnder which of those six kinds, that liberty may be reduced, which is commonly attributed vnto it. And therefore in saying, that there are no more kindes of liberty, but those six, he makes vs wonder, as if he meant to exclude or renounce that, whereof notwithstanding there could not be a fitter place to speake, nay, to treate fully and at large, then this wee haue now in hand. But forasmuch as in this discourse of the six kindes of liberty, the Author vseth an ambiguous pro­position, it is necessary before wee go any further, to restraine and li­mit it to the true sense, least any man be deceiued by it.

Speaking of christian liberty, he saith, that well a man may loose it by [Page] not obeying Christs vicar, but neuer by obeying him: this must bee thus limited, when Christs vicar commands according to Christs in­stitution. But when he commandes, according to his owne priuate o­pinion and passions, wherevnto as being a man he is subiect, and may be more subiect then many other, as Caietan saith 2. 2 quaest. 39. art. 2. then christian liberty is not lost by disobeying him, but indeede by obeing him.

As for example, that man should no doubt haue lost his lyberty, that had obeyed Honorius the first, commanding that no man should affirme, that in Christ there was eyther on will or two, or he that should haue obeyed Gregory the 3. ordeyning that it should be lawfull for a man that had a wife, vnfit by reason of any infirmity for the vse or act of matrimony, to take an other besides her. And likewise, that should haue obeyed the seuerall censures of Stephen. 6. against Formosus, and of Iohn. 9. against Stephen. And of Sergius the 3. against Iohn. 9. And in like sort if he had obeyed Celestin. 3. when he taught this doctrine, that marriage might be dissolued for heresye: nay he had vndoubtedly sin­ned, that had obeyed Iohn. 22. and beleeued for obedience sake, that the soules of the saintes deceased, did not see gods face. All which I haue heere breifly touched, to let the reader see, that this assersion, that Christian liberty may be lost by disobeying the Pope, but not by obeying him, may very well carry a good shew, but that it is with all deceiptfull and captious, beeing deliuered in such a generality; and vnlesse it be limitted with this restriction, when he commandes ac­cording to gods law.

fourthly where he saith, that no Pope did euer attempt to change the forme of gouernment in the Citie of Venice. I will be bold to put the auctor in minde, that it is very much that he vndertakes, to pro­nounce an absolute negatiue, in a point of ecclesiasticall history, for the space of nine hundred yeares; during which time, there haue beene about nine hundred and fourty Popes since the first began to intermedle with temporall matters: of which number, as it is true that the most part haue fauoured that state, so yet can it not bee truely sayd of them all: although it hath pleased the diuine prouidēce (almost) miraculously to protect and preserue the liberty thereof, euen when it was apparant, that some did labour mightily to ouerthrow it vtterly.

And further it may be well replied vnto him: that it seemes strange [Page 7] and not to be endured. That noe Pope hauing euer before this time, according to the authors owne saying, attempted or pretēded to desire, to alter the gouernment of that common wealth. This Pope should be now so peremptory, and confident that he may doe it, by offering (as he doth) to intermedle with the making of their lawes, which is the very life and soule of ciuill gouernment.

At last the author passing ouer that which made not much to the purpose, is contented to acknowledge that the translator speakes here of the liberty of a soueraigne Prince, which among other things consisteth in making lawes necessary for the good gouernment of his state, and punishing offendors. And thus he goeth on.

There remaineth only that liberty which belongeth to an absolute Prince, that acknowledgeth no superiour in temporall matters: and of this kinde of li­berty, it is likely that the author of the preface speaketh: But out of all question he is deceiued, in saying, that the Popes holinesse sends out excommunications against the state of Ʋenice, for refusing to subiect the liberty which God hath giuen them to the will of another. And if any man obiect, that to make lawes & punish offendors, is the proper right of absolute Princes, and yet Pope Paule the fift, excommunicates the heads and principall officers of the cōmon wealth of Venice, because they will not obey him, in disanulling & recalling some lawes they haue made in temporall matters, & in setting at libertie certaine offendors which they had put in prison: I answere, that Pope Paule the fift, excommu­cates the heades of that common wealth, for refusing to obey him, in disanulling not all lawes, or any lawe, concerning temporall matters, but vniust & wick­ed lawes, made in preiudice of the Church, and with great offence to God and their neighbour. And who can or will deny, if he be a true Catholick that the Pope hath authority, as vniuersall pastour, to rebuke & reprooue any Prince or state for their sins, & if they refuse to obey, to compell them vnto it by ecclesi­asticall censures. For accordingly we see, that S. Gregory did very sharply reprooue tht Emperour Mauritius, for a law which he had made, that was preiudiciall to Gods seruice. And Innocent: the third, as wee may reade in the chapter. Nouit de iudicijs, doth plainly determine, that it belongeth to the Pope, to censure the sinnes and offences of all the Princes of the world. Non in­tendimus saith he iudicare de feodo cuius ad ipsum (regem viz.) spectat iu­dicium, sed decernere de peccato, cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus & debemus. And a little after, Cum non humanae constitutioni▪ sed diuinae potius innitamur, quia potestas nostra non est ex homine, sed ex deo, nullus, qui sit sanae mentis ignorat, quin ad officium [Page 8] nostrum spectet, de quocunque mortali peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum, & si correptionem contempserit, per districtionem ecclesiasticam coercere. Sea forsitan dicetur, quod aliter cum regibus & aliter cum alijs est agendum. Caterum scriptum legimus in lege diuina, ita magnum iudicabis vt paruum: nec erit apud te except to personarum. Hitherto are the very words of Pope Innocent. And Pope Boniface in the extrauagant vnam sanctam, de maiorit, & obedient: Saith very well, that the temporall authority, when it erreth; ought to be [...]formed and rectified by the spirituall power. For al­though a temporall prince that is absolute, acknowledgeth no other temporall Prince for his superiour, yet if he be a Christian, he must of force acknowledge the head of all Christendome, which is the Pope, Christs vicar in earth, to be his Superiour: which Soueraigne Bishop or Pope, because his chiefe end and care is the spirituall good of mens soules, doth not therefore intermedle in the gouernment of temporall princes, as long as they vse not their authority, to the hurt of their owne soules and their subiects, or to the preiudice of Christian re­ligion. But when they do the contrary, hee both may and ought to put to his hand, and to bring them into the right way againe. And he that beleeues not this, is no true Catholike: and if any man shall obiect, that those lawes of the Venetians, containe in them neither sinne nor hurt to the Church, I will an­swere him, that to determine, whether any law do containe sin or preiudice to the Church, or not, belongs likewise to the Pope, who is the supreme and high­est Iudge of all; euen as to iudge, whether a ciuill contract offend in the sinne of vsury, belongs properly to the same ecclesiasticall Iudge, to whom the cogni­sance of sins (generally) appertaineth. So the Popes Holines blames not the Venetians for punishing their subiects that offend, but because they presume to lay hands vpon ecclesiasticall persons, which are subiect to no superiour, but spi­rituall: & make no reckoning of the sacred Canons, & of the grieuous censures denounced against all such, as lay hands vpon persons consecrated to God. Ther­fore whosoeuer will rightly consider of this point without passion, shall finde that the Pope goeth not about to bereaue the State of Venice, of any other li­berty, but the liberty to do euill, which is not giuen of God, but of the di­uell and our owne corrupt nature, and is the selfe same thing with the bondage of sinne, opposite to true Christian liberty. And as temporall Princes will not giue liberty to their subiects to robbe or kill, or commit any such heinous offences; because they are repugnant to the peace and good gouernment of their states, so ought not the Pope, who is head of all Christendome, to giue any liberty or permission to Christian Princes, to make lawes that shall be iniurious to the Church, or preiudiciall to the saluation of soules. And [Page 9] as the good sheapherd ought not to giue his flocke free liberty to wander where it listeth, and to feede vpon hearbs that bee ven [...]mous, and drinke of corrupt and vnholesome waters; nor the good Pilot to giue free scope to his Ship, to be caryed with euery winde vpon shelfes & rocks, so ought not the Pope cheife sheapherd of Christes sheepe, and principall pilot of Saint Peters shippe, to giue any such liberty vnto Christians, as may both depriue themselues, and make o­ther to be depriued, of eternall saluation. Lastly, as the Venetians, vpon iust caus [...], refuse to admitte that liberty of conscience, which all the heretickes of these times so much affect, because they knowe it is nothing but a liberty to ad­here to all kinde of errors, and therefore they are contented to countenance and assist the proceedings of the holy inquisition: so ought they as little to couet this liberty, to make lawes repugnant to the honour of God, and displeasing to their spirituall mother, which is the holy Church, and be rather glad to be admoni­shed of their error, and corrected by their spirituall Father, which is Gods vi­car on earth.

This whole discourse deserues to be particularly examined, for nei­ther are all things true that he presupposeth in it, neither can that con­clusion be in any sort deduced from them, that he would gather. After he hath alleadged the translators words, which are these: his holinesse ex­communicates the common wealth of Venice, for refusing to subiect the liberty that God hath giuen them, to the commaund or will of an other: hee turnes them another way, saying, that the Pope excommunicates the heads of the common wealth. But if he will vouchsafe to looke vpon it, he shall finde that the translator hath spoken truly, and that he hath cunningly and skilfully changed the names & persons, to excuse a notable error. The Popes briefe presented vpon Christmas day, is thus superscribed & directed. Marino Grimanno duci & reipublicae venetorum, To Marino Grimanno Duke of Venice, and to the common wealth of the same. In this briefe, he commaunds them to whom hee writes, that vnder paine of excommunication latae sententia, they doe disannull and repeale each two lawes. The translator therefore hath said truly, that he excommu­nicates the common wealth; and the Author, to defend and couer a no­torious error, committed in excommunicating a community or corpo­ration, contrary to the doctrine of all diuines and Canonists, and the papall constitutions themselues; cunningly affirmeth: that he excommunicateth the heads of that common wealth. And he obserueth the same art throughout, although the Pope not onely in this breife, but in that also which was presented the fiue & twenteth of Februarie, excom­municates [Page 10] in expresse termes, the cōmon wealth. And in the last breife of the seuenteenth of Aprill, excommunicateth also the Duke and the Senate or Councell, which is likewise a Colledge or community: Ther­fore wee will desire the Author henceforth, to speake clearely & plain­ly, and confesse, that the Pope excommunicates the common wealth, and the Senate or Counsell, and tell vs no more of the heads or princi­pall magistrates, for such excuses can not be admitted, especially be­fore they be required. The error was committed indeede in excōmu­nicating a community, But let it be defended by some other meanes, rather then by trusting vpon our grosenesse & dulnesse in discouering his cunning. It is also worthy to bee obserued, with what modesty hee speaks of a common wealth, whereunto the Sea of Rome hath beene so much beholden and obliged; and not onely of the men that are aliue now, whereof the present State is constituted and compounded, but of all those which haue liued since the yeare 1300. vntill this time; tax­ing the lawes that were made by them to bee vniust & impious, though with some contradiction to his owne Doctrine: for a little after; hee saith that it belongs to the Pope to iudge of Princes lawes, and the Pope hath neuer yet pronounced that these lawes are vniust and impious; whence then shall we say that the Author hath fetcht those epithetes modesty becomes all men well: vnlesse peraduenture great persons & such as cary the tytle of illustrissime, be out of the rule.

Two things he proposeth: the one, that these lawes of the Venetians, are vniust & wicked; the other, that it belongs to the Pope, to reproue them for it, and if they obey not, to compell them vnto it by his cen­sures. The former which is the Principall, and wherein he ought cheif­ly to haue insisted, and to haue prooued it to be so, he is contented to bawke altogither; peraduenture because he sawe hee was not able to make it good. The second, which is of little moment, vnlesse hee had prooued the former, he goeth about to confirme at large, by three au­thorities and other reasons. But let vs followe his owne order, and see how well he hath prooued his purpose; and first by the authority of Saint Gregorie, who (as he saith) did sharply reprooue the Empe­rour Mauritius. In the threescore and first epistle of the second booke, there is contayned, a very humble aduertisement or remonstrance of Saint Gregories to Mauritius the Emperour, vpon occasion of a law he had made, that no man, that was tyed to serue in the warre, or in any publicke charge, might become a monke, vntill hee had giuen vp his [Page 11] account, and finished his time of seruice in the warres. Saint Gregory sheweth, that their accounts might be as well made, when they were entred into the monastery; and that a souldior becomming a Conuert, might profit the common wealth more by his prayers, then by his souldiorye, and that this law in generall, was a hinderance to the ser­uice of God. But let vs see how sharpe his reproofe is, first he saith. Ego autem indignus vestrae pictatis famulus in hac suggestione, ne (que) vt Episco­pus ne (que) vt seruus, iure reipublicae, sed iure priuato loquor. And a little after. Ego vero haec dominis meis loquens, quis sum, nisi puluis & vermis? Sed tamen quia contra autorem omnium deum hanc intendere constitutionem sentio, dominis tacere non possum. And after that, bringing in God as it were speaking to the Emperour, he saith. Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commisi, & tu a meo seruitio milites tuos subtrahis? And a little after re­quirat ergo dominus meus, quis prior imperatorum, talem legem dederit, & subtilius extimet si debuit dari. And concluding in the end what it is that he desires of the Emperour, he saith: vnde per eundem tremendum iu­dicem deprecor, ne illae tantae lachrimae, tantae orationes, tanta ieiunia, tantae (que) elemosnae domini mei, ex qualibet occasione apud omnipotentis dei oculos fuscē ­tur. Sed aut temperando, pietas vestra aut mutando, rigorem eiusdem legis inflectat. This humble and decent remonstrance, worthy indeed of a Pope or supreame Bishop, deserues not to be tearmed by the Author a sharpe reprehension. But those other words that follow, are yet more worthy to bee considered. Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, eandem le­gem per diuersas partes terrarum transmitto, & quia lex ipsa omnipoten­ti deo minime concordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam, dominis nun­ciaui: Vtrobique ergo quae debui, exolui, qui & imperatori obedientiam prae­bui, & pro deo, quod sensi, minime tacui. I would not haue produced these words of Pope Gregorie, if I had not beene forced vnto it by the Author, to let him see, that it was not a sharpe reprehension, but rather an humble and respectiue remonstrance, which Saint Gre­gorie vsed to the Emperor: But seeing hee hath drawne mee thus farre, I must intreat him to answere mee, whether Saint Gregories calling him selfe so often the Emperours vnworthy seruant, and his saying, that as one that acknowledged himselfe subiect to his commandement, hee had sent abroade into diuerse partes of the world, a lawe which in his conscience hee held not to bee iust; and that other saying of his, that in so doing, hee rendered vn­to the Emperour that obedience that was due vnto him, whether I say these speeches doe agree, with the doctrine which the author now, [Page 12] publisheth: wherein he makes the Pope supreame temporall Monarch, and the Princes of the world lesse then his vassals; as I will shew him (before we part out of this argument) that his words do necessarily infer, although they dare not yet auow it in expresse termes. But before we goe from this point, it will not bee vnpertinent for mee to let the Author know, in what Court of Chauncery, or campo di sancto fiore it was, that Saint Gregory caused this his sharpe reprehension or ad­monition to bee published, and set vp to bee read. In this 64. Epi­stle hee writes to one Theodorus Physition to Mauritius, that hee had made a remonstrance vnto the Emperour (for so I will bee bold to interpret suggestionem, yet with the Authors leaue, least hee taxe mee as hee doth the Translator) but that hee was not willing that his A­gent should present it vnto him publiklie, but prayed that Theo­dorus rather to deliuer it vnto him priuatelie, at some conuenient time, when it might not diuert him from greater businesse. I must also craue pardon, if whiles wee talke of the maior proposition, by occasion of Saint Gregories words, I shall incidentally touch a point belonging to the minor. To shew the iniquitie of that law of Mau­ritius, that holy man prayeth him to inquire and search, whether any Prince before him had made any law of that nature. So I would haue wished, that our holy father the Pope, had in like sort required the Ve­netians to consider, whether any king of Portugall, Castile, Arragon, Poland, France, Sicilie, or any counte of Burgandy, or the state of Ge­noa, had euer made any lawes like vnto theirs. For so he should haue truely imitated Saint Gregory. And surely I cannot but admire the au­thors great wisedome, in that he forbeares to quote the place it selfe of Saint Gregory, being so precise and subtile in his allegation of other places, throughout this whole Treatise. But let vs goe on to the se­cond argument, drawen from the Chapter nouit, of Innocent. 3.

After long warres betweene Philip Augustus King of France, and Richard King of England, about the yeare 1199. Richard died, and his brother Iohn, surnamed Lackeland, succeeded him in that Kingdom, ei­ther by the nomination & appointment of his brother as some affirme, or by vsurpation vpon Arthur, who was son to another Elder brother of his. But those territories which the Kings of England possessed in France, submitted themselues to the Dominion of Arthur. Whereupon there ensued great warres betweene Philip and Iohn, because Arthur followed the faction of the French King, and was supported by him. But at length, in the yeare 1200: by meanes of a marriage betweene [Page 13] Lewis son & heire, & successor of the French king, Blanche of Castille, king Iohns sisters daughter (of which mariage issued afterward S. Lewis) a peace was concluded betweene Philip and Iohn; wherein Arthur was likewise comprised: vpon this cōdition; that Iohn should do homage to Philip, for the Dominions of Brittany & Normandy, and Arthur should do homage to Iohn for the same. After this, vpon some occasion that fell out, Arthur was put in prison by his vncle the King of England, and there died, in the yeere 1203. And the common opinion was, that hee was murthered by his Vncles commaundement. Whereupon Philip Augustus, as chiefe Lord of the Fee, caused Iohn to be cited to Paris: and vpon default of his appearance, condemned him, and confiscated those territories which he held of him, and went afterwards with an armie, to seise them into his hands by force. Iohn pretended, that this was directly against the peace and treaties betweene them, and made his complaint vnto Pope Innocent: the third, who commaunded both the Kings, vpon paine of excommunication, to keepe peace, and to surcease from warre, and sent also a Legate vnto them for that purpose. Iohn, for whose aduantage this commaundement was, did gladly im­brace it. But Philip found himselfe much grieued, and tooke great ex­ceptions against it, and so did the Prelates of France in this be­halfe: vnto whom Innnocent the third, made that answere contained in the Chapter nouit. Philip, for all that, desisted not from his for­mer purpose, but went on, and conquered by the sword,, all the terri­tories that the English men at that time possessed in France: neither could the Pope preuaile any thing by his commaundement. In the yeare 1208. Pope Innocent 3. excommunicated the aforesaid Iohn, and interdicted his whole kingdome, which interdict continued six years and three moneths: Yet did not Iohn yeeld to obey the Pope, in that he required of him. Therefore the Pope sent Pandolphus his Legat into France to Philip, to perswade him to make warre vpon Iohn. Philip made his preparations accordingly, and many Barons of England com­bined themselues with him. But in the meane time, Pandolphus com­ming into England, and letting Iohn see the daunger wherein he stood, aduised him to become the Popes Feodatary: Iohn inforced by the pre­sent perill, accepted the aduise, and made his kingdome tributary to the Pope, to pay him yearely 1000 markes of gold. Pandolphus here­upon returned into France, and commaunded Philip, vpon paine of excommunication, that he should molest Iohn no longer, as being now become the Feodatary of the Church. But Philip refused to obey, and [Page 14] the warre continued. Whereupon in the yeare 1215. in the Counsell of Lateran, Pope Innocent. Sent out an Excommunication against all those that molested Iohn King of England for th [...] cause, and for that cause in the yeere 1216. another Legate called Guallo went to Paris, who by vertue of that sentence of Excommunication, commaunded Philip & Lewis his sonne, to forbeare to passe with an Armie into Eng­land, which they were then prepared to doe. But all this notwithstan­ding Lewis desisted not, but entered Iohns kingdome with a great power. Although the same Guallo were gone ouer into England, and there ceased not daily to thunder out his Excommunications. This warre continued vntill the death of Iohn; after which, Lewis of France who had gotten many places of that kingdome into his hands, made truce for fiue yeeres with Henrie the sonne of Iohn, who succeeded his father. Now to applie this storie to our purpose: The Lawyers hold, that to shew that you haue commaunded, is not sufficient to prooue a Iurisdiction, vnlesse the commaundement haue beene obeyed. I will leaue it therefore to the authors exquisite iudgement, to make the conclusion that followes of this, seeing that so many commandements, and so many Censures of the Pope, were not able to withhold or hin­der these two Kings, Philip and Lewis, from prosecuting these preten­sions which they tooke to be iust, although the Pope iudged them vn­iust. I will say thus much more: That Cardinall Hostiensis, who li­ued shortly after, writing vpon this Chapter nouit, takes much paines to defend it, and proposeth many coniectures of his owne, how and with what limitations the matter must be carried, to make that rule or precept of the Popes, deliuered in that chapter, to appeare iust; But it sufficeth that in France it was not so esteemed nor obeyed. There­fore from the authoritie of that chapter nouit, there can be no such thing concluded, as our author would inferre.

The proposition of Pope Innocent. 3. alledged by the author, Inten­dimus decernere de peccato cuius ad nos pertinet sine dubitatione censura: and the other which followeth: nullus qui sit sanae mentis ignoart, quin ad offici­um nostrum spectet, de quocun (que) peccato mortali corripere quemlibet christi­anum: were not meant by him, in that generalitie wherein some doe vouch them. First because there must be excepted, according to the doctrine of saint Thomas, all internall motions of the minde whereof the Pope hath no power at all to iudge, vnlesse it be in foro paenitentiae. And of this sort, are the greatest number of sinnes. And all diuines [Page 15] and Canonists do agree, that in the excommunications graunted a­gainst hereticks, those are not comprised which erre onely mentally. And that any Canon that should be made to comprehend them, were of no validity. So as here will be a generall proposition framed: That the Pope may iudge of all sins, which when we come to defend, we must be forced to except the greater part of particular sins. Besides, a prince may sin by breaking his owne lawes without iust cause; as saint Thomas proues 1.2. quaest. 96. art. 5. And yet of this sinn a he cnnot be iudged of any, but god alone: Caietan in that place, declareth, shewing that in foro poenitentiae, and in the sight of God is all one in sense. Certainly, to affirme that a prince doing against his owne lawes, should be therein subiect to the censures of the Pope, were wholy to take a­way the power and authority of princes. And one the other side, to affirme that he should be subiect to them in other crimes, and not in that, were to ouerhrow the very ground of the reason presupposed in that chapter nouit. Namely, that it belongs to the Pope, to take care of the soules and saluation of men, and to remoue all things that be ad­uerse or repugnant thereunto. But a Prince may incurre damnation by the sinnes he committes against his owne lawes, therefore as well of these sinnes, as other, it belonges to the Pope to iudge: which as I sayd before, is directly contrary to the doctrine of Saint Thomas. Moreouer it is necessarie, well to obserue the very words of Inno­cent: where he saith, that the censure of euery mortall sinne belongs vnto him; quam censuram in quēlibet exercere possumus & debemus. And a little after, ad officium nostrum spectat de quocun (que) peccato mortali corripere quē ­libet christianum. Now if he be bound (by the duty of his place) to de­nounce censures against euery mortall sinne, & against euery christian so offending, surely if he do it not, he sinnes himselfe: But we do not see that the Pope sends out any censures against the courtisans and profest harlots, who yet persist and abide notoriously in their sinnes. There­fore eyther he must needes sinne grieuously, or it will behooue him to do nothing else but thunder out censures, so as those words, de omni peccato mortali, are not to be vnderstood generally of sinnes, seeing we haue already shewed so many instances of particulars to be excepted. And therefore Gabriell Biell: vpon the Can. Lec. 75. Laboureth much to giue some tollerable interpretation to this place, but can find none but this, that this decretall and all other of the same tenor, must be vn­derstode in foro poenitentiae only. I wil not trouble my selfe to proue that [Page 16] the words of the decretall are to be vnderstood as Gabriell interprets them. I will only say this, that whosoeuer wil affirme, that they are to be vnderstood in foro exteriori, shall haue much to doe to auoyd the absurdities, and the vtter ouerthrow of the seculer power ordeyned of god, and the confution of the world, which will arise out of this doc­trine; besides the state of damnation, whereinto he plungeth all Popes by the same. In which point some canonists, and Nauarro among the rest haue taken much paines, but with no good successe, neyther need we trauell much to reconcile and fit the words of this Pope to the true doctrine, which distinguisheth the seculer power, from the spirituall authoritie; especially seeing the same decretall conteyneth some other things, which had need to be well expounded: as namely this, that K. Philip Augustus was of the ofspring ( e genere as he saith) of Charles the great, which is not true vnlesse he suppose and imagine some mariage, and so deriue the descent by the way of some woman; a thinge neuer vsed in France.

A certaine french Historiographer deriues the howses of Charle­maigne and Capet, from Merone, by linial descent of seuerall women. But to shew that the house of Capet, comes of Charlemaigne wil be very hard, without deuising some thing without the compase of al stories.

It is time to get out of this chapter nouit, which the author in rea­son, should haue bin careful rather to haue expounded, then to inlarge it, and extend it as he hath done, for cōtrary to the meaning of Innocēt: who saith, that to him did belong the correction of euery christian, our author hath interpreted these words, quemlibet christianum, al the Princes of the world. So as now it shal belong to him to excōmunicate the Turke the Kinge of Persia, the Kinge of Samarcanda, the Tartar: And diuerse others of whom we haue yet no knowledge. And Saint Paule may no longe [...] say, Quid mihi de his qui foris sunt iudicare.

But of priuate Christians, which Pope Innocent intended to com­prehend, the author; thought not good to make any motion: as if it were sufficient to haue commaund and rule ouer Princes, and an Indignity and an abasement to intermedle with other. To interpret quemlibet Christianum all the the princes of the world, is both at once, to inlarge and restraine the true sense of the decretall. It is restrayned, by exclu­ding priuate Christians, and it is inlarged, by extending it to Princes, that be no Christians.

Concerning the Authority cited out of the extrauagant, vnàm sāctam [Page 17] I would be glad the Author would resolue vs of a doubt, which grow­eth by the reading and comparing of this extrauagant, with an other of Pope Clement the fift, who came not long after him, which begins thus: Meruit de Priuilegiis: Where Clement saith, that he determineth and declareth, that by the aforesaid extrauagant, Ʋnam sanctam, there shall be no preiudice or iniurie done to the King and Kingdome of France, nor that the said king and kingdom, shal be any more or other­wise subiect to the Church of Rome, then they were before; but that all things shall continue, in the state they were in before that extra­uagant. And this he professeth to do, to shew fauour to that King, who was worthy of it, both for his owne good affection, and for the merits of his ancestors, and in respect the whole nation of the French had de­serued it by their true pietie and sincere deuotion. Hereupon I aske this question: Whether Boniface, in this extrauagant, Vnam sanctam, did make a declaration of Ius diuinum, in this point (that is expound and de­clare the iurisdiction which the Pope hath, De iure diuino, ouer Princes: or whether he did thereby impose a new subiection ouer Princes, in some matters, wherein God had not made them subiect before vnto the Popes. If any man shall answere it was the latter, I may then re­ply, that is was an innouation after 1250. yeares, a void act, an vsurpa­tion, an incrochment, and an abuse of the power giuen them by God. Besides in this case, it was not fit that Clement should declare or meane, that France alone should bee exempted from that constitution, but it behooued him to declare and determine the same; for all other Prin­ces and Kingdomes. Neyther was it a matter of fauour, to be yeelded as in recompence of the good desertes of that King or Kingdome, but a thing due vnto them of right and Iustice. But if it be answered: That it was a declaration of ius diuinum, I would faine know then, how Cle­ment could free the King & Kingdome of France, from that subiecti­on which God had appointed them vnto; the case beeing very cleare, that the Pope cannot exempt any man, from his owne power and Iu­risdiction which he holds de iure diuino. But to come to the very point of that extrauagant, which the Author alleadgeth: if that which Boni­face saith, to wit: That the authoritie temporall, when it erreth, ought to bee corrected and rectified by the spirituall: bee a declarati­on of the lawe of God, I say that it ought to bee vnderstood onely for so much as concernes the saluation of their Soules, and in foro Dei, and without any temporall power of that kinde which the [Page 18] Lawyers terme Coactiue, and that all the Ecclesiasticall power ouer Princes is therefore onely spirituall. And heerein we shall not neede to goe so farre as to the Pope of Rome: for this kinde of authoritie is as well in euerie Prelate; though betweene him and them there be this difference, that other Prelates haue no such generall power and commaund ouer all, as the Pope hath; and that their authoritie is sub­ordinate vnto his. But whereas, out of those three authorities before mentioned he concludes, that a temporall absolute Prince, although he recognize the other temporall Prince for his superiour, yet of necessitie he must recognize the head of all Christendome; I would not that any man should be deceiued, by the Equiuocation and ambiguitie which rests in these two words, Recognize and Superiour: for in one sense, to recognize him, is as much to say, as to be subiect to his lawes, and doe homage vnto him, and to acknowledge that you hold your state by his fauour: In an other sense, to recognise him, is no more but to account him the Minister of God, in matters which concernes the kingdome of heauen. In which sense, I say and affirme, that Princes doe not one­ly acknowledge or recognize the Pope, but the Bishop also. The word Superiour likewise in the former sense, signifieth that which in our common speech, we terme Lord of the fee or Superiour of Dominium directum. But in the latter sense, Superior signifies no more, but one that teacheth the Law of God, ministreth the Sacraments, and generally directeth men the right way to eternall saluation. In which sense, I say, that euen the Bishop also is Superiour to a Prince, although the Pope be Superior in a higher and greater measure. It is not fit therefore that the Author should, without distinguishing these two significations affirme in grosse and in one breath as it were, that an absolute Tem­porall Prince, although he acknowledge the superioritie of no other Temporall Prince, ought yet to recognise the Pope for his superiour, and so confound the two superiorities. For if it should be thus propo­sed, that an absolute Temporall Prince, though he acknowledge no o­ther Temporall Prince for his superiour, yet must acknowledge the Bi­shop to be his superiour, no man would allow of it, because the fallacie would be apparant to all men. Therfore if Recognising be vnderstood in the former sense (in case) of Dominium directum, I say, that it is not true, that a Prince ought so to recognise the Pope. For the Pope is not such vnto him; but that in the same manner that he recognizeth no other Prince, he ought as little or lesse to recognize the Pope himselfe. But if [Page 19] superiour be vnderstood in the second sense, for a Spirituall superiour, it is not true that any Temporall Prince, though otherwise a Feodatary or Homager, doth or can acknowledge any other Temporal Prince for such a superior. For in this sense, to acknowledge one for a superiour, is as much as to account or accept him for a spirituall Father. And for such a one, the homager ought not to acknowledge his Lord. How ought wee therefore to beware of deliuering such diuinitie, whereby both the kingdome of God, and the kingdomes of the world are dis­ordered and confounded, and the simple people abused, and made to beleeue, that in all things they are bound to obey the Pope?

Neither is the manner or Phrase of speech 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 [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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. And as these consequences are necessarily deduced from this doctrine, so it were well, that they should be throughly & with good insight consi­dered of by them, to whome indeede they belong. But the true Chri­stian doctrine and the common practise which we daily see▪ auoids all these absurdities, subiecting all Crimes and offences vnto the tempo­rall [Page 22] Iurisdiction in foro mundano, and to the ecclesiasticall in foro animae: wherein how men ought to proceede, wee can not bee better taught, then by the example of Christ and his holy Apostles, who neuer pre­tended, to haue or exercise any temporall coertion or coactiue autho­rity ouer (mens) sinnes. But the Author goeth on, and inueyeth against the translator, not only in the point concerning the lawes, but addeth further, that his holinesse is not offended with the common wealth of Ʋenice, for punishing their subiects that offend, but for presuming to lay hands vpon ecclesiasticall persons, who are not subiect to any su­perior, but the ecclesiasticall: and he concludeth, that whosoeuer will consider of the matter without passion shall finde, that the Pope goeth not about to depriue that common wealth of any other liberty, but the liberty to doe euill, which is not giuen of God, but of the Diuell. Here first he layeth to the translators charge, that, wherein hee is not faulty at all: yet hath he truly cited the words of the translator: namely, that the Popes censure was denounced vpon Christmas day. But vpon that day, there was no breefe of the Popes presented, but that which con­cerned onely the two lawes; That neither Churches should be built, nor lands conueyed by laymen to ecclesiasticall persons, without leaue of the State. And that other censure, for iudging and punishing of cer­taine Churchmen delinquents, came not out till Februarie: And ther­fore could not be mentioned by the translator, writing as he doth cō ­cerning a report which was spread abroad of the censures denounced vpon Christmas day. Surely a person of grauity ought not to stirre en­uy against an other man, but vpon true grounds. But to the matter it selfe. The ecclesiasticall persons offending against a lawe, are not sub­iect to punishment, he onely saith it, but prooues it not. If wee finde hereafter that he goeth about to prooue it, we will answere him, as shall be meete for the defence of the truth. But in the meane time, I may not deferre to say, what is fit to be said, concerning that proposition of his: Ecclesiasticall persons (saith he) are not subiect to any, but their spiri­tuall superior. This very proposition is produced as a speciall obiecti­on against Cardinall Bellarmine, by a certaine Frenchman who condems it, as tending onely to sedition. And Lewes Richehomme the prouinciall of the Iesuites, in an Apology of his directed vnto the King of Fraunce; answeres in the Cardinals behalfe, in the 33. Chapter, that hee doth not affirme this position, but onely in causes meerely sacred, as of faith, religion, Sacraments &c. and that it was not his meaning to taxe or [Page 23] reprooue the custome of France, where the secular magistrate vseth to iudge of crimes, which are specially reserued to the ecclesiasticall courts. And the same prouinciall, turning his speech afterwards to the King, say thus. Episcopi Archiepiscopi, Cardinales, generales (que) praepositi Re­ligiosorum ordinum, in totò sacr [...] ordine excelsissimi omnium at (que) immunissimi primas tenent: Propterea ne tamen, aut tuae maiestati subiecti, vel esse vel di­ci, aspernantur, quod fiat immune [...], subiecti (que) pontifici Romano. And a little after, hauing said that they acknowledge him for their King, he goeth on. Quod quomodo sane praestandum [...] constituerent, nisi se pari iure cum alijs, at (que) sub tuo imperio esse faterentur? Parentemne potest Dauidem suus Salomon compellare, nec se eius tamen filium ea compellatione dicere?

And certainly Cardinall Bellarmine in his first Booke de Clericis Cap. 28. And the second conclusion with the reason he renders for it, saith, not by way of argument or question, but definitiuely, that ecclesiasti­call persons, are subiect to secular Princes.

But because this word subditi is not there (so) formally expressed, I thought better to alleage one of his owne cōpany, that in expresse and direct termes hath said it: & not only in that place before cited, but re­peats it also in the 36. chapter. I forbeare to vouch S. Gregorie in his e­pistle mentioned before, where he calls himselfe the subiect & slaue, or seruant of the Emperor: And brings in God speaking thus vnto him. Sa­cerdotes meos tuae manui cōmiisi: which manner of speech, I finde to be or­dinary with the holy Fathers, & frequent in the Epistles of the Anciēt Popes. And here me thinks a man might wel reply vpon the Author, that this saying of his, (that the Pope went not about to debarre the state of Venice of any other liberty, but to do euill) may more truly be applied to them: and it may be said, that the state of Venice in punishing Church­men that offend, do not any thing against the ecclesiasticall liberty, nor go about to take any other liberty frō them, but liberty to doe euill: for we be all agreed in this; That ecclesiasticall persons breaking a law, do therein sinne: But in the other point we do not agree, that the common wealth hath sinned in correcting them.

I am prone to beleeue, that the Author beeing so exceeding­ly well learned as hee is, had a good meaning, when hee saide, that the libertye to doe euill, is not giuen by GOD, but by the Diuell. Yet those wordes so deliuered are not Catholicke: for by libertie to doo euill, is vnderstood free-will, which is naturall and of God: and this will bee denied by none but Manicheus, who [Page 24] makes the Diuell Author of it. But I doe not denie, as I said, but the Author might haue a good meaning in it. Yet a good meaning is scarse to be allowed for an excuse vnto him, that is so seuere and rigorous a Censor of other men: Especially considering what Saint Hierome saith, ex verbis male prolatis incurritur haeresis. The Author proceedes, and by a comparison drawne from secular Princes, from a sheepheard and a Pilot; he concludes, that the Pope, Head of Christendome, ought not to allow any liberty vnto Princes, to make lawes that be preiudiciall to the Church & the saluation of mens souls, and whereby they procure damnation both to themselues and others. These are goodly words at the first sight, and such as are able to stagger a simple man by and by, and to make him thinke, that the author hath all right and reason on his side. But when we shall examine and sift them, we shall finde them to containe nothing but ambiguities, and to conclude with the like Paralogisme that the rest haue done. For first, what meaneth he by the Church? If the same which the holy Scripture meaneth, and which the word it selfe doth properly signifie, to wit, the company of the faithfull; it is verie true that he saith: But in this sense, no Prince can make lawes hurtfull to the Church, but with­all they must be hurtfull to himselfe also (who i [...] a principall mem­ber of it) and hee must needs sinne in so doing: Likewise if by the Church he vnderstand the ministers thereof, i [...] as much as they be ministers, I am of the same opinion: But I adde this withall, that these lawes of Venice, are not any way hurtful or preiudiciall to them, but rather, as may easily be prooued, they tend in some sort to the fa­uour and benefit of their calling. But if by the Church, he vnder­stand some temporall power or state, I denie that the Pope hath any right to hinder, or prohibite lawes to be made, to the preiudice of the Church in that sense. The ambiguitie of the word doth deceiue vs. It is true, that no man ought to make lawes that are hurtfull to the Church: but this must be vnderstood of the Church in the first or se­cond signification. But if a Law be made against carrying of corne to Ancona (a Towne of the Popes Dominions) this must needes be vnderstood in the third signification And therefore, to say that such a Law is against the Church, is an Equiuocation. In like sort where he saith, that the Pope ought not to suffer Christian Princes to make lawes that may hurt or hinder the saluation of mens soules, we will put him in remembrance, that it is Cardinall Bellarmines owne doctrine, [Page] That ecclesiasticall persons haue their exemption in criminall causes, onely iure humane: be it eyther by the graunt of Princes, or by the con­stitutions of Popes, or by both together. Hereupon I would aske this question; whether before such graunts and constitutions were made, secular magistrates which punished the offences of Clergy men, com­mitted any sin, or did any wrong to the Church? If it be said they did, it cannot be maintayned: for they neither brake any lawe of God, as both himselfe, and other truly hold: nor any law of man; for there was then no such lawe made, et vbi non est lex, nec preuaricatio therfore it was no sin: It was not against the saluation of mens soules, it was no wrong or preiudice to any man, why then could not the Popes suffer it so to continue? But the Author will say, it was so then (Perhaps) for there was no lawe yet to the contrary. But now the lawe is made, it is so no longer. Then say I, they haue stopped and straightned the way to heauen, without them it would haue beene more easie, and therefore this they haue done, is not to edification. If it were once law­full for Princes, by punishing such ecclesiasticall persons as did offend, to maintaine the publicke peace of their states, and to giue satisfaction to the parties grieued, without committing any sinne themselues: what neede was it, or to what purpose; to inuent this deuise, so contra­ry to the common good, and so likely to breede confusion in all estates, whereby the punishing of malefactors, which is agreeable to the law of God, shall now become sinne to them that doe it? Can this a­uaile any thing to make the way of eternall saluation more easie? Can it bee for the good of wicked clergy-men themselues, who take the more liberty and boldnes hereby to doe euill? Can it bee of any vse in respect of them that are iniured? or do they not rather by this occasion conceiue the deeper malice, and practise priuate reuenge? Do the Prin­ces reape any good by it, whose states and gouernments are disorde­red and disturbed thereby? Or can it bee any credyt or reputation to such Clergy men, as are good and vertuous, that the lewde should continue amongst them? Is God honoured and glorified by any but such as bee obedient to his lawes? But here I foresee an obiection. that by this opinion, I seeme to dislike all those immunities and exemptions, which so many Princes, worthy of euerlasting memo­rie, haue graunted to the Clergye in Criminall causes. No, I am so farre from disliking them, as I doe much commend them, and propose them as worthy patterns to be followed by all Princes pre­sent [Page] and to come. But this is that which I say. That if wee beginne at Constantine the great, and goe along to Constantine the sonne of Irene, and from him, through all the greeke Emperours, vntill the finall destruction of that Empire, and among the Latines, from Charles the great, to Fridericke the second, inclusiue, wee shall not finde, that any Prince did euer exempt the Clergy from his owne autho­ritie. But all the exemptions they graunted, were from their in­feriour offiicers and Magistrates; some from all, and other from some onely. And some, in certaine kindes of offences, and other in all re­spectiuely. But there remayned still vnto the Princes themselues that supreame authority which could not bee seuered from them. Now so as offences be punished, to what Magistrate it shall belong to doe it, and to what not, and ouer what persons hee shall haue authority, and ouer whom hee shall not, it belongs to the Prince to appoint, accor­ding to the congruety and fitnesse of tymes, places, and matters. And accordingly wee see, that when the state of their affaires so requires it, Princes doe sometimes graunt priuiledges and exempti­ons vnto souldiors, and sometimes to men of other conditions. In like sorte, when it is requisite for the planting or propagating of re­ligion in their dominions, they are content to giue conuenient pri­uiledges and exemptions to ecclesiasticall persons: and therein they deserue to bee much commended, as I doe highly commend all tha forenamed Princes, and likewise the common wealth of Ʋenice, which though not by a written lawe, yet by a laudable vse and practise, hath exempted Ecclesiasticall persons from the ordinary Magistrate in ordinary crimes, and such as cary no enormity with them. But for such a Lawe, as shall take away from a Prince all authority to punish offences, euen when the necessitie and peace of his state doth require it, I doe not see how any man can eyther allowe it, or account it agreeable to the lawe of GOD or nature. It followeth not therefore. that because wee commend many holy priuiledges which Princes haue graunted in this kinde, wee must of necessitie commend also an exorbitant exemption, which tends so directly to the confusion and generall disturbance of the state. Therefore let vs conclude, that it is true, that the Pope neither can, nor ought to giue permission or allowance of any of those thinges, which in their owne nature are euill and opposite to the saluation of mens soules, and which, though hee should permitte them, would [Page 27] neuerthelesse continue to bee sinnes, and exclude him that doth them from attaining saluation. And surely those Popes are wor­thy of exceeding praise, that haue indeauored to remooue such a­buses, and other things forbidden by God, which remayning, make it impossible for men to bee saued: These many yeares, the worlde hath sighed and groaned for such a reformation: and so many a time haue they beene deceiued and disappointed of their hopes. But in those things which are not repugnant vnto the will of God, the Prin­ces liberty ought to be reserued vnto him; to doe that which the good and weale of his state requires. And if the Pope go about to debarre him of this, hee shall vsurpe temporall authority, contrary to Christs commandement, hitherto the Author hath maintayned this dispute in some friendly manner, but in the second place, by occasion of these wordes of the translators, where hee saith, that hee had bent his studie and indeauour, to finde out, what force and validity excommunications cary, when they are denounced vppon so vn­iust causes, hee falles very fiercely and violently vppon him, as fol­loweth.

The Author proceedeth to another vntruth saying. Bellarmine. I haue bent my in­deauour to search in approued Authors, of what force & validity they are, when they are denounced vpon so vniust causes. This is the second vntruth, coupled with incredible rashnes and vntollerable pride, in this, that the Author of the preface dares pronounce, that the causes of the Popes ex­communication denounced against the common wealth of Venice are vniust. And peraduenture if he that writes this, might be spoken with, hee would bee found not to be well informed of the matter, nor acquainted with the causes, why it was [...]enounced: especially since him selfe confesseth, that he was mooued to write onely vpon a fame or report spread in Paris: so as hee must needes bee one of those of whom the Apostle speak [...]th. Non intelligentes ne (que) quae lo­quntur, neque de quibus affirmant. 1. Timoth. 1. Is it possible that thou shouldest be [...]orash, as without perfit information of the matter, without any great labour bestowed in studying the point, wtthout conference or consulta­tion with men of learning, thou shouldest presume to pronounce so absolute a sentence against Gods Ʋicar? And if thou haddest stu [...]yed it through­ly, and conferd with other, and wert fully informed of euery point, did it become thee to be so saw [...]y as to condemne the highest iudge of the world of iniustice, and to publish this thy presumptuous sentence in print to the sight of all men.

[Page 28] But seeing that all the reason which mooueth thee to iudge the cause of the Popes Censure to be vniust, is groun [...]ed vpon nothing else but report and fame spred abroad: that the State of Ʋenice was excōmunicated, for refusing to sub­iect vnto the will of an other, that liberty which God had giuen thē, & I haue clearely proued that this reason is false: And for that the iustice of the Popes proceeding in this excōmunication is apparant to the whole world, & approued of all men, but of the parties interessed, who are rather transported with passi­on, then guided by reason, we wil spend no more words to confute this vntruth.

Surely in reading well ouer againe the translators words I cannot finde that he doth absolutely define that the Popes sentence is vniust, Fryer Paulo, for in a Parenthesis he hath these wodrs (which seemes to mee neither reasonable nor credible) which parenthesis the Author hath purposely omitted. But admit that there were no such parenthesis, and let vs take his bare words without it. A report being spread, that the Common wealth was excommunicated for refusing to yeelde or giue away her liberty, I haue laboured to finde out in approoued auctors &c. Heere the translator presupposeth one thing as certaine: That an ex­communication denounced against those that shall refuse to subiect their lawfull liberty, is vniust: and two other things remaine doubt­full, the one in law, to wit, what force such an excommunication car­rieth, the other in fact, whether this excōmunication now spokē of be such a one, as common fame had deliuered it to be. The latter point he could not gather by his studie out of bookes, therefore he bent him­selfe to study the former. So it seemes that he doth not definitiuely pro­nounce any thing as the Author affirmeth. If a man should vse such a speech as this: A common report being spred in Venice, that Deme­trius Prince of Muscouia with many of his followers was murthered, for suffering himselfe to be led by the Iesuites (and perswaded) to at­tempt diuers things against the lawes and orders of the state: I haue bent my selfe to search in approoued Authors, what punishment (those) religious persons are worthie of, which intermedle in matters of state with the losse of many mens liues, and extreame danger to the common peace and quietnesse of the states they liue in: Could any man iustly say heere: This man pronounceth that the Iesuits are disturbers of the common peace? No truly. But in this sentence, the point which is certaine and out of doubt, is this. That whosoeuer doth disturbe the common peace sinneth: the two points in doubt, are, the one in law, which may be studied out of bookes, to wit, what punishment a reli­gious [Page 29] person merits that doth so, the other in fact, what indeede fell out in Muscouia: the certainetie whereof may be knowen in time. Such for all the world is this point, that we haue in hand. And I am verily perswaded, that the Author in his iudgement thinkes the same. But to take the better occasion and fitter scope to inuey against any man, that should affirme this excommunication of the Popes to be vn­iust, he makes a shew to beleeue that the translator had said so. The Au­thor is wont to reprooue very sharpely, such as drawe and wrest to a sense of their owne framing, another mans words, to the end to con­fute them. But in this particular, it fitted his purpose verie well, thus vnder a colour of confuting a person vnknowen, to raile vpon all them that withstand the Popes Excommunication. Now if a man should take occasion of that which the Authour hath said in the Text before alleadged, to wit, that the lawes of Venice are vniust and impious: returne vpon him his owne verie words, and tell him, that it is an vntruth coupled with &c. to determine that the lawes of so great and worthie a Common-wealth, agreeing with the lawes of all Christian Kingdomes, are vniust and impious; and that if a man might conferre with him, he would be found peraduenture to haue but little vnderstanding of the matter, and should by way of Interpel­lation or Apostrophe direct his speech thus vnto him: is it possible that you should be so, &c. as to presume to pronounce the lawes to be vn­iust, of so wise and religious state, which hath mainetained and go­uerned it selfe these 1200 yeares, to the great admiration and notable patterne of the whole world? especially those lawes not being sin­gular and peculiar onely to that state, but receiued and admitted in all Christian states, and also accounted iust and so approoued by all, (but such as are interessed) who are rather transported with passion, then guided by reason. The Author could not much complaine, being but fettered with his own gieues, and reprooued with his owne pro­per termes. But we will forbeare to vse any such formes of writing. Yet this I will be bold to adde: That if any man writing of the present occurrents and affaires of the world, should deliuer his opinion that his Excommunication of the Pope were vniust, it were not so heynous or damnable a matter. For in reading the Christian Histo­riographers, we shall finde infinite example of writers, that haue de­liuered their mindes freely of the decrees, commaundements, and ac­tions of the Popes of their time, and of those that liued before them. [Page 30] And Indeed go no further then to that which all moderne writers haue reported of Alexander the sixt, and Iulius the second, and of some o­ther, both of their successors and predecessors; onely God hath this perfection, that he cannot erre, and to be vnreprooueable. All other ought to be verie carefull and heedfull of that which they, because the good conceit and perswasion that the world may haue of their good­nesse and wisedome, may serue for a bridle, to restraine such, as by the checke of their owne conscience will not bee conteined within the li­mits of their dutie. But let vs goe on to the third obiection, where he saith thus.

Bellarmine. Now followeth the third vntruth. And reading in the sacred Councell of Trent those words, worthy indeed to be written in letters of Gold. Although the weapons of Excommunication, &c. I could haue wished, that as those holy Fathers haue prescribed vnto all Prelates, a Rule which they are to obserue, to make the vse of that medicine profitable, where it is applied; so they would haue likewise instructed religious and deuout consciences what their dutie is, in case that their Prelates shall denounce censures against them, contrarie to the forme prescribed by our Sauiour Christ, by Saint Paule, and by the ancient sacred Ca­nons. The translator not contented to haue vtteted an vntruth against the Pope, addeth heere an other against the generall Counceil, and so wrongeth at once both the head and principall members of holy Church, he condemnes then the holy Councell of Trent of insufficiency, in that, hauing giuing a rule vnto Prelates, not to vse Excommunication in sleight and friuolous causes; It did not also instruct lay men, how they should carrie themselues, when their Prelates obserue not that rule being agreeable vnto the rule of Christ, of Saint Paule, and of the ancient holy Canons. But if he would haue read out the whole decree of that holy Councell, and not the first words onely, he should haue found that which he makes shew to desire, & he would haue easily perceiued, how falsly & wrongfully he doth attribute vnto that Councell, insufficiencie of doctrine. The decree which he alleageth, is the third of the last Lesson concer­ning matter of reformation. And as in the beginning of the decree, Prelates are admonished not to vse the sword of Excommunication, Temere & leuibus de causis, that is, rashly and for sleight and friuolous causes, so in the end, a caueat is giuen to Lay men euen such as are placed in publike offices of ciuill gouernment, that it belongs not vnto them, to iudge, whether the Prelate in his Excommunication, obserue the due forme and course prescribed or not. And therefore the Counsell commaundeth all seculer Magistrates, that they [Page 31] presume not to forbid or hinder the prelate from denouncing any excommuni­cation, much lesse command him to reuoke it, vnder colour that it is not done, orderly and according to the rule appointed. 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 nun sint obseruata▪ cum non ad seculares, sed ad ecclesiasticos haec cognitio pertineat: these are the words of the holy councell, which hath there­in prouided for euery thing, and taught vs, that the duty of seculer magistrates is, not to resist with force and violence the publishing of excommunications, as the magistrates of the state of Venice do at this day, abused and misled by some men that are more ready, to flatter then to teach the truth: of which number this fellow is one, whom we are about to answere.

Here he accuseth Gersons translator of too things, the one that he chargeth the councell with insufficiencie, the other that if he had read the rest of the decree, and not onely the begining, he should haue found that he sought. To the first obiection I will answere breifly, because the second, carrieth me away from insisting vpon any other considera­tion. This is the very same argument that heretikes vse against vs, for when we say, that traditions are necessarie, because euery thing is not found expresly in holy scripture; as for example: The crossing with the signe of the crosse, the adoratiō of Images, the inferior orders, the consecration of Churches, and altars; they tell vs by and by that we make the scripture to be insufficient. But indeede the scripture for all that can not be sayd to be insufficient, because it contaynes all that which was conuenient and needfull to be written, and leaues the rest to traditiōs, which it giueth good allowāce of. Thus doth Cardinall Bellarmine answere very often the obiections of the heretikes. And so in this question we must say: That the councell is not therfore to be holden insufficient because it deliuereth not all that ought to be knowen, touching excōmunication, if it haue omitted some particulari­ties and referred them to be taught by catholike writers. And it is well knowen to euery man, with how many necessary declarations, Pius Quintus hath supplied some defects of that councell▪ in the point of spirituall consanguinity, of affinitie, by reason of fornication, and of publike honesty. And the congregation of Cardinals doth dayly supply in ome other points, vnder the title of declarations. The councell is no to be accounted among Canonicall writers. But we are to thinke, that if it had continued longer, it would haue declared much more then [Page 32] it did, and the author ought not to speake as he doth, being so direct­ly against the new constitution. De quesito de auxilijs.

But heere perhaps some man will obiect, that Gersons translator hath then committed an error, in wishing that which the holy councell thought not expedient to doe. But it is not true, that it is alwaies euill, to wish that which one vncapable of sinning euen by nature, hath de­termined otherwise: I wish that it had pleased god to haue permitted Pope Clement, the eight, to haue liued till these times: and I doe not sinne in so wishing, and yet god thought it not expedient. But I know very well, that there be some, that will not be satisfied, with the asscri­bing of such a sufficiencie onely vnto the Councell, as we haue spoken of; but they would gladly haue it to be such & so great, as should be without any defect or imperfection: to the end that no man might say hereafter, that there is any more neede of a Councell. And in this 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 wisedōe 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, euē 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 cōsciences, 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 [Page 33] 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 Paul [...], 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 Ʋenice 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 excōmunication 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 [Page 34] 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 [...]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 decla­ratiō; hereupon they set themselues to intrance the authority of Coūcells 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 [Page 35] 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 [Page 36] 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 cō ­mon 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 [Page 37] 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 est timor dei ante oculos eorum and on the contrarie they feare their false Cods which haue no power all, Illic trepidauerant timore, vbi non erat timor. And now this new Doctor takes the words of the Psalme in a cleane contrarie sense going about to perswade by them, that Gods Vicar is not to be feared, and consequently that we should not feare the true God himselfe, since he hath said it to his Vicars, Qui vos audit, me audit: qui vos spernit; me spernit. Luc. 10. Ʋerie repug­nant are the words of Saint Gregorie, to these of our new diuine. For he in his 26 Homily speaking of excommunication saith, that the sentence of the Pastor is to be feared, be it iust, or vniust; and this man saith, that who so feareth the Pastors sentence which he holdes to bee vniust, falles into that iudgement of the reprobate, which feare where no cause is. And the mis­chiefe that growes out of this doctrine it ceaseth not heere, but goes on, and spreads out further, euen to the vtter ruine of soules: for he that feares not the censures of the supreame Pastor, much lesse will he feare that of the Bishops: and he that begins once to dispise the orders of the head of the Church, will make small conscience of disregarding any other order whatsoeuer. By this cunning, Martin Luther hath perswaded many men, that Christian liberty consisteth in [Page 38] hauing a large conscience, and in not fearing to transgresse all the orders of the Church: and hereupon haue we seene so many Monkes, and Nunnes without any scruple at all to abandon their Monasteries, cast away their sacred habits, and take husbands & wiues; and so many nations to trample vpon the holy Ima­ges, to forget the feasts, and feast euent, not to know any longer what is meant by Lent, Confessions, vespers, and Masse: and finally we may see from this be­ginning of not fearing the authority of Christs vicar in earth, how some whole Prouinces are brought to that passe, that they haue no note or marke at all of any Christian religion left.

In conformitie with the Author we may here begin by exclamation, alwaies prouided it be not slanderous. Behold how farre the confidence of the great ones aspires, and attributes that to a defect in others, which proceeded indeed from their owne greatnes. It is manifest of old to the whole world, and the stories are full of it, that the very beginning of the separation that fell out some hundred years since in Germany, took not it originall from any disobedience of the subiects, but out of an a­buse of power and greatnes in the Prelats. It is wel knowne that it grew out of in discreet extorsions, & out of extrauagant fashions of granting Indulgences: I trust in God that these present alterations shall be deter­mined with the health & safetie of the body that remaines intyre, & not with the ruine & perdition of it; and tell me for Gods sake, whence be­ganne these alterations, but because they could not be contented that a few persons in number (who if a man suruey thē well, wil hardly make vp 1000) should enioy a fourth part of the riches of the whole state, which containes foure millions of persons; and because they would in-fine haue stripped all the Laitie out of their goods? And euen as they beganne, so haue they proceeded on, because they would haue brought it to that passe, that some which haue nothing else but the bare name of Churchmen, might without feare of Iustice, vncontrolled offend other men both in their liues and honor. Admit now sōme great mis­chiefe had befallen vs, who should haue beene in fault? but they that would haue innouated and changed the courses of iudicature that haue beene vsed and established these 1200. yeares past, and the lawes that tooke their beginning aboue 300 yeares since? It was not greatly to the purpose when the question is made betweene Catholickes of the validitie, or nullitie of a Censure: to enter into Monasteries, Matri­monies, Images, Feasts and Feast-euens, Lents, Consessions, Vespers, Masses, and all to enforce other men to answere them, and lay open whence the mischiefe growes: it had been much better to haue stood [Page 39] vpon the matter, & treated of it as it comes to hand with charity, & not to beare themselues in hand, that the world is so simple, as not to vnder­stand, whether this present difference be about a temporall matter, or a spirituall. Now to leaue these digressions, into which the Author hath withdrawen me, happily beside the question, let vs consider of the strength of the opposition he makes against the interpreter touching the meaning of the words in the Psalme. And to begin with the very exposition which the author himself giues them, which I will not note for false, but I wil grant him, that for that short verse alone it may passe, be­ing peraduenture quoted from some other exposition: but he that will read ouer the whole Psalme shall see that it suts not with the letter, and that the Interpretor hath cited it indeed in it own true and literall sense according to the cleare light of Gods word. For the argument of the Psalme, it is an affectionate complaint against the vngodly, or if you wil so call him, the Atheist, together with the consolation he receiueth from seeing him punished: and not against him that feares false gods. This is cleared by the very beginning: Dixit insipiens in corde suo, non est Deus. Now to understand the fifth verse, Deum non inuocarunt, illiuc trepidauerunt timore, vbi non erat timor, we must know that, Dei in­uocatio, in the diuine Scripture is often taken by a Senecdoche for the recognition and acknowledgement of God: whereupon the literall sense is, they acknowledged not the true God, & yet neuerthelesse they feared things that were not to be feared: for as much as that is the special chastisement which God laies vpon the wicked, that though he seeme free from all feare, yet he of himselfe frames in his owne apprehension diuers & contradictory conceits, which cause & work in him an appa­rant feare: so may we see some in antiquity, that denied the immortality of the soule, and yet were infinitly troubled with feare of infamy after death: & others that denied prouidence, no lesse apprehēsiue of coniec­turall diuinatiōs, & other fansies. This is the very literal sense: let vs now see whether it was alleged to this purpose. There are som (saith S. Paul) which cōfes in words that they know god, but deny him in their deeds. These are they, that liuing at randō care not at al for Gods law; they wil not sticke to murder many men, to violate many mariage beds, and of these wickednesses they will neuer repent, they will rob as much as they can finger, and consume all their owne goods, and other mens: but when they are cited to the Ecclesiasticall Court to pay a tieth, and there excommunicated, being now become vnable to pay it; they are more trauersed and grieued at this, then at all their offences committed [Page 40] against God. Heere we are to conceiue that Christ our Lord he institu­ted excommunication for a medicine, & for a punishment; and that if it be inflicted on a man without his guilt, it is a lesse euill or mischief to him, then any the least veniall sin: and there is no diuine which holds not thus; and I note further that an excommunication thundred out for any other cause, then for sin, and without his sin against whom it is pas­sed, doth not preiudice a Christian soule at all. Therefore of him that shall haue no respect to offend against the commandements of God, & shall yet stand in feare of such an excommunication, it may be rightly said according to the Psalms literal sense, Trepidauerunt timore vbi nō erat timor. He that hath a serious intent to liue Christianly, he wil be careful to obserue the commandements of God, and of them whom God hath commanded that they should be obeied after himselfe, in the things ap­pertaining to their superiority; to the Pope & Prelats in things spiritu­all, to the Prince in ciuill, to the father or maister in things Domesticall (for so much as he obeyeth them all, because God commands him, and for no cause else) but where this order is not preserued, and Gods owne commandements not preferred before all the rest, there God permits it for their punishment, that intollerable precepts shall be imposed vpon their shoulders, to which indeed they are not bound, & menaceth them with vaine punishments which they in like sort are more afraid of, then of the true punishments threatned them by God himselfe, much like a child that cries at his mothers threatning him with a skaring & no reall chastisement. But if liuelie reasons shal find no ouerture nor way in the Authors conceit, to perswade him that the place of the Psalme, Trepida­uerunt timore, is rightly alleged: yet me thinks he should suffer himself to be ouer-ruled by Nauarra his authority, who alleages the same Text against such as feare void excommunications. Super cap. Cum contigat: Rem. 2. Numero 14. & Numero 13. He saith, that to feare the Censures that are void and nulle, it is Deum falsum pro vero colere. But our Author he saith, that who so feares not Gods Vicar, feares not God himselfe, be­cause he saith to his vicars, Qui vos audit me audit. Lu. 10. As is to say that indiscreet excommunications are not to be feared, were as much as to say, that God is not to be feared, nor his vicar: and that he that wil feare God, must stand bound to subiect himselfe, euen to the indiscretion of the Prelats to whom God hath giuen no power at all, further then it shall be accompanied with discretion. And me thinks it stands not with the wisdome & learning of so great a man to alleage scriptures in a most strange, yea in a contrary sense to it owne, albeit I am perswaded that [Page 41] he hath not onely read the place it selfe, but the whole chapter. There is no speach there of any vicars, nor of the supreame Bishops, but of the Preachers of Gods word, who if they shal preach the doctrin of Christ who so heareth them, heareth Christ, and he that despiseth them, despi­seth Christ. So saith S. Luke in his tenth alleaged by the Author, that Christ appointed other 72, and sent them two & two that they should go before him into all places whither he was to go; & he teacheth them how they should go, and what they should preach, & what they should do when they were not receiued nor heard; and in the conclusion of all this he ads, Qui vos audit, me audit. Here I would request not them of iudgement onely, but euery man of ordinary vnderstanding but to view the place. It is commonly receiued of old in all the expounders of the scripture, that the Pope he succeeds S. Peter, the Bishops the Apostles, and the Priests to the 72, wherof we haue not now to treat, further then this, that where Christ saith, to the 72. Qui vos audit, he speaketh as a Preacher to all Preachers. here the Author may obiect, thē among these the Pope is likewise comprehended. I admit no lesse, touching the prea­ching of Christs doctrine: but I will not allow him that impropriety of speach, as to say, Christ saith to his vicars, Qui vos audit, me audit. For thē to hold that the Preacher ought not to haue a coactiue iurisdiction, if the place, Qui vos audit, had stood alone by it selfe, and not been con­ioyned with the antecedents and consequents (which demonstate it to haue been spoken to the 72 as Preachers) would haue good shew for it, and so it hath if we will read it apart; but the holy scripture is to be read intire, and not by peecemeale. Neither is that saying of S. Gregory, That the sentence of the Pastor is to be feared, though it be vniust, contrarie to that which Gersons interpreter followes. For when S. Gregories words are, The sentence of the Pastor, though it be vniust. &c. he presupposeth that it is a sentence; because if it be not a sentence, it cannot be an vniust sen­tence, but a non sentence. Such must that be that a lay man shall take v­pon him to giue in causes ecclesiasticall, and an ecclesiasticall person in lay causes: but that sentence which is vniust, and yet to be feared, is whē there is either of a good intention, or when there are false informations in fact brought in, in which cases it is both to be feared & obserued: but when it doth conteine an intollerable error, then it ought not indeede (as we will shew in place) to be proudly dispised, but yet with a kinde of reuerence vnreceiued. This, which is the common receiued doctrine the Author hath past ouer in silence, & to him it would be but needles to say any more: but some other body to whose hands this discourse [Page 42] may come, I will alleage two Canons, the one of Saint Leo the first, a Pope of great sanctity, who praeceded S. Gregory some 20 Popes in ranke, there remains then (saith he) S. Peters priuilege, whersoeuer iudg­ment is pronounced according to his equity, & where there is neither to much seueritie, nor too much indulgence, where nothing shall be bound, nothing loosed, but what blessed Peter, Aut soluerit, aut liga uerit: which last words I haue put down in Latin, as loth to restrain thē to either of their two significations, in which respect I hold it yet better to recite it all in Latine: Manet ergo Petri priuilegium, vbicun (que) ex ipsius fertur aequitate iudiciū, nec nimia est vel seueritas, vel remissio, vbi nihil erit ligatum, nihil solutū, nisi quod beatus Petrus aut soluerit, aut ligauerit. And S. Gelasius a predecessor of S. Gregory some 15 Papanties, saith (I wil quote his owne words in Latine, that no exception may be taken to their translation,) Cui est illata sententia, deponat errorem, & vacua est: sed si iniusta est, tanto eam curare non debet, quanto apud deum, & Ecclesiam eius, neminem potest iniqua grauare sententia, ita rigo ea se non absolui desideret, quà se nullatenus perspicit obligatum. The Authors words which next fol­low, that this doctrine extends & spreads it selfe further, to the dispara­ging of Masses & Vespers, Confessions, Feasts, and Feast-euens. Vigiles &c. they require no further answer, sithence the resistance which the state of Venice makes against the foresaid precept, is not made, but meerely to preserue the Masses, & Vespers, the Feasts, and their Vigiles which some would take away, & put the state in hazard to inebriate, & fill it selfe with some pernicious opinion. Some other men might heere say, that such & such a kingdome in the age last past hath lost the sound religion by reason of scandales giuen them from Churchmen; & indeed the famousest and truest Historians affirme no lesse. And if this state did not at this present out of it owne piety vse all diligence to preserue the religion, but should be earnest to put the Popes words in execution (I will not say his meaning, sot I hope it is exceeding good) it would for truth be vtterly ouerthrowen with an extream downfal. These mē haue not yet soūd by experiēce, what the taking away of the exercise of holy religion from the people, it may import in these times. All the Hebrews that haue sprung vp since the yere 1300, & are growne to the height of this day, they had no other beginning but out of those innumerable ex­communications & interdictions which began to be put in vse in the yeare 1200, and so continued on all that age through. He that shall read ouer the stories of all those years, wil haue much ado to abstain frō tears, in reading such a spirtual hauock & fal of soules. Thus are we come by the grace of God to the 6. & last opposition, where the Author saith.

[Page 43] In the end the writer of this preface not satisfied, with hauing abused a place of the old Testament, he serues his turne all out as badly out of the new Testa­ment, saying, but according to the Apostle; Bellarmine being strong in the Lord & in the power of his might, they will take the shield of faith, oppose it against indis­creet excommunications, and the armes of the spirit, which is the word of God. Luther nor Caluin could not more apparantly haue imployed the word of God against God. The Apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the last chapter spea­keth of the resistance which the faithfull are to make against the infernall diuell: Vt possitis stare contra incidias diaboli, And a little after; In omnibus iumentis scutū fidei, in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere. As also saith S. Peter, Cui resistite fortes in fide. and S. Iames, Resistite Diabolo & fugiet à vobis. And this new diuine applies this resistance to the censures of the supreme Bishop, as if the Apostle in stead of saying, Arme your selfe with faith, and with the word of God to resist the diuell, had said, Arme your selues with faith, and with the word of God to resist god in his vicar. And what faith is that, or what word of God, that teaches to resist Gods vicar? Nay what manner of faith is it, or what word of God, which doth not teach vs to be subiect and to obey the Prelats of the holy Church: saith not S. Paule in the 13 chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrewes: Obedite praepositis vestris, & subiacete eis? Saith not Christ himself, Mat. 18. Si ecclesiā non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & publicanus?

Indeed the Author alleageth S. Pauls text in it right sense, but yet not in a contrary sense to that to which Gersons interpreter did apply it. S. Paule spake in generall against the assaults of the diuell; Frier Paulo. and the in­terpreter vnderstands it, that indiscreet excommunications are one kind of the assaults of the diuell: and it should be a contradiction to terme them indiscreet excommunications, and not to hold withall that they proceed from the diuel. S. Iohn saith, Omnis qui facit peccatumex dia­bolo est: And I beleeue this to be a most Catholik & holy positiō, that an excommunication thundred forth against him that doth well, and that obeyeth Gods commandemēts, hath it original from the diuels perswa­sion: and it is one sort of those insidiations which he practiseth against the faithfull. The Author knows it, that we haue not to combat with the diuell in flesh & bones. All that whatsoeuer tends to the destruction of the spiritual state of the Church, which is the kingdom of christ, it is the work of the diuel; & if it be secret, it is an insidiatiō, & of all works that are wrought to the Churches detrimēt, whose doing soeuer they be, the scripture makes the diuel the author, as indeed he is, thogh he do not put thē in executiō by himself: the destructiō of many Churches, & the de­formatiō of others by reason of these indiscret excōmunications make proof, y ^t the diuel lies in wait to supplāt christs flock euē with the same [Page 44] meanes, which Christ instituted to preserue it. When S. Paule saith to the Thessalonians that the diuel had often hindred him from comming to them, he doth not meane that this was otherwise done, then by the actions of men. The diuell he practiseth & imployeth all sorts of per­sons to this end, & then not alwaies out of malice, but out of error; and who thinking to do well with an indifferent zeale do but execute his wicked intētions, & the holy scriptures tel vs expresly, that these & such like are the diuels own deeds. We may read it in S. Mathew, how after S. Peter had confessed our Lord to be the son of God, & that he had pro­mised him the keyes of the kingdome of heauen; how he cōmanded his disciples not to make it knowen to any that he was the Christ, for that it behoued him to suffer & to die in Ierusalē. Then S. Peter reproued him saying, Absit à te domine, non erit hoc tibi. But our Lord turned back and said to Peter, Vade post me satanae scandalum es mihi, quia non sapis ea quae dei sunt sed ea quae hominum. Who wil make any doubt, that S. Peters zeal had not a good meaning, & that it sprang not from a good affection? Yet be­cause he went about to hinder, as much as in him lay, the worke of our redemption, & the edification of the Church, which was to issue forth of the side of Christ opened vpon the crosse, Christ cals him Satan. Now it is no inconuenience to hold, that if S. Peter, through wāt of foresight, & well deserning what he did, dealt in a matter with a good intent, yet to the destruction of the Church; that, I say, it may yet also fall out that a successor of his, not being so well aduised as were fit, may attempt that thing, bearing himselfe in hand that he doth right well, which a­nother man that is neerer concerned in the fact, & therefore can iudge better what it imports than he, may see clearly that it must needs sort to the Churches vndoing. The Author is (I confesse) a man most excellent in learning, & of singular efficacy in perswading, yet for all this, he shall neuer make me beleeue, nor happily any other that shal read, how that euery mortall man of what place or dignity soeuer, may not sometimes either through his owne will, or through humane infirmity, giue an aid & furtherance, yet without any wicked intent in himself, to some subtile designe of the diuels: and from this scape let him neuer strain himself to exempt any one man, vntill he shall haue exempted me him first from praying, Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. The Author demaunds, what faith is that, which teacheth to resist Gods vicar? I answer him, it is the very faith of my L. Cardinall Bellarmine, who saith in formall tearmes thus. Ita (que) scilicet resistere Pontifici inuadenti corpus, ita licet resissere in vadē ­ti animas, vel turbanti remp. & multò magis si Ecclesiam destruere interit, li­cet, inquam, ei resissere, non faciendo quod iubet, & impediendo ne exequatur vo­luntatem [Page 45] suam. So then here, the word of God in the last to the Ephesians, intreateth of the resistance we haue to make against the diuell whom God permitteth, through his most hidden, and iust & secret iudgements, to plot & deuise against the peace & quiet of the holy Church.

The Author alleageth that of S. Paule to the Hebrews, Obedite praepositis vestris, & subiacete eis, and it likes me very wel; first because it is not ment of the Pope in speciall, but of the Bishops, yea and of all Curats, so that it makes nothing for the Pope in particular; but he shuld indeed haue produced the whol place of S. Paul, Obedite praepositis vestris, et subiacete eis: ipsi enim peruigilā; quasi rationē pro animabus vestris reddituri, or as he saith in the Greeke, Obey them that are set ouer you, & be subiect vnto them for they ward ouer your soules, as they that must render an account of them. So farre forth as those that are set ouer our soules, so farre it ap­pertaines vs to obey them; which is as if he should haue said, wee must obeye them in thinges Spirituall, which appertaine to our soules health; and because the Author brings in that si ecclesiam non audiēt, sit tibi sicut ethnicus & publicanus; we must know that the Church is, as S. Paule stiles it, the pillar and basis of the truth, and that it wil ne­uer teach any thing but the Doctrine of Christ, nor cōmaund any thing but what shall be conforme to that; but wee haue not yet perceiued that the Church commandeth that which the Author saith: Se here our paralogisme, which answeres from our taking the name of Church, in diuerse significations. In this very place, many writers doe vnderstand dic Ecclesiae, id est Praelatis Ecclesiae, but no one vnderstands it of the Pope alone; we will vnderstand it then of him indifferently as of all other Prelates, & not in any manner of speciallity, reseruing notwithstanding to euery one his owne degree & place. And this, si ecclesiā non audierit, shall be vnderstood, when they shall speake in the ministry of excōmu­nication, according to the doctrine of the Church. Now it is notorious that the proceedings of the Venetian state, are according to the Churches doctrine, since the custome & vse througout all Christian Kingdoms are iust after the same manner.

Here I would faine learne, why in that Gospell, which is read vpon the tuesday after the third sunday in Lent, where it was written in the Masse booke, Respiciens Iesus in discipulos suos, dixit Simoni Petro si peccauerit &c. why they haue in all the Massebookes that haue beene printed of late yeares takē away these words? I know they are not in the books of the new Testament; but of many other words, which are found in the Massebooke, & not in the bookes of the new Testament, it is said they [Page 46] come ex traditione Apostolica; & so one will tell vs, that howsoeuer the Euangelist doth not affirme it, yet it comes by traditiō, that these words were directed to Peter. Here then must needs grow some distinction by which there may appeare a difference betweene this tradition and the others; which when it is made, yet all will be to little to take order, that for many hundred yeares it was not so read, & consequently so belee­ued of all the faithfull for so many ages, that it was spoken particularly to Peter, dic ecclesiae. So that wee must needs aequiuocate in the noune Church, & interpret it, dic tibi ipsi ye & yet further it will be a sense too to wrested, to vnderstand by (the Church) one sole person, and that not so much because the nowne it selfe brookes it not, as for that Christ himselfe interpreting it in the words immediately following saith, vbi fuerint duo vel tres, &c. So that it is apparantly cleared, that hee vnder­stood by the Church, a congregation of two or three at the least, assem­bled in his name: but of this, because it is borne out by Saint Chrisostome expositiō, we will speak hereafter, where the Aut. also treats the matter more at large, & shew him how S. Chriso. is not for him, but is opposit.

Bellarmine. But it is now time, we come to consider of Gersons considerations, & to make it cleare that either they make nothing to the purpose, or that they are erroneus

Frier Paulo.Here before I proceede, to the particular defence of Gersons conside­rations, I must not ouerslip to admonish the godly reader, that it is a trick of arte, or a desseine of the Author, for some of his owne ends, that he neuer leaues repeating & iterating (aswell in the matters we haue al­ready surueyed, as in those that follow) & charging the Venitian state, that it will not acknowledge, it will not obey, that it despiseth the su­preame Bishop, the vicar of Christ, and with other like tearmes apt to raise enuie, & ingender hatred in so many as cānot be rightly informed touching the controuersie now a foote, and of the iustice of the sttates cause; which end that it may more easily be obtayned, we may obserue how they hinder it all they can that the reasons of the State may not be seene; a practise directly against all reason, diuine and humaine. To which I wil say once for al, the so many inculcatiōs ingeminated by the Author, that this is not to handle the matter in question with syncerity. For that the Ʋenetiā state doth acknowledge & obey (as it hath alwaies done) the holy Apostolick sea neither doth it introduce any nouelty, but conserues & defends with all godlinesse & religion, the holy Apo­stolick faith, which it prefers before all humane respects whatsoeuer; but onely in causes temporal, where the Pope, either for not beeing well informed, or through other bodies counsells, or for some other cause [Page 47] doth thunder out his censures notoriously against all iustice, they intēd within the bounds of the Catholick religion to maintaine their owne liberty, & the authority giuen them from God, it beeing conforme to the lawes of God, & nature, & according to the doctrine of the godly & catholick doctors. But now whether Gersons considerations make or make not to the purpose, & whether they be erroneous or not, let vs peruse them euery one a part, as the Author shall present occasion.

The first consideration is, that excommunication & irregularitie are foun­ded principally vpon a contempt of the keyes of the Church, that is to say, Gerson. of the Ecclesiasticall authority. This consideration is true, so you vnderstand by con­tempt, disobedience; or if you wil so terme it, contumacie, Bellarmine. & it is not contrary to our Lords practise.

2 The second consideration is, that the contempt of the keyes may be in three sorts, directly, or indirectly, or appearingly, as the interpreter mistranslates it. For Gerson expresses not his third sort, with the word apparenter, Gerson. but with the word interpretatiue, which two words are in a manner quite contrarie For Apparens is that which appeares or seemes to be, and is not; and interpre­tatiuum is that which seemes not, and yet is. But this scape little imports the matter in hand. For the first consideration since he allowes it for true, I shall not neede to defend it, or adde any thing else vnto it.

The second consideration he admits likewise for true and reproues not Gerson, but onely the traslation. And in deede the interpreter shold haue stood greatly bound to him for his instruction, if hee had not troubled and confounded all with an aequiuocation. True it is, that sometimes Interpretatiue signifies that which is, & appeares not; and some times it signifies as much as tacite & implies that which is not ma­nifest but needs interpretatiō & is not opposite to the worde (vere) but to the word expresly: in this sense we call it licentia interpretatiua, that is to say, tacita non expressa. But otherwhiles it signifies also that which seemes, & is not; as when we say, not to salute a man, is interpretatiue a kinde of disdaine; that is as much as it seemes a disdenie, but peraduen­ture it is not: & here interpretatiue, is opposit to vere. I can not tell what edition of Gerson the Author hath, but in mine which was printed in the yeare 494; in the very end of this consideration, his formal words are; Et isto modo reperit contemptus in omni peccato, praesertim mortali, di­rectiue, vel indirecte; vere, vel interpretatiue, If then vere be opposed to interpretatiue; then cannot interpretatinum be that which appeares not but yet is; because that which appeares not, but is in it selfe, is verum. And if this suffice to cleare the Translators integrity; I will yet adde [Page 44] that Gerson in his third consideration sayth, that a contēpt of the third sort, which is contemptus interpretatiuus, doth not alwaies deserue the Churches excommunication: if it deserues not excommunication al­waies; ergo it deserues it sometimes; but that which is, and appeares not, can not be subiect in any sort to the Churches censures, as all the diuines & Canonists affirme; therefore interpretatiuum is not that, which appeares not, and yet is. I hope well that the Author will now rest sa­tisfied for this point, & cōsequētly that his obiection of mistranslating made against the Interpretor is auoyded; which when I first read in the Authors proeme, I expected that in further reading I should haue found many more places taxed for infidility & misinterpretation; but whē I had done reading ouer all, I foūd no one word so noted but this alone, & that with this additiō. But this scape little imports the matter in hād. Me thought it strange, that a man should be noted as an vnfaith­full one, for one poore word, & that of little importance, & that in the very noting & taxing it, the Author should, serue his turne with an aequiuocall word, which in the very same place is explaned by Gerson.

Bellarmine.3 The third consideration is, That the contempt of the keyes in the first and second kindes do iustly deserue excommunication, and by consequence irre­gularitie: but that of the third kinde, doth not alwaies deserue excommuni­cation from the Church, but from God because he that sinneth mortally is excō ­municated by God. In this consideration there is nothing much amisse, sa­uing the last words; for if a man will speake properly of excommunica­tion, it is not true, that euery one that committs a mortall sin is excōmuni­cated by God. For then sinners might not come to Masse, nor to diuine office without committing new sin, which is false, as euery man knowes.

Frier Paolo.In the third consideration it is apparant, that an inordinate affection to finde fault, doth transport a man no lesse then any other affection whatsoeuer; Since he doth not reprehend Gerson, for that which is here concluded, which he allowes all for true; but fastning vpon one word spoken immediately, he charges him to haue spoken amisse, for saying that who so sinnes mortally is excommunicated of God, & his reason is that this cannot be true if we speake properly of excōmunication, be­cause that then sinners could not come to Masse, without sinning anew Now I affirme against him, that it is a proper speach to say that euery sinner is excōmunicated of god, because excōmunication is a generall word, which imports all seperation from the communion of Saints; but there be two communions of Christians, one internall in caritie with God and with the Saints, and this is properly the communion of [Page 45] Saints, either for a separation or priuation, for this is the true and pro­per excommunication; another communion there is betwixt the mem­bers of the Church militant, which doth not so necessarily exact chari­ty; & to this communion we oppose that excommunication, which is the censure ecclesiasticall; & auoiding to this kinde of excommunica­tion, euery sinner is not excommunicate, and may therefore repaire to the Masse, it beeing a matter which doth not so necessarily require cha­rity. Now Gerson neuer said that he was excommunicated by the ex­communication, which is the churches censure. S. Augustine. 12, de Gen. ad literam. cap. 40 vseth the same fashion of speech, Adam ab esu ligni vi­tae excōmunicatus fuit. & Gratianus, causa 11. Quaestione 3. after the Chap. Ad mensam, saith thus, scilicet & Adam ab esu ligni vitae excommunicatus est: and after the Chapter Non solum, he saith, quia ex natu adulterij iā ­diu apud deum excommunicatus fuerat, which is iust according to Gersons words. And againe how will you terme excommunication in Greeke but Anathema? yea our Diuines make no difference betweene Excom­munication maior, & Anathma. And S. Paul saith, cupiebam Anathema esse a Christo and in annother place, si quis non amat dominum nostrum Ie­sum Christum sit Anathema. Now let him on that lists, to finde fault with S. Paule, and say he spake improperly, sithence euery sinner Non amat dominum Iesum, & therefore is Anathema to fauour such; and after let him proceede to blame Gerson for mistaking. It needed not, iwis, admit there had beene some improprietie, when hee vnderstood Gersons true sense, who spake not of that excommunication, which is the Church censure, when he accorded with him in substance, to straine and force his words in matters of no moment. And this might haue sufficed mee, but that my desire was to shew by alleaging S. Augustine, Gratian and S. Paul, how the Author reprehends that, for which indeede Gerson deserues to be commended.

4 The fourth consideration is, Gerson. that a man is not to be said to contemne the keyes in any of the three kindes, when a Prelate doth manifestly, & notorious­ly abuse the power of the keyes. This consideration is true, if it speake of the a­buse of the keyes in points essentiall; as if the Prelate should exceede his commis­sion, or should excommunicate a man, without giuing him any warning before; Bellarmine: or should commaund vnder paine of excommunication, things contrary to gods commandement, in which case we say with S. Peter, Obediendum est magis deo quam hominibus. Act. 5. But howsoeuer Gersons Doctrine be true, yet the In­terpretors intention, may be very infectious & full of poison, for that happily his drift is that the world should conceiue, that the excommunicatiō which our [Page] Lord the Pope hath published, were a notorious abuse of the keyes, whereas it is indeede their lawfull & most ancient vse, as we could most clearly demonstrate, if we were to insist vpon that point. Bellarmine

This consideration might euen as well haue beene passed ouer by the Author, since he finds nothing to reprehend in it. The limitation hee brings in, that the manifest & notorious abuse of the keyes excuseth the faithfull from contempt; where he saith that this is true if the abuse be in points essentiall, it is superfluous. Who makes any doubt that it is so meant? The very word abuse imports no lesse in it owne signification. But when the Author adds, that howsoeuer Gersons doctrine is true, yet the interpretors intētion may be full of poyson. This is nothing else but to fight against shadows, to oppose against that which may bee, and to wrāgle with ones owne cōiectures. Is this S. Pauls precept, not to iudge our neighbor, till our Lord himselfe shall come to reueale the secret of harts. Is this that charity, quae non cogitat malū? Gersons doctrine is good, the interpreter hath not so much as applied it, he speaks not a word; but Ger. he puts too nothing of his owne, & yet it is obiected for all this that the interpretors intētion may be verie venemous. Admit there had been some word which might haue beene turned either to the right hand or to the left, yet it had beene the part of Christiā charity to haue interpre­ted it to the best: but to come to what may be, & that purposely to ac­cuse, & to giue a brand, this exceeds the bounds of that we ought to do. This poysonous intention which may be in the interpretor, he explains saying, peraduēture his meaning is to beare the world in hand, that this excōmunication thundred by nostro signore, is a notorious abuse of the keyes, which indeed is contrarily a lawful & most holy vse of them, as might clearly be demonstrated, if that were the point to be hādled. I for my part cannot tell what is meant to be handled, but sure I am this is the very question should be handled, because this is it, which is in cō trouersy, & which would determine the strife, & without which it can not be determined. And of this I would faine the Author he had intrea­ted, & laid aside all other by-matters as little pertinēt to the purpose.

Gerson.5 The fift consideration is, that when a prelate abuseth the power of the keyes, he doth more disparage the keyes, & offends more greuously then doth any man subiect to his iurisdiction, when he obeyes not his prelate: & hence it is gathered that it is a meritorious worke in such like cases, to resist the prelate to his face as S. Paule did to S. Peter. Bellarmine: In this consideration much might be said, but because it makes little to our purpose, we will only say two things. First that Gersons doc­trine seemes scarsely safe, & lesse grounded. For to lay by comparisons, which may varie according to their diuersitie of circumstances, whereupon it may fall [Page 51] out, that sometime the prelate that abuseth his authority offends the more, and sometimes the subiect that obaies it not: if we shall simply consider the misusing of this power, & the disobeying of this power, it is a greater sinne wilfully not to obay, then it is to vse this power amisse: for he that abuseth this power, commits but a sinne of iniustice, & offends a man subiect to him; but he that will not obey the prelate that commands iustly, & despiseth his excommunication, commits a sinne of rebellion, & offends Gods diuine Ma. in his Vicar: and so saith Christ, Qui vos spernit, me spernit. Luck. 10. and the Apostle in the first to the Thes­salonians the fourth chapter, Qui haec spernit, non hominem spernit sed Deum. And this despising God in his Vicar, is called by the Prophet Samuel, the first booke of Kings the 15. Chap.) a kinde of Idolatrie.

To that which were here to be said, & is not said by the Author, I can make no answere, neither ought I to diuine, & sin in rash iudgmet. Two things he opposeth. First that Gersons doctrine seemes scarcely soūd, & lesse grounded, because that in respect of the circūstances it may so fall out, that sometime the prelate shall offend more in abusing his power, & sometimes the subiect in not obaying it. The Author shall neuer find any Diuine, that when he is to compare two sins, to finde out the grea­ter, that will do it ex circumstantijs, but only ex genere. The considerati­on, ex circumstantijs is infinit, & no wise man will pitch & insist vpon that which may varie in infinitum. And S. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 39. art. 2. saith expresly. dicendum (que) grauitae peccati dupliciter potest considerari. vno modo secundum suam speciem, alio modo secundum circumstantias. Et quia cir­cumstantiae particulares sunt infinitae, ita & infinitis modis variari possunt; cū quaeriter in cōmuni de duobus peccatis quod sit grauius, intelligenda est quaestio de grauitate quae attenditur secundum 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 [Page 52] despiseth his excommunication, commits a sinne of rebellion, and offends Gods Ma. in his Ʋicar, 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 cō tradictiō 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 cō ­trouersie. 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 [Page 53] 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 centum, Nintie and nine are a kind of [Page 54] hundreth. And this I had not noted, if he himself had not plaied the toto harsh Censor against Gersons translator, where he deserued it not: but to returne to the sense and meaning. Reader, behold his cunning; all sins are against God; but some touch his diuine Maiestie immediately, as the blaspheming of his name, Idolatry, and such like; other are against our neighbour immediately; & for this cause against God, as are adultery, murther, & theft: now of this latter sort are both those sins we feare of. Disobedience of the subiect towards his superior, immediatly is against a man, and in the end it reacheth vnto God. The tyrannicall gouernmēt of the superiour bends immediatly against the subiect, but mediately against God. Our Author to delude our simplicity, when he is to speak of the abuse of authoritie, saith it is but against a subiect: when he speakes of disobedience, he saith it offends Gods Maiestie in his vicar. If a man to incounter him should say, The Prelate that abuseth his au­thority, offends God in his Creature; he that contemnes excommuni­nication offends a man: what could he replie? But let vs proceede syncerely, and lay these things togither euenly. Disobedience offends God in the superior; he that abuseth the authority giuē by god, offends God in the subiect. Now let vs see if these two offences made to God, whether is greater. S. Thomas, who often makes the comparison of sins betweene themselues, saith alwaies, that sin is a priuation of that which is good, and therefore that a sinne is so much the greater, the greater that the good is, which is depriued by it. The reader may see for this in 2. ^a 2. ^a quaestione. 150. art. 154. art. 3. 39. art. 2. and in many other pla­ces. Now the good which disobedience depriues a man of, is the priuate good of a subiect, which is the vertue of his obodience; the good which the abusing of authority depriues vs of, is the good gouernance of the Church. This is a farre greater good, aswell for that a publike good is greater then a priuate; as also for that to commaund well is a greater vertue, then to obey well: and this is the reason vpon which Gerson is grounded, which is found, and stands not vpon authorities forced from their proper states. He that would yet further consider of the grieuous­nesse of a sinne, by the mischiefe that insues vpon it, or by the person that committeth it; howsoeuer these be but accidentall considerations, and we ought therefore to ground vpon the former, and not on them; yet neuerthelesse one abuse of power & authoritie giues a greater scan­dall to the world, and is a cause of greater mischiefe, then a hundreth disobediences; and the person of the superiour, as the more eminent, [Page 55] is much more bound by his greater obligation to God to doe his duty.

Secondly, Bellarmine. I say that although in some case it may be meritorious to resist a Pre­late to his face; yet for the most part it is a thing of much scandall, and of most grieuous excesse. And to apply this consideration to the present purpose, to incite thē that are subiect, to dispise the commandements of Christs vicar, it is a thing not to be indured. For Saint Paul made no resistance against Saint Peter in matter of obedience, but in matter of a certaine obseruation legall; and it pleased God to shew the world S. Peters humility, to permit that in a certain article of legall obseruance S. Paul should be illuminated beyond S. Peter: & to S. Peter willingly accepted, S. Pauls brotherly correction, specially for that S. Paule was an Apostle, and no lesse full of the holy ghost then S. Peter himselfe; but in matter of obedience and reuerence, we are to know that S. Paule alwaies exhorteth those that are subiect, to obey their Prelates; and he himselfe came in person to Ierusalem to visit S. Peter, and to conferre with him touching the gospell he preached, notwithstanding that he had it by reuelation, as himselfe testifies in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galathians. Now what conse­quence were this, Saint Paule an Apostle, and an elect vessell tooke vpon him to admonish S. Peter: Ergo, the people shall doe a meritorious worke to resist the supreame Bishop to his face, though he commaund them vnder paine of Excommunication. This should not be the consequence of a good Logician, but of a peruerse scismaticke.

I see not why it should be heere laid in for a second opposition a­gainst Gerson, Gerson. that although it be sometimes meritorious to resist a Pre­late, yet it is ordinarily a thing of much scandall; & since Gersons words be, that sometimes it is a thing meritorious, and turnes to the honour of the power Ecclesiasticall, that resistance be made to such a Prelate with such a moderation, as extends not the bounds of a lawful defence, as S. Paul opposed himself to S. Peter. The Author to my vnderstāding hath said in effect the same with Gerson, but that Gerson hath with all in­tegrity expressed all that was to be said in this point, hauing added the limitation of such a defence as was not to be reproued, for some thinks Gersons Latine phrase is more clearely expressed; Cum oppositione inculpatae tutilae. If the defence be vnreproueable, what would the Author haue more? who will be so rash to say, that in an vnreproueable defence, there may be scandal or excesse? Let not the Author come in here with his, (ordinarily or for the most part) it is a scandal: for we will maintaine it vniuersally by his fauour, that whensoeuer there shall be a notorious abuse of iurisdiction in the Prelate, & an irreproueable [Page 56] defence in the subiect, it shall alwaies hold true, that it is a meritorious deed to resist. And this is the very case, which Gerson vnderstands when he saith (sometimes) and limits it besides (as we see) with those goul­den words; so that where the Author saith, that in some case it may be meritorious, it sounds to me, that heere is put in by way of opposing against Gerson, a flat confirmation of Gersons owne opinion. But the Author followes it further. To apply this consideration to the matter in question, that is a thing not to be indured. This makes no­thing against Gerson, but against the Interpretor; as though when he had translated the twelue Considerations, he had said with all, that all the twelue made expresly for the case in hand. He should haue done well to haue set downe the whole booke intier as it lies, and then it had beene the Readers part to apply that which is to be ap­lied. By the same manner of dealing, because Gerson saith in his ninth consideration, If the Pope would seaze vpon the Churches treasure, or vsurp vpon it inheritance, or reduce all the Clergy & their goods into seruitude, or spoyle them of their rights without cause, the Author may obiect it against the Interpretor, that he hath applied all this to the 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 Ʋictoria, 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 [Page 57] 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. [...] [Page 60] 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 Ʋenice, 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 remediis, non obediendo in malis, non adulando, non tacendo, arguendo, [...]uocando, illustres ad increp [...]ndum, ex­emplo Pauli &c. Therfore Cardinal Cayetan, who made this consequēce [Page 57] was no good Logician, but a perverse Scismatique. But for this o­ther consequence S. Paul exhorts inferiors to obey their Prelats, and came to visit S. Peter. Ergo, we must obey, yea though they abuse their power: we refer it to the Author to stile it with what name please him; and if he shall say that he speakes not of the abuse, but of the lawfull vse of power; why Gerson spake onely of the abuse, and not of the vse of it; and we condemne all them that obey not their superiours, when they commaund according to his prescript that gaue them their authority aswell as we condemne the superiors that abuse it.

6 The sixt consideration is, that such a case may be put, Gerson that one in not obeying his Prelate, shall be a contemner of his keyes, and another likewise in not obeying shall be in no contempt: as where the first shall beleeue the Prelates sentence to be iust, or shall beleeue for some other reason that he is bound to obey it, and where the second shal know for certaine, or shall haue sufficient probability, that his Prelate misuseth the power of the keyes.

To this consideration there is little to say, but that euery probability, Bellarmine or a pro­babity of euery abuse whatsoeuer, is not sufficient to exempt a man from obey­sance to his Prelate. But that a man should be freed from such obeysance, it must be certaine and notorious (auoiding to the common receiued learning) that the Prelate doe abuse this power in some essentiall point; for it is a generall rule gi­uen by S. Augustine, libro. 22. contra Faustum. cap. 75. and followed by the rest, that the subiect stands bound to obey, not onely when it is certaine that the superiour doth not commaund any thing against God, but also when he is not certaine, whether he commands any thing against God, or no; because that in a doubtfull case, he is to follow his superiour iudgement, & not his owne; and then onely he must not obey, when he is assured, that he commands against God; for that, as it was said before, Obediendum est Deo magis quam hominibus.

I know not what to say in this sixt Consideration, Frier Paul but to merueile at it, that the Author out of a desire of contradiction, giues it a limita­tion, which Gerson himselfe gaue in like sort, in fewer and playner termes. For where Gerson saith: It may fall so out, that in the same case, one may become disobedient in contempt, and another without con­tempt, whē the one shal repute the sentence for iust, or that he is bound to obey it for some other respect; & this other shal not so think of it, but either knows it of certainty, or hath sufficiēt probability that his Prelate vseth his authority amisse in preiudice of the keys; the Author limits it that for sooth euery probability is not sufficient. Gerson saith not euery probability whatsoeuer, but a sufficient probability; and I say, & affirme [Page 60] and warrant it, that a sufficient probabilitie is enough, and in matters humane and morall it is as great assurance and certaintie as can be said; neither can I beleeue that any man will say, that which is sufficient is not enough, vnlesse he will contradict himselfe. So that all the Author saith in many words, is comprised in one short and plaine terme by Gerson, and they are agreed. But I would not now haue any man decei­ued by that which the Author adds, Viz. That in a doubtfull case a man is to follow the iudgement of the superiour, and not his owne. For a case may be said to be doubtfull in two sences: either doubtfull, wherein a man hath not indeuored to resolue himselfe; or doubtfull, wherein after his due diligence imployed, he cannnot yet resolue himselfe. In the first case, he that stands in doubt, whether the thing commaunded be against God, is bound to put in practise all possible meanes both by himselfe, and with the helpe of others to cleare his owne iudgement, or else he sinnes against God by exposing himselfe to hazard the breaking of his law. He that after all his diligence remaines still in doubt, the Doctors allow him to follow the iudgement of his superiour. I thinke well that the Author hath this verie same meaning, but it behooues vs to stand vpon our gard a­gainst ambiguities, because all false doctrines make their first ente­rance masked with the name of good. And he doth so often inculcate it heere, That the subiect is bound to obey, not only when he is assured that the superiour doth not commaund any thing against God, but also when he is vncertaine whether he commaunds any thing against God, or not; because that in a doubtfull case he is to follow his superiours iudgement, and not his owne; and then onely he must not obey, when he is assured that he commaunds against God: that we are inforced to reply ioyntly withall, that his assertion is not true, sauing onely where the subiect is not resolued that the Superiour commands ought against God after he shall haue consulted sufficiently of it; and in a case still doubtful after consultation he hath to follow the iudgement of his Su­periour; and then he is not to obey, when he is assured, that he com­maunds against God: but if he stand in doubt, because he hath not well thought of it, then is he bound to bethinke himselfe seriously of it first, before he yeeld obedience. Yet my meaning is not, that from hence there should be drawen this conclusion, that as the subiect is bound to obey in a case inuincibly doubtfull (for so I will terme it to auoyde Aequiuocation) so that the Superiour may in like [Page 61] manner commaund in such a case; for he sinnes alwaies whensoeuer he commands that with himselfe is not assured to be obligatorie. So doth Adrian prooue and conclude. Quodl. 1. For the authority of the Supe­riour, doth not extend to things doubtfull, and it is against the lawe of nature (saith Adrian) to affirme, that the authority of the keyes is extended to that which is doubtfull; but the subiect is bound in a case inuincibly doubtfull to obey, because hee ought to beleeue, that how­soeuer it be doubtfull to him, yet it is not doubtfull to his Superiour. But in case he were assured, that it were a like doubtfull to his Superi­our, then he is not bound at all to obey him. So that when the Superi­our commaunds in a doubtfull case, and the subiect knowes, that the Superiour himselfe holds it for doubtfull, and yet commands it to ad­uantage him selfe, here he is not bound to obey him. It shall not be su­perfluous to repeate it ouer againe, that the doubt which bindes a sub­iect to obedience, must of necessity haue twoe conditions. First that it be a doubt inuincible to himselfe; and the other that 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 [Page 62] 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 cū (que) ligaueris [Page 63] 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. Quodcun (que) 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, & thē to troble that that remains with our feet, is to feed thē: the author pursues it yet further, to shew the iustice of the sentēce, that not only the authority in it self is lawful, which we also grant him, but also that the vse of it was lawful to, whē he saith that there wanted not sundry admonitiōs, no nor any one of those things which the reach of iudgmēt requires. It was not inough barely to affirm this point, he shuld haue proued it, as his offer bare vs in hād. And who soeuer shal see the state of Venices reasons, he shal perceiue it clearly [Page 65] that many, and those of the most necessarie and essentiall points in law were wanting, & it will appeare vnto him, that the cause is not for defence of the Ecclesiasticall communities, as thy Author affirmes without proofe; And if matters lye so cleare as he professes, why do they not publish to the world their rights and proceedings Ecclesia­sticall in facto, and in iure? And why do they not lay open to the world to see the proceedings and reasons of the Venetian State, and so make them rest conuict? It beares no shew, that forbidding men to write, tends to any such end, but in very deede to the end to conceale the truth, and to shewe the cause to the world, vnder a maske, as our Au­thor himselfe doth in this very place, when he saith that Paulus Quin­tus his sentence published against the heads of the Venetian State hath all it requisites, and yet the two sentences which were intimated, one on the day of the natiuitie, and the other on the fiue and twenti­eth of February, do both excommunicate the State it selfe, and not the heads, as in place it shall appeare. I cannot now passe ouer here the consideration of a great skill of the Authors, who citing the place of the Councell, Sessione 25. Cap, 20. makes the Councell say, that the Ec­clesiasticall immunitie is founded vppon diuine ordination, and v­pon the constitutions of the sacred Canons; This was no place to en­ter into treaty of that matter; neither was it so conuenient, with a few ambiguous termes to plant a Doctrine, that needes much extension, or else will be very subiect to be conuerted to peruert the peaceable State of the holy Church. But to say no more at this time, but onely so much as may suffice for an Antidot to the Reader, it may please him to be aduertised that my Lord Cardinall Bellarmine lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 28. sets downe certaine conclusions of this very point. The first is, that in causes Ecclesiasticall, the Clergie are free, de iure diuino, frō any secular Princes authority. The fift is, that the exemption of the Clergy in matters politicall, aswel in respect of their persons, as of their goods, was brought in by the law of man, and not of God. See then how the Councell intends it, when it saith that Ecclesiasti­call exemption is instituted iure diuino, that is, in causes ecclesiasticall. And the Author hee should haue translated constitutam ordinatione diuiua, instituted by diuine ordination, and not haue made it (foun­ded): for that his first worde seemes to importe, that the Canons had authoritie from GOD to institute it, and that it is established vpon this foundation; but it is nothing so. Their exemption in [Page 55] causes spirituall is totally and expresly, de iure diuino, in other mat­ters is is totally and expresly de iure humano. To his example of Saint Thomas, I will allowe him well, that hee dyed for the Iuris­diction Ecclesiasticall, but for that which was truly Ecclesiasticall in­deede; and not for indeuouring to bring to passe, that delinquents should not bee punished, or that Churchmen should haue so much more possessions, then their owne parte, and place. But if a man should here insteede of the consequence drawne hence by the Au­thor, draw the quite contrarie in his owne forme and say; And from this consideration any man may gather that Pope Paulus Quin­tus his sentences thundred out against the Duke, the Senate, and the State of Venice, and all their dominion do want many essen­all requisits, to omit those that are accidentall, and therefore are not to bee feared, as beeing not onely voide in forme, but vniust; the contrarie consequence would bee neuer a whit better prooued by the Author, then this is prooued in this place. But it is not per­tinent to doe it here, where we haue nothing else to maintaine, but Gersons defence. Onely this wee must auowe and say, that euerie man is one of Christs sheepe, but God hath giuen them a naturall defence, if the shephearde shall not follow the institution of the supreame Pastor.

The eight consideration is, Gerson. that the abuse of the keyes in the Pope, is more dangerous then in inferiour prelates, because in case they bee abused by inferiours. It is lawfull to appeale to the Pope, but from the Pope, no appeale is admitted, saue onely too a generall counsell, which is not so easily assembled. And howso­euer before the Counsell of Constance, it was the opinion of ma­ny, that it was vnlawfull to appeale from the Pope to the Councell, yet in that counsell it was expresly declared heresie, to deny that the councell was superiour to the Pope. Bellarmine. This consideration containes a great and manifest errour, and hee which did produce it, with a purpose to apply it to the businesse now in hand, discouereth himselfe not to bee catho­liqulie affected.

It is requisite that I insist somewhat longer vppon this eight con­sideration, not that the matter it selfe doth so require, Frier Paulo. but the Au­thor hauing made a long and artificiall discourse vpon it, it is neces­sarie [Page 56] that I discouer the secrets and subtilties thereof, in such sorte, as the reader may not thereby bee carried away from the truth. Ger­son in this consideration affirmeth that the contempt of the keyes towards the person of the Pope is more dangerous then towards an inferiour, the Author inuerts his wordes, and maketh him say that the abuse of the keyes in the Pope is more dangerous then in inferiours: is this faithfully to reporte the opinion, which wee vndertake to confute? Gerson speaketh of the contempt of the Popes commaundement, in those that are subiect vnto him, and saith, that that contempt is more daungerous then any towards the com­maundements of inferiour Prelates.

The Author chargeth him to say, that the Pope in abusing the keyes, doth offend more daungerously then an inferiour prelate so as that which one speaketh, of the action of a subiect towarde a superiour.

The other speaketh of the action of a superiour towards those that are subiect vnto him; one speaketh of contempt, and that of a subiect; the other speaketh of the abuse of the keyes, and that in a superiour; this consideration of Gerson is in fauour of the Sea Apostolique, and sheweth that our proceeding towards it, ought to bee accompanied with greater reuerence; saying, that the contempt thereof is more daungerous, then the contempt of others.

The Author maketh 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 [Page 57] 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, [Page 68] & 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 [...] [Page 65] 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 aboue­mentioned 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 himselfe either to the Church, or to the Councell. The third, that this decree can haue no force, saue onely for the redressing of that Schisme; for there beeing at that time no Pope in the Councell, the Councell was a body with­out a head, and consequently had no authoritie to determine any thing in matters of Fayth, or in other matters of like importance. And though Pope Martin the fifth, did ratifie that Councell, yet did he ratifie it onely so farre foorth, as the decrees were made [Page 66] Conciliariter, as those were which were decreed against the heresies of Iohn Wickliffe, and Iohn Husse but that decree of the Superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope, was not decreed Conciliariter; that is to say, vpon deliberation, and disputations preceding, and by an orderly collection of the voyces of the Fathers; but it was a decree simply intended for the redressing of that Schisme: wherevpon afterwardes, Pius the second, in the Councell of Mantua, did ex­communicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell. The selfesame excommunication was renewed by Julius the second, as is testified by Silu [...]ster, V [...]rbo excōmunicatio. 7. Nu. 93. And since that time, all the Popes haue renewed it in the Bull, inti­tuled, In caena Domini. Finally, Pope Martin the fift, by the consent of that Councell of Constance declareth, that they which are sus­pected of Heresie, ought to be interrogated of many Articles, and perticularly whether they doe beleeue that the Pope hath the su­preame power in the Church of God: and certainely if the su­preame power be in the Pope, the Pope cannot be inferiour to the Councell, for so the superioritie should rest in the Councell, and not in the Pope: whereby it doth appeare, that the Councell of Constance in that decree of the 4. Ses. is so to be vnderstoode, as wee haue expounded it, otherwise it should be contrary to it selfe; and admitting that there is a contrarietie, wee ought rather to giue cre­dite to the second decree, beeing made by the Pope, and the Councell together; then to the first, beeing made by the Councell without the Pope; that is to say, by a body without a head.

Frier PauloI will not affirme the opinion of Gerson to be true; or mayntaine either his doctrine, or his reasons in this Apologie; but this I will say, that the reasons which the Author doth produce against him, haue been considered, and answered, eyther by Gerson himselfe, or by some other of his opinion, which haue written since his time: and here I will set downe some of those resolutions, not that I in­tende to take vpon mee to determine any thing, but onely to shew that the question is to be disputed with more sollide arguments; and that Writers so excellent both for learning, and pietie, are not so hastily to be condemned.

Concerning that Councell of Constance, alleadged by Gerson, our Author hath three Obseruations: The first is that, that Councell [Page 67] hath no where declared it Heresie, to denie the superioritie of the Councell aboue the Pope: if the Authors meaning be that these expresse wordes (it is Heresie to denie the superioritie of the Councell, aboue the Pope) are not to be found in the Coun­cell, he speaketh but the trueth: if he will say further, that the Councell of Constance hath not said, that hee is Anathema which denieth the Superioritie of the Councell, hee sayeth as truely. Neuerthelesse Gerson doth deny that the Councell hath not determined it, which I desire may be taken for Gersons opinion, and not mine owne; and after such manner as is vsuall in mat­ters of Fayth, and sayth, that it was reputed Heresie to holde the contrary: this is to be seene in the fourth Ses. where these wordes are vsed, Ordinat, disponit, statuit, decernit, & declarat: And in the fift Ses. where the same doctrine is repeated in these wordes, Ordinat, d [...]fi [...], decernit, & declarat. And because Ger­son sayth in this consideration, that it is Heresie condemned by most expresse constitution, & put in practise by the said coun­cell of Constance; as is else where more largely set down. The au­thor may read, the places mentioned by Gerson in his workes; where he shall see that which will serue for answere to these ob­iections. The Councell of Trent hath doubtlesse condemned it for Heresie, to denie Purgatorie; & yet you shall not find where it sayth, that it is Heresie to denie Purgatorie; or that he is Anathema which doth denie it. But the doctrine of Purgatorie is sufficiently expressed in Ses. 25. and 22. in such sort, as it is euident that it is determined as a matter of Fayth; and hee which in the question of Purgatorie should vse the Authors wordes, and say, that the Councell of Trent, hath no where declared it Heresie to denie Purgatorie; let him read ouer the Councell againe and againe, and no such thing shall there be found; should shew that hee is more ententiue to the wordes, then to the meaning of the Councell: In like manner it may be sayd of Gerson.

The second Obseruation of the Author against Gerson, is; That men of most learning doe expounde this Decree of the Councell of Constance, as spoken of a Pope vncertaine, which is most true, and not of a certaine Pope: this second Obiection [Page 68] doth in all, and euery part of it contradict the former: for if the Decree of the Councell, bee it what it will, doth not make him an Hereticke which is of a contrary opinion; and that it be to be vnderstood of a Pope vncertaine, then it is no He­resie to denie that a Pope vncertaine, is subiect to a Councell: But to say that such a Pope is not subiect to a Councell, is ma­nifestly heresie: so that whosoeuer will affirme that the Decree is to be expounded of a Pope vncertain, must acknowledge it to be such a Decree as maketh the contrarie opinion to be Hereticall. And whosoeuer will affirme, that it is not a Decree of this nature, must affirme also, that it is vnderstood of a Pope certaine:

It is true (as the Author sayth) that very Learned men doe expound it as spoken of a Pope vncertaine; but it is as true, that very Learned doe expound it as spoken of a Pope certaine: yet this difference is to be obserued, that they which doe ex­pounde it of a Pope vncertaine, were not present at the Coun­cell: But they which doe vnderstand it of a Pope certaine, were all those which were present at the Councell, and haue left any writings; and besides them, all those which suruiued, and beeing not otherwise hindered, were present in the Coun­cell of Basill; which of necessitie must be many, because be­tweene these two Councels, there was the space of fifteene yeares.

Furthermore the Author ought to obserue, that Gerson doth not onely say, condemned, but practised: and to consider the practise of that Councell, and obserue; if that Councell did not commaund as well the Popes certaine, as vncertaine, let him read the Ses. 17. and there he shall finde that the Councell doth decree, that no future Pope shall haue power to depose An­gelo Corrario, formerly called Gregorie, 12. eyther from beeing a Cardinall, or from his office of Legate Della Marca, which the Councell bestowed vpon him; or haue any power to call him in question, or proceed against him for any thing which he had taken vpon him to do in the Papacie. Let him read also Ses. 39. which insued the deposing of all the Popes vncertaine, where it commaundeth all future Popes within a time limitted, [Page 69] to summon a generall Councell. And here let him marke, the wordes whereby it bindeth all Popes to the execution of it; let him then turne ouer to the Ses. 44. where Martin the .5. after he is elected, executed the Decree: and let him obserue the word Teneatur, which is both in the Decree of the Councell, and in the execution of it. Afterwardes in the last Ses. the Ambassa­dors of Polonia and Lituania, made humble supplication to the Pope, that before the dissolution of the Councell, a certaine Booke of a Frier call'd Iohn Falkembergh, might be condemn'd in publike Session; otherwise, protesting in the behalfe of their Maisters, De grauamine & de appellando ad futurum Conci­lium. Neither did the Pope finde himselfe any way agreeued at this protestation, nor the Councell thinke it strange: and by the practise of this Decree, the Author may vnderstand, how it may be from hence collected, that a Pope Canonnically chosen, and vndoubtedly accepted for Pope, is bound to the obedience of the Church, and of the Councell: which conclu­sion, the Author doth affirme cannot be collected from that Councell of Constance; and therefore let him compare the De­cree, with the practise alleadged, and he shall see that Gersons speach deserueth no reprehension.

The third Obseruation is, that the Decree can haue no further force, saue only for redressing of that Scisme, because it was the worke of a body without a head: but foreseeing an Obiection that might be made against him, drawne from the confirmation of Martin the 5. the Author notes, that the Councell was ap­prooued by the Pope onely, so farre foorth as the Actes were decreed Conciliariter: but this was not so, that is; vpon dis­putation preceding, and with an orderly collection of the voyces of the Fathers. And where I pray you doth the Au­thor finde, that this Decree was made without deliberati­on, and disputation, or without collection of the Fathers voyces? Peraduenture he meanes, because it is not set downe in wryting; by that reason in the Councell of Trent, nothing was decreed Conciliariter, because there is no mention made either of suffrages, or disputations: So then though the dispu­tations wherevpon that Decree was made, were not set downe [Page 70] in writing; yet it is to be beleeued that there were disputations, and the rather for that the workes of very worthy men were written at that time of this subiect: amongst which, that lear­ned Booke of Gerson was one, De potestate Ecclesiastica, & origine viris, & Legum; as any man may knowe, who will read it. Moreouer, Gerson in this consideration doth declare, that this question was very much disputed, for that it was begunne in the Councell of Pisa, which was fiue yeares before that of Constance: And who then can doubt, but that in the Councell of Pisa, in the Councell of Constance, and in the interim, of those fiue yeares, but that the difficulties were exactly considered, & in the determination of it, the suffrages orderly collected. But if any man will read the confirmation of Martin .5. hee shall euidently perceiue, that Conciliariter doth not signifie that which the Author would haue it, but is an interpretatiue. In the 45. and last Session of that Councell, it is sayd; That the Masse and Letanie beeing ended, the Cardinall of S. Ʋito by the commaun­dement of the Pope, and of the Councell sayd; Domini ite in pace; wherevnto Amen was answered: and afterward a Bishop, beeing by order from the Pope about to make a Sermon for the conclusion of the Councell: The Ambassadours of the King of Polonia, and of the great Duke of Lituania did demaund in the name of their Maisters (as hath been already touched) that Falkembergh's Booke might be condemned in publike Ses­sion, which was formerly condemned by those that were de­puted in causa fidei; and of the Nations, of the Councell, and of the Colledge of Cardinals: the Popes answere was, that he did confirme whatsoeuer the Councell had concluded, and deter­mined, in matters of Fayth, Conciliariter, and not otherwise; whereby it doth appeare, that Conciliariter is apposed to that which the Ambassadors had alleadged; Namely, that the Booke was condemned seuerally by those that were deputed in causa fidei, by the Nations, and by the Colledge of Cardinals; and that Conciliariter doth signifie as much as if he should haue sayd, In publique Session.

But let vs yet come somewhat nearer the matter: if this an­swere of the Pope were giuen vpon some vnexpected propo­sition [Page 71] happening, made after the end of the Councell; then nei­ther was the Councell approued before, neither was it the Popes intention to approue it. And if these Pollaxes had not profered this proposition, the condemnation of Wickliffe and Husse, had not been authenticall: and it will follow, that a generall Coun­cell was accidentally confirmed: And yet this is as tollerable as many other thinges which are vsuall with our Author. That Councell was a body without a head, to conclude, that in the vacancie of the Chaire Apostolique, the Church is to be re­puted vnperfect, as beeing defectiue in some Essentiall part. After the death of Marcelinus, the Church continued seauen yeares & a halfe, without a Pope, vnder Diocletians persecution, as Damasus doth testifie. And who will therefore affirme, that the Church was defectiue in some Essentiall part, in that time of so great perfection? I know that some men do not be­leeue that the vacancie had so long continuance; mooued there­vnto by some probable inducementes: But it is more credible, that Damasus should know the truth of it, being himselfe a Pope 69. yeares, after the death of Marcelinus, and borne shortly af­ter that vacancie; then wee in our time vpon vncertaine con­iectures: But let this be as it will; let vs speake of things which are certaine.

Vpon the death of Clement the fourth, in the yeare 1270. the Church was without a Pope wel-nie three yeares; Shall it there­fore be said, that the Church was all that while without a head? No, rather let vs hold the doctrine of S. Ciprian, and S. Augustine, 24 quaest. 1. C. Quodcun (que). & C. lequitur.

The author concludeth his Discourse of the inualiditie of this forenamed decree of the Councell of Constance, saying: Where­vpon afterwardes, Pius the second, in the Councell of Mantua, doth excommunicate whomsoeuer should appeale from the Pope to the Councell: Heere we are to obserue, that there may be a Fallacie in the worde Onde. Wherevpon (for it may im­port) as though Pope Pius the second, did excommunicate such appealance, because the Pope is superiour to the Coun­cell; 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 [Page 72] 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,

[Page 73]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, shalbe excō ­municated 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 [Page] proued by the authority of Scripture, by Councells and by Rea­son, that Gersons opinion is manifestly erronious. The Scripture doth no where giue authority to the Church, and to the councels aboue their Pastors, much lesse aboue the supream Pastor, but con­trarily, that Bishops are ordained to gouerne the Church of God, appeareth Act. 20. where Saint Paul saith, that God hath placed Bishops to gouerne the Church of God. And by these wordes of our Sauiour in the 16. Mat. where he saith to his Viccar, Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: where Christ making Saint Peter the foundation of his Church, did make him the head of that mysticall body, for that which a foundation is in respect of a house the same the head is in respect of the body, and we see that the head hath power ouer all the rest of the body, but the rest of the body hath no power ouer the head. In like manner Io. 21. when Christ said to Peter, Pasce oues meas, he made him sheapheard ouer all his flocke; and doubtles the flocke hath no authority at all ouer the sheapheard, but the sheapheard ouer the flocke. Lastly where as our Sauiour Luc. 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator & prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam. saith, Doubtlesse hee doth declare that a Bishop in his particular Church and the Pope in the church vniuersall, is as it were, a high Steward in Gods family, and as the high Steward hath authority ouer the familie, and not the familie ouer him: so hath the Bishop ouer his Dioces, and the Pope ouer the Church vniuersall, and not the Di­ocesse ouer the Bishop, nor the Church ouer the Pope, though as­sembled in a generall councell, and to this end it is that our Sauior in the same place addeth these wordes. Quod si dixerit Seruus ille in corde suo moram facit Dominus meus venire, & coeperit percutere seruos & ancillas, edere, & bibere, & inebriari; veniet Dominus serui illius in die qua non sperat, & diuidet eum, partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet. Out of which words it may be gather'd, that when the high steward of Gods house doth mis-behaue himselfe, it is not Gods pleasure that the familie should proceede against him; but reserues to himselfe, the power both to judge and punish him: so that according to the Scripture, the Church, and consequently the Councell, which is a representation of the Church hauing no power ouer the Pope, it followeth that it is vnlawfull to appeale from the Pope, to the Councell, but contrarily that it is lawfull to appeal from the coun­cell to the Pope.

[Page 74]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 [Page] 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 [Page 75] 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 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 dispen [...]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 [Page] 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 thē 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 [Page] 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 secōd 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 whē 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 [Page] 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 do agree, is the litterall sense of this place, howbeit be­sides this generall exposition, some men with an argument a mino­ri, do, as it were, by a singularity applie it to the pastors: but the author doth well to conceale; that all the fathers when they apply this place to the pastors, add these words also, Quod si coe­perit percutere seruos, & ancillas, edere, bibere, & inebriari, &c. and make long digressions against their faults and errours. And per­aduenture this percutere seruos & ancillas, is that which wee see is come to passe in the present occasion: Gerson therefore will not denie, but this parable spoken to all, but more especially to Pas­tors, is most properlie to be appplied to the Pope, and therefore let it be saide vnto him, that if he giue himselfe ouer to surfetting and to iniury his neighbours, the Lord will come and punish him when he lookes not for him, howbeit we cannot conclude that he is therefore subiect to no other punishment, for by that reason it would follow, that no fornicatour or adulterer could bee puni­shed of men, because it is written, Hebreues: 13. Fornicarios & adulteros iudicabit Dominus, by that reason no sinne is punishable by man, because it is written, iustum & impium iudicabit Dominus, Eccle­siast. 3. & in like sort it is not permitted to mē to judge; because our Sauiour, in the 5. of Iohn saith, Omne iudicium dedit filio, it is not well that the scripture should be thus wrested and peruerted, all these texts are to be vnderstood of the iudgement of the world to come wherūto it is not repugnāt that there shold be punishmēts in this world both Ciuil & Ecclesiastical, neither is there any commō persō so ignorant, but doth vnderstand that these ordinary phrases God shall iudge, God shall punish, &c. tend not to the excluding of humaine iudgements and corrections: and thus we see that this text serueth not to proue that the Pope is exempted from the cē ­sure of the Church, and consequently of the councell, and Gerson doth not insist vpon the parable but vpon the litteral sense of the [Page 77] place, now let vs examine our authors other proofes, wherein he proceedeth after this manner.

Vnto this truth which we haue proued by Scriptures, Bellarmine. the sa­cred Councels do also beare witnesse, at what time Pope Saint Marcelinus for feare of death committed that sinne of offering sa­crifice to Idols. A great Councell was assembled in Sinuessa to treate of that matter, but al that councell did acknowledge that it had no power to censure the Pope, Prima sedes a nemine iudicabi­tur: of this councell Pope Nicolas doth make mention, in his epi­stle to the Emperour Michaell; in like sort a Romane Councell assembled by the Pope Sainte Siluester in the last Canon of it doth declare that the first Sea, namely the Sea of Rome is not to bee judged of any, the Councell of Calcedon, which is one of the foure first generall councels, in the 3. Act of it condemned Diosco­rus the Patriarch of Alexandria, together with the whole second Councell of Ephesus, because they tooke vpon them to iudge the Pope of Rome. Now if that Patriarch, which after the Pope pos­sesseth the highest place in the church, together with the whole Councell, haue no authority to iudge the Pope it plainely followeth, that the Councell is not aboue the Pope, otherwise they might haue iudged him. After this the 5. Roman Councell, vnder Pope Simachus approued that opinion of Ennodius, as if it had beene an opinion of their owne, Aliorum hominum causas Deus vo­luit per homines terminari, Sedis istius Praesulem suo sine questione reser­uauit arbitrio. Voluit Petri Apostoli successores Coelo tantum debere inno­centiam. in the Act. 7. of the 8. generall Councell, we reade thus: Romanum Pontificē de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus iudicasse de eo ve­ro neminem iudicasse legimus Paulus Emilius, in his 3. book of his story writeth that a great Coūcell of Bishops being assembled in the presence of Charlemaine by occasion of certaine matters obiected a­gainst Pope Leo the 3. all the Bishops cried out with one voice, that it was vnlawfull for any man to iudge the Pope. The gene­rall Councell of Lateran vnder Alexander the 3. being to make a decree touching the forme to be obserued in the election of the Popes, saith, we are to proceede in this election, with singular dili­gence, for if any error be committed in it there is no Superiour to whom we may haue recourse, there is none vpon earth superiour to the Pope, Let him reade the chapter, Licet, extra de electione.

[Page]Finally in the Lateran Councell vnder Leo tenth in the Sess. 11. it is expressely determined that the Pope is superior to any Coun­cell whatsoeuer, and therefore it appertained onely to him to sum­mon the Councells, to transfer, and to dissolue them. Now if these Councells themselues do acknowledge that they are subiect to the Pope, who will be so hardie to say, that the Councell is superiour to the Pope, or that it is lawfull to appeale from the Pope to the Councell?

[...]rier Paolo.The first proofe which our authour bringeth, is that when the Pope S. Marcelinus did for feare of death offer sacrifice to Idolles there was a great councell assembled in Sinuessa to treat of this mat­ter, and all the Councell did confesse that they had no power to iudge the Pope, and that Pope Nicholas the first, did make mention of this Councell, which is true and which is more, the Acts of it are extant to this day, to this they of Paris do answere that this Coun­cell was not generall and that vnder these wordes Prima sedes a ne­mine iudicatur, a generall Councell is not comprehended, it seemeth strange vnto them that the Councell being assembled onely vpon this occasion, it should conceiue that it had no authority to deter­mine it, and it is more strange that Marcelinus denying the fact that the Councell had not eftsoone departed, for so the matter had been at an end and not proceeded to conuict him as indeed they did, producing first 7. witnesses, which affirmed they saw him offer sacri­fice, after this they examined as many witnesses more as made vp the number fourteene. The second day they produced 14 more, who being interrogated by the Bishoppes, affirmed the same. The third day he examined 44. more, so that the number of witnesses a­mounted to 72 called Labra occidua, it is certaine that to examine witnesses is a iudiciall act of a superiour, and it is as certaine that Marcelinus after the examination of these 72. prostrated himself vp on the ground and acknowledged his offence and the Teste saith that the Bishops Subscripserunt in eius damnationem, & damnauerunt eum, and one of them said, Iuste ore suo condemnatus est, & ore suo A­nathema suscepit Maranatha, quoniam ore suo condemnatus est, nemo enim vnquam iudicauit Pontificem, nec prae [...]ul Sacerdotem suum, quoniam prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam, it is very true that Iudica causam tuam, nostro iudicio non condemnaberis, is often iterated by those Bishoppes, but what their meaning is, the reader may easily discerne by the [Page 78] contrarietie which seemeth to be betweene their words and their actions. The Pope denyeth the fact, the Councell doth examine witnesses against him, and subscribed to his condemnation: what needeth any more, but seeing the matter which was handled was a matter of infidelity, the Parisians cannot conceiue according to the doctrine of those times, why the Councell should not haue to do with it, for if the words Prima sedes a nemine iudicabitur, be to be vn­derstood in matter of heresie, it is contrary to the doctrine of this time, if it be to be vnderstood in aliis causis, it agreeth not with the purpose of the Councell. Another great difficultie that they find in the Acts of this Councell, is, that Dioclesian in person bring­eth in Marcelinus to sacrifice, the 72 witnesses are accorded to te­stifie the fact, the Councell is assembled in Sinuessa, it lasteth three daies, and in the end of it, it is said that Dioclesian beeing in the wars of Persia had aduertisement that 300 Bishops, 30 Priests, and three Deacons, had met together and that when they came to set their handes to the sentence, Marcelinus himselfe was the first that sub­scribed his owne Anathema. Doubtlesse Dioclesian made great hast into Persia, & the difficulty is so much the greater, because it should seeme that Marcelinus was put to death by the expresse order of Dioclesian.

Moreouer Marcelinus was excommunicated: for so saith the Acts and his Anathema was subscribed by himselfe and the Bi­shoppes, by whom was hee excommunicated by himselfe? no, the Schoolmen hold that to bee vnpossible. Was it by the councel? no, the author saith the councell did not iudge him; by whome then? if any man will answere that it was A Iure; tell vs who made that Canon, whether the Pope, or the councell? no man can make a Canon for the trangression whereof, he himselfe shalbee excōmu­nicated, neither can an inferiour make a Canō to binde a Superiour, it is confessed that Marcelinus receiued the sentence of Anathema, he could not receiue it from himselfe, frō whom then did he receiue it? if the councell, at least in that cause were not superiour vnto him: How shall wee reconcile this contradiction, which seemeth to bee betweene the wordes and the deeds of the councell: two thinges there are, which may certainely bee concluded out of these Acts, but such is the contrariety betweene them, as they can hardly stand together, one is, that the Bishoppes speaking to Marcelinus [Page] bad him iudge himselfe: the other that Marcelinus denying the fact they produced witnesses against him, and examined them, and in conclusion, Marcelinus was excōmunicated. But because this councell was not generall, all which hath bin saide of it, maketh no­thing against the opinion of the Parisians.

In the 2. place, he citeth the Roman councel vnder Siluester, in the last Canon where of it is declared, that the first Sea which is the Sea of Rome, is not to bee iudged of any; he might haue don well, to haue alledged the forenamed Canon intirely, because the Canon it selfe doth make it manifest, what is ment when it is said that the first Sea shal not be iudged of any for these are the words of the Canon Nemo iudicabit primam sedem, quoniā omnes sedes a prima sede iustitiam de siderant temperari; neque ab Augusto, neque ab omni clero, neque â Rigibus, ne que â populo iudex iudicabitur: This according to the diuines of Paris, is the reasō why the first Sea cānot be iudged of any; namely because al other Seas appeale to it for iustice, but al other Seas being vnited, as in a general councel they are, can haue no cōtrouersie with any inferiour Sea, & consequently no cause of appeale to the first, but be cause al Seas, cōsidered seuerally may be at controuersie among thē ­selues, therefore it is that the first Sea is superiour to all other bee­ing so considered, but not when they are assembled in a councell according to that of the Councell of constance Article 41. against Wickliffe formerly alledged, and they giue this for a generall rule; that wheresoeuer these wordes are found Prima Sedes â nemine iudi­catur, they are to be interpreted, a nulla alia sede particulari; others there are which say precisly that this Canon extendeth generally to all the Patriarchall Seas and not particularly to the Sea of Rome, for that Pope Nicholas the first doth alledge it in that Epistle to the Emperour Michall in the behalfe of the Church of Ierusalem: and this Epistle ought to bee of great authority with the author, be­cause himselfe doth vouch it vpon this occasion; and therefore the author doth not well to interpret these wordes of Pope Nicholas Prima sedes as spoken of the Sea of Rome, which himselfe spake of Ierusalem and are equally to bee extended to all the Seas of the Pa­triarches. The Author himselfe will not deny but that a generall councell may proceed against a Patriarch; and by the same reason it may proceede against the Pope▪ according to Gersons opinion, notwithstanding any thing contained in this Canon, but what is the reason why in the Acts of the councell it is saide that this councell [Page 79] was assembled by Siluester, by the aduise of Constantine who was new­ly Baptized and yet in the end of this Act it is saide that it was in his 3. Consulship, by this accompt Constantine was Baptized in his 3. Consulship, whereas in the Chapter Constantinus dist. 96. the Bap­tisme of Constantine, is saide to be in his 4. Consulship, contradictory to that of the councell.

Here vnto they add that Cardinall Baronius hath conuicted of falshood this Chapter, Constantinus. Wherein it is said that the Bap­tisme of Constantine was in his 4. Consulship with Gallicanus, and that by the authority of Amiânus Mercelinus who affirmeth that Constan­tine was neuer associated with a priuate man in the Consulship. This reason seemes to bee at variance with that councell, in the ende whereof it is saide that it was solemnized Constantin [...] Augustus, the third time, and Priscus beeing Consull, so that by Cardinall Ba­ronius his reason, wee are not to giue credit to that Romane coun­cel. There are also certaine other passages obserued in this councel though peraduenture not of so great importance as that Constantine called himselfe Donnus a word not in vse til some hūdreds of yeres afterwards; Againe it is said Prima sedes non iudicabitur neque â Regibus, as if there were some King, raigning in Italie, at that time, of whom they stood in feare: whereas al Kings in those times were vnchrist­ned, and liued beyond Euphrates, and Danubie, and also that in the 2. Canon of that councell in the ecclesiastical ordinations so large a time is assigned as the space of 55. yeares to proceede from a Rea­der, to a Priest.

In the 3. place hee vrgeth the authority of the councell of Calcedon in the 3. Act whereof Dioscorus is condemned for that hee with the whole second councell of Ephesus tooke vpon them to censure the Pope of Rome: concluding that if that Patriarch which next to the Pope possessed the highest place in the Church toge­ther with a generall councell, had no power to iudge the Pope, it followeth that the councell is not aboue the Pope: Hereunto they of Paris do answere briefly that the second councell of Ephesus which our author tearmeth a generall councell was onely a Conuenticle, and branded with the infamous surname of Pre­datorium, and therefore in that third Act of Calcedon alledged by our author, Dioscorus is condemned, not onely for the excommu­nicating Leo, but also for receiuing Eutiches to the communion, whom his ordinary had excommunicated, for vsing violence to [Page] Flauian of Constantinople, and for many other offences, but especial­ly for his contumacie which he vsed that day against the councell.

If out of these premises any man will goe about to proue that a councell can not condemne a Patriarch of Constantinople, I will deny the consequence, but this were a good consequence, that therefore no Predatorie councell can condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople, because he holdeth the true catholique faith, and in like sort it followeth that no Councell can proceede against the Pope in fauour of an heresie, because hee teacheth the catholique faith. There are some others who do obserue that in that third act many complaintes were exhibited against Dioscorus, as well viua voce of them which were presēt, as vnder the hāds of others which were farre off. Dioscorus, though he were present in the citty, yet ab­senting himselfe from the Councell, was at three seuerall times sommoned to appeare, which he vtterly refusing to do, the Councel re­solued to condemne him, in this condemnation. 186. Bishops pro­nounced their sentences, as it may appeare by the Acts of that councell where these sentences are formally set downe. The legate of Pope Leo said thus that Dioscorus against the orders of the church taking vpon him the primacie had restored Eutiches that hee would not suffer Leos epistles to Flauian to be read & that for these errors he might haue had his pardon, but for that he did afterward presume to excommunicate Leo the Archbishoppe of great Rome and for that he was accused to the Councell of many hainous of­fences, and for that hee beeing thrise sūmoned refused to appeare, they in the behalfe of Pope Leo that holy Sinode and blessed Saint Peter did depriue him of his Episcopall dignity. Anatolius bishop of Constantinople said, I also am of the same opinion, and do assent to the condemnation of Dioscorus, for that he was disobedient to the citation, but he made no mention of the excommunicatiō of Leo. Maximus of Antiochia said, I do concurre with Leo of Rome and with Anatolius of Constantinople in the deposing of Dioscorus, for that beside other thinges he disobayed the citation. After these 184. Bishops pronounced their sentences successiuely, and some of them said, I condemne Dioscorus for his contumacie, others, accor­ding to the voices of the three Patriarchs, others according to the sentence of Anatolius, from whence they do gather that the depo­sing of Dioscorus by the Concell was for diuers faults committed, whereupon he being called, refused to appeare. The excommuni­cation [Page 80] of Leo which the Romanes did insert amongst the causes of his deposing, assented vnto by some of the fathers, was not they say the generall sentence of the councell and proue it as to them it see­meth manifestly. For the intimation of the sentence against Di­oscorus is not in the Acts of the councell, but alledged by Euagrius in his lib. 2. chapter 18. where making a repetition of the causes of the condemnation, the excommunication of Leo is not to bee found. These are Euagarius words. De his per litteras â Concilio refe­rebatur ad Martianum, & abdicatio per idem Concilium missa fuit Diosco­ro, quae ita se habet: Scito te, tum quod diuinos Ecclsiae Canones contempseris; tum quod Sancto huic, & Generali Concilio minime obtemperaueris; tum propter alia mul [...]a crimina praeterea quae cōmisisse deprehensus es, tum quod tertio vocatus â Sancto hoc, & celebri Concilio vt illis, quae sunt tibi obiecta responderes, non veneris: scito iuqnam, te propter ista omnia a Sancto, & Generali Concilio tertio idus istius mensis Octobris Episcopatu abdicatum esse, & a [...] omni iure Ecclesiastico penitus abalienatum. Quibus verbis in com­mentarios relatis missisque, &c.

And to make it appeare yet more plainly that the councell of Cal­cedon was of a contrary opinion to that which the Author would father vpon it, they add that in the first Act of it, the Senators and the Bishoppes beeing assembled in the presence of the Emperour and the Empresse, the Emperour and the Senate sitting in the mid­dest of the Church and at his left hand the Popes Legates with Ana­tolius, and the Bishoppes vnder his iurisdiction, at his right hand Dioscorus of Alexandria, Iuuinall of Ierusalem with their Bishoppes, the Popes Legates went into the midst of the councell and said, that they had commaundement from the Pope of the citty of Rome, which is head of all the Churches, that Dioscorus should not sit in the councell, wherefore they desired, that Dioscorus might depart the councell, or otherwise themselues would goe forth of it, the Iudges, and the Senate demaunded what was obiected against Dios­corus, one of the Legates answered that hee had assembled a coun­cell without any authority from the Sea Apostolique, another of the Legates saide wee cannot transgresse the commandements of the most blessed Pope, and another of them said we cannot endure so great an iniury that that Sea should be Iudges. The Iudges cōman­ded that Dioscorus should sit downe; and that all the rest should likewise sit downe in their places. In the last Act also the fathers, [Page] and the Iudges being set, the Legates of Pope Leo demaunded of the Iudges that they might haue leaue to speak, which being graunted they saide, yesterday after you departed and we followed you, cer­taine Acts were made in the councell which wee conceiue to bee contrary to the Canons, and to the descipline Ecclesiasticall, where­fore wee doe require that you cause them to bee read againe, to the intent that euery one may see whether they be iust: The Iudges commaunded that they should be read, and accordingly a Canon was read, where it is saide that the auncient fathers haue giuē great priuiledges to the Sea of old Rome, in regard of the Empire of that city, therefore also the second councell of Constantinople, hath giuen as great priuiledges to the Sea of Constantinople, new Rome▪ iudging that a city adorn'd with the Empire and Senate, ought to haue priuiledges and authority in Ecclesiasticall affaires, equall to old Rome, and to haue the next place after her: The Ca­non being read together with the subscription, one of the Legates said, you see with what subtilty, holy Bishops are dealt with all, in that they haue bin enforced to subscribe without producing the copie of the Canon whereof they haue made mention: The Bi­shops cryed out no man is enforced, and the contention being pro­secuted; the Iudges did order that both the parties should propound the Canons; the sixt Canon of the Nicene councel was read in the behalfe of the Romanes and in the behalfe of the Constantino­politās, & the reading was different; for in that which the Romans read, these words were in the beginning of it; Quod Ecclesia Romana sēper habuit primatum, which are not in the other copies, after this a Canon being read of the councel of Cōstantinople, the Bishops reasoned sufficiently, & finally the Iudges demanded of thē what was their opinion; whereunto they answered that that which was determined was iust, one of the Romane Legates did protest that either the decree might be annihilated, or that his protestation might be recorded against it, let the reader therefore Iudge what opinion the councell of Calcedon held of the Popes superiority.

As to the Romane councell vnder Simachus, the Parisians doe not deny that the Popes of Rome haue held that they ought not to be iudged of any, & also that the prouincial councels they haue assembled in Rome haue not confirmed the same, but they say with all that neuer any Roman councel, neither this fift nor any other [Page] came to specification that the Pope may not bee iudged of a general councel and when they say that the Pope can bee iudged of none, they vnderstand that hee can bee iudged of none, that hath not ge­nerall authority in the Church. For the Pope hauing generall au­thority, it stands not with reason, that he should bee iudged by him that hath but particular authority: wherewith they answere al­so to the history which he alledgeth of Leo the third.

But here I am inforced to set downe a little thing of mine own. Paulus Emilius in the third of his history reporteth this fact: Where yet it shal not be found that he saith, there being assembled a great councell of Bishoppes, as the author maketh him speake. He saith simply, first that Charles sent Leo to Rome, with many Bishoppes and secular noblemen: and enterteined himselfe elswhere about publique businesse. Afterwarde hee went to Rome, and there heard the accusations against the Pope: and hauing diligently ex­amined them, hee required their opinion: and the Bishops made answere, that it were well that the Pope should iudge himselfe: and it was acceptable to Charles to bee deliuered from proceeding to that iudgment. Let the author read the place, and hee shall see no mention there of a councell: and that it was rather a conuocation of the imperiall councell, where were both seculars and Bishops: and that the Bishops did fauour the cause of the Pope. And let the author also remember himselfe, that hee opposed before against the decree of Constance because there was no debaiting of the mat­ter before hand: and let him not here plant such a maine foundati­on of a thing which was spoken by some Bishops in a particular fact, thus assembled, and hauing their opinion vnpremeditately demaunded. For peraduenture the Popes innocency being known vnto them, they spake by way of exaggeration: not therefore (will Gerson say) to the preiudice of generall councels, which represent the Church vniuersall, and haue vniuersall authoritie. But see Rea­der the cunning of our author: Who saith that the first councell of Rome vnder Pope Simachus, approued as their owne decree that sentence of Ennodius, aliorum hominum causas &c. It shall neuer bee found in that councell, that that sentence was particularly appro­ued, no nor yet so much as mentioned. It will bee found indeede that the councell saide, let a little booke bee brought hether, which hath beene written by Ennodius, against them which haue mur­mured [Page] against our fourth Sinod; and it beeing read, the councell saide, let the booke bee held of all men for most sound and for Sino­dical, and let it be entred amongst the actions of our fourth and fift Sinods, Integerrime Synodaliter. and let it be held as the other decrees of the Sinodal actions, because it is written and confirmed with Sinodall authority. And Pope Simachus answered, bee it done according to your will, and bee it placed among the decrees Apostolicall, and held for such.

Here say the Parisians that it is to be vnderstood, that by de­crees Synodall, or actions Synodal, or decrees Apostolicall, is not ment a Canon, which can determine an article, as de fide, that is, to bee held for matter of Faith. But all the Epistles of a Pope entred in the Register, are called the decrees of such a Pope: and hee that shall peruse the book of Councells, shall see this inscription vpon euery Pope, The decrees of Pope N. and then his election, his life, and afterward his Epistles if there be any. And likewise in the Councels he shall see, that their actions containe many com­munications of interchanged speaches; yea not fore-thought on, & somtimes the epistles of sundry persōs: al which things are not de fide, neither doth any man receiue them for such. No man can possibly say, that the Popes epistles, especially before Siricius, nor all that which at this day is found contained in so many narrati­ons of the Actes of the councell of Ephesus, of Calcedon, and o­ther ensuing, is de fide. The determinations of Councels are re­ceiued, which in the auncient for the most part will not passe one or two sheetes; whereas their actions will containe fortie or fifty. And concerning the Papall decrees, their greater part conteineth no other matter saue such as doth not concerne the Faith. Some­times in a long epistle there shall be one onely Article, as in that most famous and most holy epistle of Saint Leo to Flauian. Where­fore there is great ods to say, such a proposition of Ennodius was approued, which would intend that it were approued as an Arti­cle of faith, or Ennodius booke was approued, which intends no more saue that it is a good book, & made to good purpose, but not that whatsoeuer is in it, should be de fide: & to establish well this answere, it might bee said to the author: This booke is of many sheets printed in folio, it conteineth aboue 200. Propositiones, among which that is one which the author produceth, It is de­maunded whether they will that they be all de fide: and it shall [Page 82] be shewed him that there is some there that is not such, If he will not accept them all, as being de fide, what reason why hee would haue this to be de fide, and not the rest? Hee hath thought to es­cape this obiection, by telling vs that one onely sentence of En­nodius, was approued. Let vs speake frankly, the pamphlet was ap­proued, wherein among many other, is this sentence; and there­fore no more approued then the rest; so that this shall be no more de fide then all the booke.

Some also obserue, that that fourth Councell, called Palmare, was assembled to giue an end to the imputations which were laid vpon Pope Simachus, which were not of matters concerning his gouernment, but of matters meerely personall, of adul­teries, &c. as the Lord Cardinall Baronius doth well deduce: It was therfore intended by Ennodius, that such like delights shold be remitted to diuine judgment, which thing also Gerson and he that followeth his opinion doth admit. And that this is true in those very Actes of the fift Councell, where Ennodius booke was approued, Pope Simachus thanking the fathers for their defending him, proceedeth on; that for the time to come he or­deineth, that the like course be obserued, not onely for the Bishop of the Sea Apostolique, but also for all other Bishops of Chri­stendome, for which without making new decrees, there are already the auncient, that the sheepe cannot reprehend their Pastor, vnlesse he be found in fault in matter of Faith, neither accuse him for any matter vnlesse it be for his injustice. The sentence of Enno­dius is too generall, for by that it would seeme, that the Pope were not subiect to humane judgement, no not in case of Heresie: for he saith absolutely, that in all causes, he is reserued to diuine judg­ment, and therefore wisely Pope Simachus after he had saide that he extended the selfe same to all Bishops, according to the auncient Canons, excluded the case of heresie and of iniustice. And with­out all this discoursing, the book of Ennodius placed among the de­crees Apostolicall hath this title: In the name of the Father, of the Son & the holy Ghost, the preface of Ennodius &c. and afterward, It was composed against them, which had presumed to write against Synods; that neither against the Bishop of the Sea Apostolique, nor any other Bishop any man presume such matters as were presumed against Pope Simachus. Wherefore the Parisians say, that this place serueth to proue the [Page] doctrine of Gerson, and doth in no wise crosse it. It may well bee thought, that the author, as being of eminent learning, percei­ued well the weakenes of his argument, and therefore made no mention, neither of the history nor of the Synod Palmare, nor of the approbation of the whole book of Ennodius, neither of exten­ding the case of Simachus to all other Bishops, much lesse out of the place alleged would draw any conclusion.

As touching the eight Councell, it had beene better that the author, besides his telling vs we read in the seuenth action, had ad­ded also whose the wordes were which hee hath read: for they are the words of Adrian Pope of Rome, spoken in a Synod of Rome and rehearsed together with many other thinges. Vpon which not withstanding the Councell determineth nothing. But wee reade in the Canons of the same eight councell determined, by it these words. Besides if an Vniuersall Synod shall be assembled, & any ambiguity and controuersie shall arise also concerning the holy Church of the Romans; it is meete with venerable respect and conuenient reuerence to inquire of the question proposed, and to receiue solution or to proceede and giue order, So yet as not audaciously to giue sentence against the high Bishops of the elder Rome. So that they allow of a sentence not beeing audacious.

There followeth another proof out of the Councell of Lateran, vnder Alexander the third in the chapter Licet de electione: Where a decree being to be made of the manner of choosing the High Bi­shop, it saith that in this election, there must be vsed very especiall diligence, because if they commit error, there is no recourse after to be had to any superiour, there being none on earth superior to the Pope. The Author hath handsomly added these wordes of his owne, There being none on earth Superior to the Pope: which are too sig­nificant. That chapter of the Councell saith nothing else but that recourse to a superior cannot be had. It sufficed to alledge vnto vs the bare words of the councell and not to add of his owne, as a matter out of the Councel just that which is in controuersie. But this place maketh against our Author, hauing said so often be­fore, that a doubtful Pope is subject to the councel, much thē more a Pope intruded. Where therefore it saith, if there bee error in the election, there is no superiour, whom to haue recourse vnto, it is not ment that the Councell is not Superior: nay, rather as well by his owne, as by the generall opinion, so often as there is diffi­culty [Page 83] & doubt, in the electiō, the iudgmēt belōgeth alwaies to the coūcel. The meaning therfore of the said chapter Licet is this, that there is no superiour actually in being, by reason that the councel is not alwaies assembled, whence we see that the author contrary to his owne proper meaning, hath added here, there being on earth no Superior to the Pope. For whensoeuer there is error or doubt of error in the election, himselfe affirmeth that there is on earth a superior to the Pope, and that this is the councell.

To the councell of Lateran the Lord Cardinall Bellarmine, in the second book, de auct. Concil. cap. 13. saith, that it hath most expressely defined this controuersie, But because some doubt whether the councell were generall, therefore the question stands on foot still euen among the Catholicks. And in the 17. chap­ter (it appeareth not whether to c [...]ntradict himselfe or to confirm the same) he saith it is a doubt, whether the saide councell haue defined this thing as a decree of the Catholick Faith. It seemes therefore superfluous to bring an authority against Gerson, which suffereth (by the doctrine of himselfe that bringeth it) so many perplexities: and doubt being also made of the authority of that councell, and withall of the determination. But Dominicus Soto speaketh of it well and clearely, For lib. 6. de iust; & iur: q. 1. a. 6. he disputes against, the Monti di picta which are very expresly approued in that councell, with these words, Sacro approbante Con­cilio declaramus & definimus Montes p [...]etatis, &c. And it commaunds vnder paine of excommunication Latae sententiae, that no man be so hardy as to dispute against them, neither in words nor writing. And the said Soto seeing how much this was against his opinion, who doth condemne them; makes answer that all the acts of that councell are not receiued, nor put in practise. But the Parisians say moreouer, that in that Councell there were neuer present one hundred Bishops, and particularly in that second Session here al­leged by the author, counting the Assistances in Coct, and the Titulars without diocesse, there were threescore and four Bishops all in a manner of places round [...]bout Rome. They add that it can not be called the determination of a councell, whatsoeuer is saide incidentally in a decree, without the compasse of the principall which is intended to d [...]fine. [...]ut in the B [...]ll whereof wee speake, the intent is onelie to disanull the Pragmatick, and this is the sub­stance [Page] 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.

[Page 84]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 shalbe 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 [Page] 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.

[...]rier PaoloThou shalt see here Reader a meruailous peece of Art, where­with the Author will leade thee, from Christ the eternall high Bi­shop, to an high Bishop Temporall: and when he shall haue setled with thee the relation which the holy Church hath towards the diuine maiestie, he will afterward conclude of the relation towards the Pope. The Parisians do answere, that thus the doctrine of the Catholiques doth hold; that God hath called the Church to the faith and his worship; and that he hath placed Christ ouer it for an head for euer: who first, himselfe mortall, did gouerne it on earth with corporal presence: but ascended into heauen, doth rule it with inward influence & assistance inuisible vnto the end of the world. This is meant by, I am constituted a King by him. This meaneth that, our Lord God shall giue him the seat &c. and hee shall raigne for euer. This is that, you chose not me, but I chose you. This is the kingdome in the Apocalips, and thou hast made vs to our God a kingdom. This Christ is the Father of the family, who is owner of it, and it his child and seruant. Which for that it is composed of visible men, the Father himselfe would that it should bee gouerned also by a man visible: and hath appointed the authority which hee should haue; and instituted one of them before the Church was founded, but for the residue of time after it was founded hath left on earth the power to choose a successour. Now with this doctrine, which I am assured the author will admit, yea ra­ther will say that without it no man is Catholique, the reason is an­swered, [Page 85] that the Church is not a commonwealth, as Venice, or as Ge­neua, which giue as much authority as themselues please to their Duke; nor a kingdom, which may chaunge the manner of gouer­ning it, neither inuisibly nor visibly, because that Christ hath pre­scribed the manner, much lesse is it such a kingdom as France, which hath a bloud royall, where the Kings succeede by birth, neither as some other by testament: but as touching the inward gouernment and meerely spirituall, it is not like vnto any, because it hath a per­petuall and immortall King; In the visible gouernment, it hath a Minister, as concerning his authority, instituted by Christ and vn­depending of the Church, as concerning the application of the authority to the person, electiue and depending of it. Wherefore when he alledgeth, and I am constituted a King by him: Our Lord God shall giue him: you chose not me: Thou hast made vs to our God a kingdome: All these places and such like others are meant of the inuisible kingdom, the spirituall interior; where the Pope hath no gouernment at all, but onely the Sauiour which knoweth the hearts, and can inflowe into them, and bestow on them the gra­ces and guifts, whereby they are made Citizens of the heauenly Ierusalem. Christ also is that Father of the family, which depēds not of it. The high Bishop is a seruant, [...]et ouer the family by the Fathers therof, in respect of the authority, but which the family it selfe hath placed ouer it selfe, in respect of the election of the per­son. So as touching the authority, it is from Christ; as touching the application, it is from the Church. But the Author maketh the Church a family depending of the Father, whom he acknowledg­eth to be Christ: and this beeing setled, hee concludeth that the Fa­ther doth not depend of the family, nor hath his authority from it: Therefore the Pope cannot be subiect to the Church: and passeth frō the father of the family, which is Christ; to the steward elected by the family it selfe, which is the Pope. Let him stand firme in the similitude, for he shal neuer find in the Gospell, that any other is called father of the family, but God the father, or else Christ his Son by nature. The minister is a seruant, it is not fit to attribute the pro­prietie of God to another: For which cause the example serues meruailously for Gerson, as also the example which the author brings of a Vice-roy, is much for the same purpose If a King of France, as S Lewis the 9., should go to the conquest of the holy land & shold say [Page] to the kingdome, I leaue you my cosin for Viceroy, with authority to administer iustice, but not to make lawes, not to assemble the states &c. and in case he happen to faile, choose ye another in his place with the same authority, the authority of the elected, should be from the King and master; the person which the kingdome should choose, should be subiect to the kingdom. This is that which Gerson teacheth throughout all his works, where it is seene that verily the force of the reason concludeth for him. Out of the things a­bouesaid, I will not conclude, that the opinion of Gerson in this point of the supreame power Ecclesiastical, either is true or is false, but onely that the authors conclusion that Gerson is deceiued, and that he is deceiued that doth follow him, and goeth contrary to the doctrine of the holy scriptures, of the sacred Councels, and of manifest reason, hath need of other proofes, then those abouesaide. The Author proceedeth.

Bellarmine.And if he should say, that which Gerson himselfe wont to say, that it is written in Saint Mathew in the 18. chapter, tell the Church And if hee will not heare the Church, let him bee to thee as the Heathen and the Publican: I would answere, that in that place, by the Church is ment the Prelate, who is the head of the Church and so doth Saint Iohn Chrysostom expound it, Homilia 61. in Mathew and Pope Innocent 3. cap. Nouit, de iudiciis, and so doth the pra­ctize of the vniuersall Church of all the world, and of all times de­clare; that he who will denounce a sinner to the Church, and ob­serue this precept, doth not assemble a Councell, but hath recourse to the Bishop or to his vicar.

It is not sufficient to the Author, to haue disputed with Gerson, but he also giues solution to his reasons. But in this place, of many which Gerson bringeth and deduceth, Frier Paolo. the author contenteth him­selfe to produce one onely, and to dissolue it: And this is taken from the authority of Saint Mathew: tell the Church, vnto which hee answereth the Church, that is the Prelate: and of this exposi­tion hee maketh Chrysostome the author: although the Parisians say that Chrysostom doth not say so; but it seemes when a thing is accus­tomed to bee alleadged, euery man alleadgeth it without once viewing it. Chrysostome expoundeth, tell the Church, namely the Bishoppes and Praefidents. This is that which Gerson saith, to the Church representatiuely: because it being not possible to assemble [Page 86] the whole, it be comes represented by the assembly of Bishops and Praesidents. And therefore they adde, that vnder the name of the Church, their cannot bee ment one person: For in vaine should that ensue, If two of you shall consent vpon earth concerning eue­ry thing whatsoeuer they shall aske, it shall bee done to them of my Father which is in heauen. For where there bee two or three gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them. And for confirmation of this sense, they bring that Saint Paul, who recei­ued the information against the incestuous, there is plainely heard fornication among you &c. It followeth, I indeede, absent in body but present in spirit, haue already iudged, as present, him that hath so doone, in the name of our Lord Iesus Christ, you beeing gathered together and my spirit, with the vertue of our Lord Iesus, to deliuer such an one to Satan, Where they note that Saint Paul, who was then in Philippi, did not write by his Briefe, I excomunicate such an one: but wrote to the Church, that beeing gathered together with his spirite, they should do it. It is not therefore repugnant to Chry­sostome, that to the Bishops and Praesidents, may bee also ment of a generall councell Aboue there was also proposed the doubt, that tell the Church, were as much as to say tell thy selfe. As touching the practise, which sheweth that tell the Church doth meane the Prelate, because recourse is had to the Bishope or his Vicar: of the auncient practise, I haue spoken to him with the authority of Saint Paul; as touching the modern, it is true that at this day the Bi­shope or his Vicar excommunicateth without the aduise or parti­cipation of any; many times also the Register onely; and (that which is more important,) by authority delegated, a Clerke of the first tonsure deputed commissary in some very light particular cause, doth excommunicate a Priest. Yea Leo the tenth in the coun­cell of Lateran, in the eleuenth Session, by a perpetuall constituti­on of his, hath graunted faculty to a secular person to excommu­nicate the very Bishoppes: and that which doth more import, Nauar saith chap. 27. Num. 11. that if any man shall obteine an excomunication of some Prelate, if the obteiner shall not haue an intent that the party bee excommunicated, hee shall not bee ex­communic [...]ted. Moreouer the same author saith, cap, 23. Num. 104. that the excommunication pronounced by the law it selfe a­gainst him that payeth not a pension (for exaample sake) on the vi­gill [Page] of the natiuity, is not incurred by him that payeth it not, no not in many moneths and yeares after, if the creditor thereof would not haue it incurred. But if on the other side, after many monethes or yeares, hee would haue it incurred; it is reputed to haue beene in­curred from the day of the debt, that is from the Vigil of the nati­uity; and so is the stile of the Court. These are the practises which are now in vse: of which I say nothing else, but that they growe from the interpretation which the author doth approue.

Gerson:The ninth consideration is, that contempt of the keyes is not incurred, when the Pope doth most enormously and most scandalously abuse his power. This consideration is true in it selfe, but withall is most iniurious to the holinesse of our Lord, and to the holy Sea Apostolique; Bellarmine. as though it did vse to abuse in such sort the keyes of the kingdome of Heauen. Like to this are the arts of the moderne Hereticks; who to make the Papall power odious to the world, doe spread abroad the most infamous slaunders that the malignity of Satan their head can teach them. And the Venetians themselues ought to abhorre and punish such defenders.

Here it is most easie to defend Gerson: seeing hee that handles that which falleth out in a case possible, yea and such as hath hap­pened; Frier Paolo. doth not wrong them which doe well, but notes them that doe ill. This consideration therefore is not iniurious to the holie Sea Apostolique, which neuer doth ill; howsoeuer by humaine fra­gility, some sitting in it haue committed some falt whatsoeuer. They which write the liues of the Popes, (and Platina in particu­lar) doe recount so many falts, that taking the time from 820. downewarde, it will bee an hard matter to tell whether the num­ber of the good or of the bad bee the greater. It might bee saide by the authors reason, that the C. Si Papa of Boniface Martyr is greatly iniurious to the person of Pope Gregorie the second, and to the Sea Apostolique; where hee saith, if the Pope shalbee negligent of the saluation of his brethren, vnprofitable, and remisse in his actions, silent of good, and lead innumerable people by heapes vn­to Hell, no man may reproue him: as though Boniface did there­fore say, that the Apostolique Sea were wont to commit such falts. It followeth not, neither is it true, that the Heretiques alone reprehend their euill actions: but much more the Ecclesiasticall writers, and the Historians catholique. I will not speake of Platina, who [Page 87] is all full of it: But all the German Historians, Regnius, E [...]ithprandus, Segebertus, Otho; of the French, Annonius, Addo, and so the Italians of all times. And not to goe seeking the old, Frances Guic [...]arden is in euery mans handes; though many thinges of that nature haue beene cut out; and you may see how hee speaketh. There is dif­ference betweene the manner of the Heretiques speaking, and that of Gerson: they reproue the doctrine, Gerson speakes of abuses. Whosoeuer shall read Saint Bernard de consideratione ad Eugenium, wil not finde fault with foure wordes in Gerson; and that considering his considerations are in a necessary cause. Euery man may be in a meruaile at such a great contradiction, that the consideration of Gerson is true in it selfe, and it most iniurious to the Sea Apostolique: as though the Sea Apostolique receiued iniury from the truth. Hee cannot receiue iniury from the truth, that doth not ground him­selfe vpon falshood.

And so likewise that it is true in it selfe, but like to the arts of the moderne hereticks, as though Gerson now an hūdreth and fifty yeares since could haue learned of the moderne hereticks. This is like to the prohibiting of the vse of the diuine scripture, because the hereticks serue their turnes with it. That the consideration is true in it selfe, and that the Venetians ought to abhor it, seemeth no very good doctrine to teach to abhor the truth, and a truth ne­cessary for the maintenaunce of the liberty and power which God hath giuen them. Now the last part where the author saith, that they ought to punish such defenders, is not well vnderstood. I defend at this present the innocency of Gerson, but I know not who were his defenders when the author wrote. Besides that to punish the defenders of truth, seasonably spoken, and in a necessary cause, is not wont to be done by any just and godly prince, and especially by that commonwealth, which hath euer professed the Catholicke truth. It may bee well saide to him whom a necessa­ry truth displeaseth, Euery one that doth ill hateth the light, And hee should not say amisse, that should say that the doctrine of the au­thor were most iniurious to al the Cleargie, and to all the Church because he will not haue him reproued, that would ravin the trea­sures of the church, vsurp vpon the possessions, or reduce the Clergie with their goods into abiect seruitude, or causlesly spoile them of their rights. For these are the wordes of Gerson which it had [Page] bin well that the author had here produced.

Gerson.The tenth consideration is that they do not incurre contempt of the keies, who procure defence for themselus, against such pre­tensed judgements, by meanes of the secular power: seeing the law of nature teacheth, to resist force by force. This is a pernici­ous doctrine, and from which infinite Scandals may ensue. For al­though that sentence is true. Bellarmine. Ʋim vi repellere licet, that is, it is law­full to resist violence with violence: yet hath it many limitations: For the force must be vniust, and such as hath no redresse but by force: the resistance must be immediate; and other things, as Silves­ter sheweth Verb. Bellum 2. and the other Doctors which handle this matter. And therefore if it be not applyed to certaine particu­lars with greate discretion, it is cause of exceeding greate disorders. When the Sergeants arrest a man, and binde his hands; no question they offer him violence: and yet it is not lawfull for him to vse vio­lence against the Sergeants, vnder pretext that violence may with violence be resisted. Semblably when the Gally-Slaues are tyed to the bench of the Gally, and with many a sharpe stroake are con­strained to rowe; who doubts but that great violence is vsed to­wards thē: & yet notwitstanding no man of iudgment wil say that it is lawfull for them vnder the same pretence to offer violence to the Comito. Likewise, when one is forced by his superior, ey­ther Ecclesiasticall or Secular, to make restitution to another, of his goods, or of his good name, or to keep faith & his promises it cannot be saide that he who so is forced may resist with force, & turn himself against his superior: and to passe ouer infinite other examples, whē somtimes the Magistrates or Princes impose bur­thens vpon the people, and constraine them to pay them. I trowe they would not be pleased, that any should teach the people to raise rebellion vnder colour that vim vi repellere licet. And what great confusion would there be in houses, and in citties and in kingdomes, if to euery force, force might bee opposed, with saying that it is lawfull, by naturall reason to make resistance with violence to violence? But if we speake of the force which Prelates do vse, when by the censures they constraine their sub­jects to obey, certaine it is that it is not lawfull, to make resi­stance with force. For if he who will not heare the church, ought to be vnto vs, according to the commaundement of the Lord, as [Page 88] a Gentile and Publican: certainely he who with force will resist the church, ought to be vnto vs worse then Gentile & Publican. And as for recourse to secular Princes in matter of excom­munication, the sacred councell of Trent hath already prouided expresly, Ses. 25. cap, 3. forbidding Secular Princes, that they hinder not Prelats so that they may not excommunicate, neither commaund that the excommunicationes already gone forth be reuoked, considering that this is no part of their office. Lastly if wee come to the businesse which is at this day in hand, it is be­side all purpose to produce that principle, vim vi repellere licet. For the force which our Lord vseth to the common wealth of Venice, is a fatherly and iust force, conforming to the scriptures and sa­cred canons, & vsed in all times by the Prelats of holy church, and the remedie is plaine and ready, without recourse to force or to help of Princes; namely Obedience and Humility, without which all other remedy is vaine.

In the tenth consideration, Frier Paolo. if to say that to the force of pretēded sentences, resistance may by law of nature be made by force, bee a doctrine pernicious, then hath Cardinall Bellarmine taught a pe [...]nicious doctrine, in his booke of the Bishop of Rome, which wee haue before alledged, where with most cleare words he doth establish this sentence. And of the selfesame perniciousnes are the Cardinals Turrceremata and Ca [...]tane authors, alledged by him, and Domimcus Soco, and Franciscus Victorius, and other moderne writers innumerable, who following one another confirme this Sentence. And it is not true that infinite scandals may grow out of this doctrine, nay rather it shall be said that out of the contrary, they would arise indeed, for so should Tirany be brought into the church, which as a publicke fault is more pernicious. Euen as no more true is it that by this doctrine there wold grow confusiōs in houses and citties because euery one might defend himself from the Sergeants, from the Comito in Gallies, and from the Prin [...]e which causeth them to pay impositions. For two which striue toge­ther cannot both haue right on their sides: but neades must it bee that if he which vseth force, do it lawfully, the defence be vnlaw­full; and where the defence is lawfull, the force must needs be vn­lawfull.

[Page]The Author knoweth very well, though here he dissemble it, that when the law saith vim vi repellere licit, it meaneth of that force which is vniustly vsed. And therfore the vniuersal is not true which he draweth, when he saith if to euery force, force might be oppo­sed: neither the law nor Gerson, nor any man else hauing said that all force may be by force resisted. The consequence therefore of the Sergiants, and of the Cometo, and of the Prince who leuyeth iust impositions, doth not follow: neither that of the magistrate, who condemneth to restitution of goods or good name, or to keep his promises, because these are lawfull forces. The consequence which he deduceth of the force which the Ecclesiasticall vseth, is well to the purpose, when he intermedleth in causing to make restitutiō of goods, good name, or performing of promises; which are thinges appertaining to the Seculare, in which the Ecclesiasticall hath not to intrude himselfe, saue onely in foro paenitentiae in auricular confes­sion. But whenas the author saith, that if wee speake of the force which Prelates do vse, when by the Censures they constraine their subiects to obay; certaine it is that it is not lawfull to make resi­stance with force: For if he who will not obey the Church, ought to be as a Gentile and Publican: so much worse he that will make re­sistance with force: here he speaketh either vniuersally of all cen­sures, comprizing also those which are not of validitie; or else only of those which haue validitie. If he speake of all, and it be the Au­thors meaning, that to make resistance to Censures which are nul, be worse then to be a Gentile; it is a doctrine absurd, false, erroni­ous, and contrary to the law of nature, and to the doctrine of the foresaid Cardinalles, and of Bellarmine himselfe: but if he meane of them onely which haue validitie, it is exceding good doctrine, and not contrarie to Gerson yea rather confirmed by him. For Gerson in the consideration speaketh of pretensed censures, which are not iuridicall, but violences, & if any assemby pronounce forth such, it is not called together in the name of Christ, neither is Christ there present; and he that doth not heare it, is a good Christian: & so teach the Canons which are cited by Gratian. 11. Quest. 3. Of the Church of God which cannot erre it is alwaies true, that hee is to be reckoned for a Gentile that doth not heare it, and he worse that shall resist it: because the defence will bee vniust against so iust a precept; considering that it neuer deliuers other wordes then the [Page] word of Christ. But if by the Church be meant a power subiect to errors, especially, if not by reason onely it appeare [...]o b [...] [...], but ther [...] be seene also dayly errors in it when it shall [...] in the com­mandings, he that shall d [...]f [...]d himselfe, shall then vse force lawfully, and shall not offend God, because hee g [...]eth not against the Church, but against humaine error, which transporteth [...] of the doctrine of the Church. But the author hauing proposed to vs a true proposition in censures that haue validity, vnder the couert of an vniuersall, hath applied it to those that haue no validifi [...] peece of skill at length knowne, and vsuall in all these discourses. The pro­position therefore remaines sure and [...] ▪ when the assailant v­seth vnlawfull force. Yea and the author himselfe doth graunt no lesse. For minding to limit the proposition, he setteth three limitati­ons, one is, that the force be vniust; another; that there be no other remedie; the third, that it be immediate. About which we must ha [...]e yet one word, to the end we rest not deceiued with the ambigui­ty of the word, according to custome. For immediately doth not signifie a thing indiuisible: but it is meant according as the mat­ter which is spoken of, doth require. For if a Prince haue a fort sur­prised; he shall recouer it immediately, although hee haue neede of a yeare to set an armie in order: yea he shall do it immediately, if he shall haue neede to make his leagues and other agreements, wher­in he shall spend many yeares.

Wee must also take heede of the ambiguity of the second limi­tation; that there be no other remedie. For it by other remedy hee meane a lawfull remedie, [...]ee admit it, and so his limitation is in the selfe same proposition. For euery man that saith, vim vir [...]pellere li­cet, doth adde or vnderstand, cum moderamine inculpataetu [...]elae, that is, with moderation of defence vnblameable. But if by remedy, the Au­thor mean a remedy preiudiciall to the part grieued; then al forces vniust haue other remedy then to resist, and that is to support them and take all patiently. But to this sort of remedy is no man bound: yea rather oftentimes a man should sinne in vsing it, namely when the remedy were not onely preiudiciall to himselfe, but also to an other▪ See Reader how with an artificiall ambiguity hee endeuou­red to transport thee. First he saith that the proportion is true, with limitation that there be no other remedy: and afterward ma­ny long speeches interposed, hee saith the Common-wealth of [Page] Venice hath a remedy at hand, without recourse vnto force, or to the aid of other Princes, and that is obedience. Very well. This is a re­medie, but preiudiciall, and not onely to the liberty which GOD hath giuen them, but also to the life, goods and honour of their subiects. Therefore they are not bound to vse it: and by reason of pre­iudicing another, they should sinne if they should vse it. Whether then all other remedy be vaine, as the Author telleth vs, it belong­eth onely to God to dispose thereof, and to the euent to make it manifest. The Author shalbe besought not to deliuer his iudge­ment before the time, lest it be said to him. To mee it is a thing of least account to be iudged of you or of mans clay. That the force which the Pope vseth is iust and fatherly, according to the first li­mitation; this is the point in controuersie, and which should haue beene handled, but the Author passeth it ouer with a bare affir­mation. Wee cannot see to what scripture the Author saith it is conforming. It is not according to the 13. Chapter to the Romains nor to the 3. of the Epistle to Timothie, nor to the second of the first of S. Peter, nor to the 22. of S. Matthew, nor to the twelue Canons which treate of this matter. 11. Quest. 3. That it hath beene vsed in the Church at all times, we see not before the yeare of Grace one thousand. True it is that after that it hath beene sometimes put in practise by the Bishops of Rome: but alwaies due resistance hath beene made them, whensoeuer they haue abused their lawfull power. Wee must not consider what opinion hath remained with po­sterity concerning the actions of those times; because that grow­eth often from the affection of the writers. And God by his most secret iudgements doth sometimes permit, that the iust cause see­meth the weaker in the opinion of men. But the resistance which Philip the faire made to Boniface the 8. and Lewis the twelfth to Iuli­us the second, like to that which this commonwealth doth vse at this present, is well commended by Lodouike Ricbehome Prouinciall of the Iesuites, in his Apologeticall in the 25. Chapter, and propo­sed for an example to be imitated. Yea in the 24 chapter he sheweth, that whensoeuer any Bishop of Rome should offend the King of France, as those Kings were offended by those Bishops; the Iesu­ites in such occasiō wold do that which the Frenchmē did in those times, who vnited thēselues with their king to the defēce of his maiesty. I know not with what form of speech to āswer the last parcel [Page 90] where he saith that there is another remedy for this cōmonwelth besides resistance. For reading such words he had put me in great hope that all this so great tumult should sodainely cease. But when he commeth to explicate his meaning, I could not▪ but merauaile at it: because this is a remedy in like sort for him that shall bee assal­ted with force of armes to take from him that he hath, namely to yeeld and to giue him whatsoeuer he list to haue. Obedience is one of those words which we tearmed ambiguous: and here with his comlines and faire shew it doth deceiue vs. Obedience seemeth an holy thing, and so is it when it is yeelded to a iust and honest com­mandement, but when it is referred to a tirannicail and abusiue precept▪ it is not good; but naturall defence doth then succeede in his place. God hath bestowed liberty on the Commonwealth of Ve­nice; and commaunded them to preserue it, and to protect their sub­iects, and not suffer them to be harmed. If one command them to reuoke the lawes needfull for this effect, and not to defend the life, goods, and honour of their subiects, but onely against such as it pleaseth him to allow: if the common wealth should yeelde to this, it would be an obedience in name, but in deeds an extreame disobedi­ence towards God. This commonwealth hath alwaies obeyed the Ecclesiasticall power in iust things, it hath alwaies reuerenced, assi­sted and increased it: and we trust in God that it will so continue he giuing them grace to do the same for euer: and that he will cause by his omnipotent vertue, that the present tempest shall end in fair weather, with great satisfaction of the holy sea Apostolique, and of this Common wealth no lesse. We are not also to omit here an in­terpretation which the Author doth giue of a decree of the holy Counsel Sess. 25. cap 3. very different from the true meaning. The Councell ordaineth that the Secular magistrats shal not forbid the Ecclesiastical to excōmunicate any, nor cause them to reuoke their excommunication already thundered vnder pretext not to haue the things contained in that decree obserued. And the Author saith the sacred Councell of Trent hath prouided expressely, forbidding Secular Princes that they hinder not the Prelates, so that they may not excommunicate, nor command that the excommunications al­ready gone forth be reuoked. Now this is not the meaning of the Councell. For first he concealeth the condition which followeth that is, vnder pretext not to haue the present decree obserued: [Page] which as we haue shewed before, doth not forbid that it may bee done for some other cause. Then because the Councell saith, what­soeuer Secular Magistrate; and our Author altereth it, saying secu­lar Princes. But euery lawyer will tell him, that in odious matter, the name of magistrate comprehendeth not the Prince. Next be­cause the Councell speaketh of a prohibition and commaund iudi­ciall: and our Author bringeth it against resistance naturall, which he himselfe in the place alledged, lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. hath denyed to be an Act of Iurisdiction. So that to alledge that place of the Councell to the matter now in hand; is threefoldly to falsifie the meaning of it.

Gerson.The eleuenth consideration is, that contempt of the keyes is not incurred, when some Lawyer or Diuine in his conscience doth say, that such kinde of sentences are not to bee feared: espe­cially if due information bee obserued with warinesse that no scan­dall thereon ensue to the weake; who repute the Pope for a God, who hath all power in Heauen and in earth &c. This considerati­on, to speake modestly of it, Bellarmine. is very little considerate. For Gerson should haue saide at least, that an ignorant person, in doubtfull matters, might relie himselfe vpon the iudgement of a Diuine or a Lawyer that caryed a name of great learning and honesty. But that hee may relie himselfe vpon what Diuine or Lawyer so euer, especially in matter of obedience to the High Bishoppe, is an ex­ceeding great rashnesse. For it is not doubtfull, but most certaine, that in doubtfull thinges a man is to obey his superior. And then onely hee is not to obey, when it is cleere and certaine that the su­periour commaundeth thinges contrary to the commaundement of God. And besides, how many Diuines and Lawyers may a man finde, that through ignorance or malice may bee deceiued? And if one teach thee one way, and an other the contrary; on whom wilt thou relie? Secular Princes would in no wise suffer, that when they haue passed a sentence, the party condemned might excuse him­selfe from obeying it, because a Lawyer or a Diuine hath told him that in his conscience that sentence were not to be performed. How much lesse then ought this to bee suffered in case of obedi­ence to the Vicar of Christ; to whome all Christians by the law of God are bound to be subiect and obedient?

Frier PaoloIn this eleuenth consideration, the Author modestly maketh [Page 91] an invectiue against Gerson; wishing that at least wise he had saide, that an ignorant person, in doubtfull matters, might relie himselfe vpon the iudgement of a Diuine or a Lawyer that caryed a name of great learning and honesty: as though any man euer went to a Counsellor for a matter certaine. Be a man as ignorant as it is pos­sible to bee, hee will neuer aske counsell nor enter into consulta­tion, about that which hee holdeth for certaine and out of all ques­tion. The Author afterward doth not conteine himselfe within those bounds of modesty, which he promised in the beginning: and saith, that it is exceeding great rashnesse to say, that hee may relie himselfe vpon what Diuine or Lawyer soeuer: as though it were saide in the translation vpon whomsoeuer, or in the Latin cuilibet. But Gerson saith aliquis in the Latin, and the translation saith Some. That whomsoeuer, seemeth to signifie be he who he list be, either learned or ignorant, a man of conscience or consciencelesse: which is not to bee so vnderstood. For he that sendeth a man to one as to a Counsellor, intendeth to addresse him alwayes to such an one, as hath knowledge sufficient of that which is to bee aduised on And Gerson doth expresly so deliuer, when he saith some Lawyer or Di­uine in his conscience. Conscience (especially with Gerson) includ­eth knowledge and honesty; whereof there is a tract of his extant to bee seene. Therefore when Gerson saith, that he may relie vpon the conscience of a Lawyer or a Diuine; hee meaneth of one held to bee of sufficient honesty and knowledge. And this ought not dis­please the author, because the new writers also, such as are counted the best learned doe maintaine the very same opinion. And here it shall suffice me to alledge vnto him Nauar; who vpon the chap­ter cum contingal; de rescript: Rem. 2. Num. 30. saith formerly. Ninth­ly it is inferred, that the Canons of the Church B. securely might and ought communicate in Diuine duties with the foresaide E. v­pon that reason, that hee who doth anie thing following the au­thority of a Doctor famous for his learning and godlines of mind, is excused, though perhaps that fall not to bee right done, and though other should hold the contrary. He alleadgeth many Do­ctors vpon this point; and proceedeth, which also they acknow­ledge sufficiently, to bee particularly of force to excuse from vio­lating of Censures. And for this point also he alleadgeth many o­ther. I will not forbeare to add here also, that those wordes, when [Page] some Diuine or Lawyer &c. ought to bee taken, either singular­ly, or collectiuely, according to the waightinesse of the matter: so that in some case the counsell of one will suffice; and in an other case is to bee sought the counsell of two, and three and foure; and in some perhaps an hundred mens counsaile shall bee requisit. In this present controuersie, (though for the matter it bee easie and cleere,) this Common-welth hath taken the counsell of manie, both within Italy & without: so that he needeth not to insist vpon that worde Some. But the author would shew, that in matter of o­bedience to the Pope, no recourse at all ought to bee had to coun­sellors: because in thinges doubtfull, wee are to obey our superi­our. Which reason doth proue, that wee may neuer in any case haue recourse to a counsellor: because in a case doubtfull, we must chuse the secure part; and who so maketh that choise, shalbee free from fault and error: and therefore wee must neuer take counsell at all. Here wee may not suffer our selues to be deceiued by ambi­guity of the word doubtfull. But wee must say, as wee haue before shewed, that doubtfull, is taken in two sorts; either doubtfull bee­fore counsell; or so that after all diligent aduise it still remaine doubtfull. In the first case I say, that it is a sinne to obey our supe­rior; because it is a casting of our selues into hazard to goe against the law of God: but in the second case I agree, that where doubt is, the superior must bee obeyed: a thing which doth not take a­way counsell, but presupposeth it rather. And the reasons ensu­ing, wherewith the Author proueth the same, haue the selfe same fault. As when hee saith, how many Lawyers may one finde, that through ignorance or malice may bee deceiued? This falleth not out onely in cases of obedience to the High Bishoppe, but gene­rally in all doubts: so that a man should at no time take any aduise. Hee proceedeth, and if one teach thee one way, and another the contrary; on whome wilt thou relie? It may happen out in all mat­ters, that one may aduise one way, and another man another way. On whom shall a man relie then? All reasons which conclude more then is proposed, are fallacies. The Diuines which write of cases of conscience, make answere, that if a man shall bee in the wrong, hauing vsed all diligence that he possible can, hee shal be excused; seeing his ignorance is inuincible. It may bee that a Lawyer or Di­uine whome I consult with, by ignorance or malice may deceiue [Page 92] me. If I vpon sufficient probable grounds shall haue beleeued that he was a man of knowledge and honesty; I shall be excused. If one shall teach me contrary to another; then either will I relie vpon him whome I conceiue to be more excellently qualified; or else I will proceede on to take further aduise, till such time as I shall bee throughly cleered, and my conscience shall be ascerteined.

I see not now how the authors reason doth auaile when he saith that secular Princes would not suffer that the partie condemned might excuse himselfe from obeying any of their sentences, bee­cause a Lawyer or a Diuine, hath told him in his conscience, that that sentence is not to bee performed: How much lesse ought this to be tolerated in matter of obedience to the viccar of Christ. Here first of all euery man must obserue, that Gerson saith not ge­nerally, that a Christian doth not incurre contempt of the keis; whensoeuer a Diuine or Canonist in his conscience doth say, that the sentence ought not be performed: but this is meant only then, when the case is doubtfull, and in such sort doubtfull, that the partie cannot by himselfe be resolued of it. For if that which the Prelate commaundeth bee of thinges cleere in themselues, or wherein a man may be cleared, without difficulty; there were no neede of any aduise. As if the Prelate should commaund to a­uoid blasphemie or adulterie, it were not to moue doubt whether obedience were due. As also when a state is interdicted for a cause notorious to all men to be vniust (as now wee presuppose, and elsewhere haue proued, that that is for which at this present they will that the state of Venice stand interdicted) there needs not any counsell, the case being cleare that no man ought obey. But speaking onely of cases doubtfull, I say that the authors argument from the sentences of secular Princes to those of the ecclesiasti­call Prelate, proceedeth neither from the place a pari, nor a mino­ri. For the diuine Scripture, which hath spoken both of the one and of the other hath not saide the same thing of both: but of o­bedience to Prelates, it hath said to the Hebrues: obey your ouer­seers, for they watch for your soules to render an account of them: But of obedience due to Princes, it saith to the Romans, it is necessary to be subiect not onely for wrath but for conscience. My Prelate is not to commaund mee, saue onely those thinges, which pertaine to my soules health, for this is that which he wat­cheth [Page] for. Howbeit though one watch for my soule, yet am not I therefore to sleepe, but watch to my vtmost power. For Christ so commaundeth mee: and it is fit for mee to take heed that the Prelate watch ouer no other thing saue over the soule, nor that he sleepe, or thinke that he watcheth when he dreameth And if my owne watchfulnes bee insufficient, I will desire my neigh­bour whom I thinke not to bee drowsie, to help mee and watch with mee, so that when I shall be doubtfull, whether my Prelate watch or sleepe I will runne to counsell. But the Prince watcheth to exercise justice, as the minister of God, so that he will not med­dle with matters that belong to the soule, but to things temporal. Therefore I will not watch here, nor trouble my thoughts about it, but I must obey him first for wrath, then for conscience sake. True it is, that if the Prince, interuerting order, should command mee something in matters pertaining to my soules health, as if he commaunded mee to belieue or not beliue some article, I would thinke vpon it, and examine it according to the law of God, and if I doubted lest it were preiudiciall to my soule, I would to the Diuines for counsell, and the Prince ought to allow mee so to do: and if he will not I will say, wee must obey God rather then men. But if he shall commaund me, that I bring into the Citty or not carry out some kind of ware or merchandise, or that I pay a contributi­on or custome; or that I ward the wals of the Citty; and in summe, when he shall command mee that, which may serue to maintain the tranquillity, quiet and security of the state, which may im­peach the raising of tumults and other nouelties, which might bring with them scandall or disquiet, (thinges which are commit­ted to publicke care, where a priuate man ought not to interpose his judgement, but follow the iudgement of his Prince:) because in those things the menagement is not of my soule, but of things temporall, I ought not to trouble my thoughts about them, but will obey him both for wrath and for conscience sake. The care of the publicke tranquillity, belongeth all to the Prince; the pri­uate man hath no part at all therein, except the execution: there­fore I am not to trouble my thoughts about it. The care of eue­ry mans soule, belongeth not solely to the Prelate, the subject hath herein the most principall part, to him therefore doth it prin­cipally apperteine to thinke vpon it. And by this may one most [Page 93] cleerely discerne the difference betweene the commaundements of Prelates and Princes. For these must be obeyed, though one see not the reason, touching the other you must be well aduised what you do. When the Prince commaundeth, hee appoints a thing which belongeth to him, and to him hath God wholy commit­ted it, and not to mee otherwise then passiuely. When the Pre­late commaundeth, hee dealeth with a matter which belongeth more to me then to him, and therefore am I more bound to aduise vpon it then hee. But to the Prince I stand bound to yeelde absolute obedience, when hee dea eth with temporall thinges, without considering whether it hurt my priuate temporall pro­fit, because the publique good, must needes be preferred aboue any priuate. But now for the Prelate, I ought not to obey him; if it fall out to bee preiudiciall to the profit of my soule, though it would proue exceeding greatly behoofefull to those ends which were aimed at by my Prelate. The whole error stands in this, that we giue power to the Prelate ouer matters temporall, and trans­forme the ecclesiasticall ministery into a secular Court judiciall. For to the secular power, hath God committed the care of pub­lique tranquillitie, and giuen them authority to impose temporall punishments, for feare of which it is requisite that wee bee subiect to them, which is meant by for wrath: besides the commaunde­ment of God, which enioyneth vs to obey them, which makes vp the other branch for conscience sake. But to the Ecclesiastical, ministery hath God committed the care of soules, which is not to meddle directly with temporall punishments: and therefore hath he not commaunded to obey them for wrath. Of the temporall power, Saint Paul saith, For he beareth not the sword without cause; but of the ministery ecclesiasticall, it is exercised by the sword of the Spirit which is the word of God. The conclusion therefore which the author makes, that to the Viccar of Christ all Christi­ans are by the law of God obliged to bee subiect & obedient, is to be meant in things spirituall and appertayning to the saluation of soules, and in the court of God, and when hee commaundeth according to his diuine law. But in temporall thinges absolute Princes are not s biect to any other then to God himselfe, from whome their power is immediately deriued.

And if the weake hold the Pope to be a God, and that he hath al [Page] power in heauen & in earth: more pleasing to almighty God is this their weakenes; then their strength who seeming to be wise, ende­uour to abase the authority of the vicar of Christ; as at this day all Heretiques do. It is not so great a matter that the Pope should be reputed a God vpon earth, seeing in the psalme he saith of all Prin­ces, I haue said ye are Gods. Neither is it incōueniēt that one shold say that the Pope hath all power in heauen and in earth, seeing Christ hath said, whatsoeuer thou shalt bind vpon earth it shalbee bound also in the heauens. Which yet is expounded, and meant soundly by true and learned Catholiques. And in summe I think it may be said with all truth, that the power of the high Bishoppe is so great, that few men arriue to comprehend it. For hee is a­ble to do all that which is necessary to the conducing of soules to Paradise, and can take away all the impediments, which the world or the Deuil, with al their force or craft, are able to oppose. Whence it is that Saint Cyril, (cited by S, Thomas in his Opuscle de primatu Pe­tri) saith, that as Christ had from the Father, all plenitude of power ouer all the Church; so Christ gaue to S. Peter and to his successors all plenitude of power ouer all the Church.

Frier Paolo.Because Gerson saith, that they of weake and scrupulous consci­ence must be instructed, who repute the Pope for a God, & to haue all power in heauen and in earth: The Author makes answere, that this their weaknes is more pleasing to God, then the strength of Heretiques, who esteeme themselues wise in despising the autho­rity of the vicar of Christ. As if we would contradict him that con­demned auarice, by saying, it more pleaseth God, to be a niggard of his own, then to spend it in riot & other superfluities: as though there were not the true meane, which is liberality. The right māner of speech were, it lesse displeaseth God, to be niggardly, then to be prodigal in riot: but both displease him. The sinne is most grieuous to deny the true authoritie graunted by Christ to his vicar: yet his ignorance that giueth him more authority then is conuenient, is not praiseable. Truth is acceptable to God: ignorance when it is inuincible, is not good, but excusable: it implieth great contradi­ction, to say that any false thing pleaseth God. The Author be [...]ing accustomed to speake properly, might haue said, this weaknes of theirs is lesse displeasing to God, then the strength of Heretiques and we would haue commended him. For so should the truth haue [Page 94] beene vnfolded, that neither the one nor the other of the foresaide extreames do please at all. And let not the Author think it inconue­nient, if one should say that it is good to instruct the simple people not to giue more authority to the Pope then that which is right & lawfull, for so saith S. Gregory. 2. Quest. 7. and yeelds his reason. Ad­monendi sunt subditi ne plusquam expedit sint subiecti, ne cum student plus­quānecesse est hominibus subiici, compellantur etiam vitia eorum venerari: could this holy personage more plainely confirme the doctrine of Gerson? Gerson saith that those who in scrupulosity of conscience take the Pope for a God, must not be suffered to rest in their sim­plicity, and S. Gregories words are, that subiects must be admonish­ed that they make not themselues more subiect then is conuenient; but that which is more of importance giues the reason of it; because they are inforced to flatter them in their vices whose subiects they make themselues more then they should be. Then can you not err if you adde hereunto, that mans custome is to imitate the thinges he reuerenceth; and you may conclude it to be both good and ne­cessary to take away this false suggestion. That which follows in the Author, that it is no great matter though the Pope be thought a God since all Princes haue the stile of Gods hath no inconueni­ence in it, so as we be not ouertaken in the ambiguity of the words: but whilst that out of this proposition which hath good sense in it, we draw a consequence Papa et Deus constituunt idem tribunal, Papae & Dei idem consistorium; we shall ascribe to him a kind of diety which Gerson doth not allow. The Author thinks it no inconuenience to say, that the Pope hath all power in heauen and in earth, because it is said quodcunque ligaueris superterram erit ligatum & in coelis, and yet may it appeare to any that this conclusion is not well drawne from this place, because power belongs to the actiue property, and quod­cunque, appertaines to the matter. If I should say the Parish-priest is he that makes all marriages, it doth not therefore follow that he hath all power in matter of marriage. For to say quodcunque ligaue­ris super terram erit ligatum & i [...] coelis therefore quocunque modo liga­ueris followes not. And this is it which Gerson doth not approue; and thus do I thinke would the Author himselfe vnderstand it whē he saith that thus it is declared, and truly vnderstood by true and learned Catholiques, because that this proposition (The Pope hath all power in heauen and in earth) being taken absolutely is false: or [Page] being tied to the true construction, there is much more power both in heauen and in earth which the Pope hath not, then that he hath, and therefore that proposition which by one instance onely doth proue vntrue, hauing more instances against it then examples for it, is most false. The Author saith, he thinkes he may most truly say that the Popes authority is so great, that few can comprehend it. And I belieue it too, because truth is one and the same thing, and falshood infinite. Many ascribe to him lesse then is requisite and many more, so as the residue is but small which giue him iust that which is his due. The Cardinall Bellarmine in his worke de Romano Pontifice makes a long discourse prescribing limits to the Popes authority, and touching many thinges which the Pope him selfe cannot do: now, were this discourse very impertinent if his au­thority could not exceede. And for that he saith the Pope can doe all thinges which are necessary to conduct a soule into paradise & can take away all impediments which the world or the Diuell can lay in the way with all their strength and subtilty, This propositi­on is faire in shew but false in deed. To conduct the soule of an in­fant into paradise, which is yet in the mothers belly and cannot be brought forth aliue, necessary it is one way or other to make it partaker of grace, can the Pope then do it? no truly, for neither can he institute a sacrament for this purpose, nor graunt that the childe shoulde bee cut out of the mothers belly: and therefore can not the Pope do any thing necessary to conduct this soule into Para­dise. A man beeing actually in some mortall sinne and in this case depriued of his wits cannot: be saued vnlesse he recouer his sense a­gaine, and repent himselfe, can the Pope restore him to his wits a­gaine? I beleeue he cannot: and yet is this necessary for this mans saluation. Nothing is more necessary to saluation then the inter­nall motions of the minde, ouer which S. Thomas denieth that the Pope hath any power. Infinite are the things which are necessary for the cōducting a soule into paradise, which I can shew not to be subiect to the Popes authority. Yet, if it were Gods will, I wish he could (as the Author saith) remoue all impediments which the world and the Diuell can lay in the way with all their subtilty, for then shold we haue neither Turks nor Hereticks. The impedimēts are likewise infinite which are dayly cast in the way by the enemies of the kingdome of Christ, for which the Pope must content him­selfe [Page 95] without further remedy then onely to pray & nonos inducas in tentationem &c. God hath not onely not giuen authority to the Pope to remoue all impediments, which are laide in the way by the world and the Diuell, but hath thought it for the good of the Church to permit many of them. The Reader may well perceiue with how good reason Gerson doth giue admonishment that the simple people be wel instructed, because that here are foure propositions pronounced with one breath by a great man of great lear­ning which are manifestly false, & all to inlarge that power which God hath giuen beyond the bounds, within which his diuine ma­iesty hath restrained it.

We will soone rid our hands of the 12. consideration because the obiection is but short.

The 12. consideration is, Gerson that those do nourish the contempt of the keyes, who when they should resist the abuse of them are di­uided within themselues, and hinder each other. The truth is that all fauourable and humble endeuours must bee vsed with the Pope when vpon ill information hee pronounceth an vniust sentence. But if this humble diligence will not preuaile, then is hold to bee laide of a stout and manlike liberty. Bellarmine This consideration was to good purpose in Gersons time, because there being then a schisme of three Popes which did thunder out excommunications each v­pon others adherents; it was fit at that time that the faithfull should vnite themselues to extinguish this schisme and make small accoūt of those excommunicatiōs, since it stood in doubt which of them was the Vicar of Christ, and notwithstanding the saide excom­munications might still intend the businesse of the vnion of the Church. But now that by Gods grace we haue but one onely Pope and hee vndoubted and certaine; this consideration is nothing to the purpose, nor serues for any thing, but to make a new schisme of the members against their owne head.

If the Author conceiue that Gerson wrote this doctrine in a time of schisme let him but looke backe to the eight cōsideration and hee shall plainely perceiue this treatise was written after the councell of Constance, Frier Paolo and at such time as there was but one onely vndoubted Pope, But if the Author haue some more subtile mean­ing by himselfe, it is hard to bee guest at, though it may well be sus­pected, because there is no likely-hoode that hee should not ob­serue [Page] the time when the treatise was written; but this consideration being written by Gerson, I see not in what manner it can be applied to a former time. It doth likewise plainely appeare that it can haue no reference to a time of schisme which happily Gerson might mis­doubt would follow, because there is nothing saide of the vnion of the Church, but onely of the meanes how to take away the a­buses. And further, as long as the Pope is certaine and vndoubted, that reuerend respect which Gerson doth aduise, vnder the stile of fauourable and humble endeuours, is not due vnto him, but doth onely belong to the true vndoubted Bishope of Rome. And to dis­pute no longer of this matter the Reader reading Gerson and that which the author obiecteth, & considering whether there may not be abuse of the keyes, euen when there is no schisme, and how those which should make resistance are diuided amongst themselfes and out of simplicity or basenesse hinder each other, some giuing countenance to the abuses which others would willingly take a­way, may see what it is that is here truely and precisely spoken of, and whether the obiection may goe for currant. But that which he saith in the conclusion, that this consideration serues for nothing but to raise new schisme, can not bee saide but by him that will likewise affirme that Saint Gregories doctrine in the chapter [Ad­monendi] which we haue before alledged is false, and that it serues to raise schisme, when he saith, that subiects must bee admonished that they make not themselues more subiect then is conuenient, lest they should bee enforced to flatter them in their vices to whome they haue made themselues more subiect then they should be. But this 12. consideration doth fitly serue to take away abuses in the Church of God, which the faithfull for many ages past, haue ear­nestly desired: It serues to keepe the holy Church in peace and tranquillity: Nay rather it serues to preuent schisme and diuision, because that in these latter times many countries and kingdomes haue fallen from the Church of Rome vpon no other occasion, but because the Pope would euer be enterprizing vpon their tem­porall estates. Wee may firmely beleeue that Paulus Quintus had a good intention to reforme the abuses which haue bin brought in till this present. But so great is their violence that it is no mer­uaile if men of neuer so good mindes bee transported and caryed away, contrary to their own inclinations to that very point which they minded to auoyde.

IN the second booke the same Iohn Gerson makes relation, that a certaine Commissa­ry of the Popes in some publique procee­ding of his makes this assertion follow­lowing, Our sentences, though they bee vniust, must both be feared and obeyed. Gerson. Vpon which assertion hee passeth a censure diuided into many Propositions, which are these that follow. First this assertion is false. Secondly this assertion is impossible. Thirdly this assertion is erronious in point of man­ners. Fourthly this assertion is suspected of heresie. Fiftly this assertion bringes the author of it in suspicion for his faith, and must therfore be called in question till he either explane his sentence or reuoke it: and if hee persist in his opinion, then is he to bee tur­ned ouer to the secular power. Bellarmine.

This in briefe is the iudgement of Gerson, which how it is too strict and seuere, will appeare in the discourse that followes. This Commissary (whether he were true or fained) not content onely to say (according to the saying of Saint Gregory) that his sentences, though they were vniust were to be feared, ads further, that they were likewise to bee obeyed. And though hee might [Page] haue forborne the adding of these words, yet do they not deserue so hard a censure as this of Gersons who hath taken that in ill sense, which might haue beene well enough taken. Gerson doth repre­hend two thinges in this Commissary, of both which we will brief­ly discourse.

First hee reprehends him for speaking positiuely without di­stinction, that his sentences, though they were vniust, were to bee feared: for it seemes by this he would say that all vniust sentences are to be feared, though we are to vnderstand that not all vniust sentences are to be feared, but such onely, as though they bee vniust are yet of validity: as it is gathered out of Gratianus. 11. Quest. 3. per to­tum. To this it may be answered that the Commissary spake in like sense as S. Gregory and the holy Canons: for as S. Gregory sayth that a sentence of the pastor how iust or vniust soeuer it be, is to be fea­red though he speake without distinction, yet can it not be gathe­red thereby that euery sentence of the pastour is to bee feared, but that onely which, though it be vniust, is not yet to be accounted a nullity. So likewise can it not be collected out of the Commissaries words that all sentences are to be feared, but those onely as though they be vniust are not yet manifestly of no validity. To cōclude the same scandale that is laide to the words of the Commissary may in like manner be laide to those of S. Gregory.

Frier Paolo.In the answere to the second booke of Gerson, (wherein are ma­ny thinges which do plainely demonstrate the iustice of the cause of the state of Venice and the nullity of the censures pronounced a­gainst it) the Author taking no note of any of them, falles a dispu­ting with Gerson, and shewing, that the assertion pronounced by a Commissary of the Popes in these words, Our sentences, though they be vniust, must be both feared and obayed, hath some good sense in which it may be vnderstood, and that therefore Gerson is somewhat too seuere a Censor in making an ill construction of that which may be well taken: not remembring how in his answer to the first worke he hath not onely takē the words of Gerson con­tinually in the worse sense, but farther when Gerson himselfe wold declare his owne meaning, omitting the declaration, opposeth him selfe to the wrong part of the sense which hee before had distin­guisht, and secluded, and where he is forced to confesse that the do­ctrine of Gerson is absolutely true, he hath either found it to be som [Page 97] way iniurious, as appeares in the ninth consideration, or by a voluntary mistaking of times, will seeme to belieue that Gersons worke was written before the Councell of Constance which surely was written since, as this second booke was likewise written since that time, because that herein he doth name the foresaid Councell: and more doth giue the title of Regent to the sonne of Charles the sixth who tooke it not to him till the yeare 1418. which I thought fitte to touch by the way, to shew that both these bookes were made in the Popedome of Martinus Quintus, who was a single and vndou­ted Pope. By which means the common refuge of the Author (who will needes haue it that Gersons doctrine was written in a time of schisme) helps nothing for all he saith, to auoide the force of his ar­guments. Gerson doth not deny but that the assertion of the Com­missary may haue some good sense in it, because he saith the Com­missary must be inforced either to expresse himselfe or reuoke his sentence. But Gerson denies that the assertion in the formall sense it hath, can be true, and true it is that he which examineth an asserti­on when it is in Thesis, that is vniuersall, without applying it to the particular occasion, doth examine it in the formal sense of the wordes. But cōming to the Hypothesis he takes it in that sense which the particular occasion doth minister. Our Author therefore doth well in examining it both wayes, and first taking it in Thesis sayth that it followes not of this that all vniust sentences are to be feared, (as Gerson affirmes) but this should be gathered onely of those, as though they be vniust are not yet to be accounted nullities, since you may conclude as much out of S. Gregories saying, that the sen­tence of the pastor, be it iust or vniust is to be feared, seeing that this is spoken without distinction, yet neuertheles is to be vnderstood by all men of that which is vniust and yet of validity, and concludes in briefe that the scandale which is giuen to the words of the Commissary may as well be giuen to the words of Saint Gregory. It had been enough to haue said interpretation because this word scandall and S. Gregory agree not in my opinion so well together. But whē the Author sayth that the saying of S. Gregory is subiect to the same interpretation, this is to be vnderstoode, either as it is set downe in S. Gregory himselfe, or as it is in Gratianus, or else as it is absolutely separate by it selfe, and in any mans mouth that will abuse it. As it is in S. Gregory I say it is not subiect to this sense: for he speakes in [Page] this place of the pastors vniust sentence taken indifferently either with validity or without it, either with or without nullity: but Ti­menda signifies non per contemptum spernenda, and all men affirme that omnis sententia etiam iniusta, etiam nulla as sententia pastoris non est contē ­nenda. S. Gregories words are, Is autem qui sub manu pastoris est, liga­ri timeat, vel iniuste nec pastoris sui iudicium temere reprehēdat, ne si iniuste ligatus est, ex ipsa tumidae repraehensionis superbia, culpa quae non erat, fiat. And after addes Sed quia haec breuiter per excessum diximus, ad dispositi­onem ordinis redeamus. Then doth S. Gregory oppose timere to temeré tumidé, & superbe reprehendere, after which sort omnis sententia etiam in­iusta & nulla timenda. But in this sense obeyed, could not bee put in steede of feared as the Commissary vseth it; because the sentence of a superiour which commands sinne (beeing as S. Gregory deliuers it) should be feared, but in no manner obayed. And the Authour might well haue markt this declaration in Gerson, where he sayth a little after, that the saying of S. Gregory might haue good sense in it but not the Commissaries, who comes in with his obseruare.

Now if the Author will speake of this saying, as it stands in the Decretals, let him heare if he please after what sort the Compilator speaks in the chapter Si Episcopus, § Praemissis auctoritatibus Gregorius non dicit sententiā iniuste latam esse seruandā, sed timendam, sicut & Vrba­nus, timenda est ergo, id est non ex superbia contemnenda. If Gratianus the Monke were liuing at this present and would take vpon him the defence of Gerson, he could not speake more to the purpose then that he said 400. yeares since. But if the Author will take S. Grego­ries saying so apart it cānot be compared to that of the Commissa­ry, because this word timere doth admit cōstructiōs which obseruare doth not, and then no man of learning will alledge a saying with­out looking back to the very spring and taking it in the true vn­derstanding, out of which none who writes with sincerity will seeke to carry it. By which you may see what great difference there is betwixt the modest and holy manner of speech of S. Gregory and the absurd and tirannicall wordes of the Commissary. But let vs passe to the second part.

Bellarmine.Secondly Gerson doth finde fault that the commissary should say his sentences, though they were vniust, were to bee feared and obeyed, because obeyed is one thing and feared, another. The iniustice of a tyrant may bee feared, but not obeyed, and he that [Page 98] saith iniustice is to be obeyed, speaks an vntruth & rests in an error.

To this I answere that the Commissary (as may bee imagined) spake not of commanding any vniust matter, but spake of a sētence of excommunication as it is a penalty which depriues a man of re­ceiuing the sacraments and conuersing in society with the faith­full: and in this sense it may very well bee said that an vniust sen­tence of excommunication ought to be both feared and obeyed: because that to feare an excommunication, and obey an excom­munication haue no great difference; For hee that feares it ab­staines from receiuing the Sacraments and conuersing with the faithfull and so obeyes it; and hee that doth not obey it, but doth conuerse with the faithfull and receiue the Sacraments doth not feare it. So as Gerson hath equiuocated betwixt a sentence which commaunds an action and a sentence which commaunds forbear­ance from doing any thing; and hauing grounded his discourse v­pon an equiuocation, no meruaile though he haue built it in the ayre.

For defence of the Commissaries assertion in Hipothesis appli­ed to the occasion hee first alleadgeth that the Comissary (as may be imagined) spake not of commaunding any vniust matter, Frier Paolo. but of the sentence of excommunication as it is a penalty; and making difference betwixt these two, concludes [that] Gerson hauing e­quiuocated betwixt a sentence that commaunds an action, and a sentence which enioynes forbearance from doing any thing, and grounded his discourse vpon an equiuocation, no meruaile though hee haue built it in the ayre. The Reader may see how our Author not knowing of what sentence the Commissary spake, fals to gues­sing, and saide that it may bee imagined he spake not of commaun­ding any vniust matter but of a sentence of excommunication as it is a penalty, and then concludes affirmatiuely that Gerson hath e­quiuocated. Gerson hath not equiuocated but as the occasion doth require; as I will shew you. Hee knew the speach was of cōmaun­ding an vniust matter; and hath therein exprest himselfe further in this little treatise. But the Author is the man that buildes in the ayre, who presupposing a matter and saying [as may bee imagined] doth thereupon resolutely condemne Gerson of equiuocation, as if that his [as may bee imagined] and [thus certainely it is] had the same signification. But the Author partly aware of his o [...]ne er­ror [Page] helps it with saying.

Bellarmine.Put case the Commissary spake of a sentence which should commaund any matter vpon paine of excommunication hee hath not spoken ill though it were so. For such a kinde of sentence, either it commaunds a matter which is apparently good; as to make restitution of an other mans goodes; or a matter eui­dently bad, as to rob or blaspheme; or a matter which is in ques­tion whether it bee good or bad: as to assist in a warre which is not knowne whether it bee iust or vniust; if it co [...]maund a matter which is apparantly good, it must be both obeyed and feared; that is to say, it must be obeyed by doing that which is commaunded for feare of falling into excommunication, and so it may fall out that such a sentence may be vniust. If there haue not bin three pre­cedent admonitions; yet may it bee of validity, because that which it commaunds is good; It is thundered out by one that had autho­rity for it, and one admonition at least hath preceded. If the sen­tence be doubtfull whether it commaund that which is ill or not ill yet is it to bee obeyed and feared, because that in a case of doubt the subiect must submit himselfe to the iudgement of his superior, and not stand vpon his owne opinion, as is saide before, and is the common doctrine of the holy fathers. If a sentence should com­maund a matter which is euidently a sinne, then is it neither to be obeyed nor feared. And whosoeuer saith it should be obeyed, is in an error: and vpon an assertion of this kind Gersons fiue proposi­tions may bee true. For there is no question but thi [...] is false that a sentence which binds a man to sin should be obeyed; & it is vnpos­sible that the same sentence should both commaund sinne, and likewise tie a man to obedience. And more, that sentence is erro­nious in point of manners, because it teacheth to doe ill; and like­wise in matter of faith, because he that saith it is lawful to do ill is an Heretique; and if he repent not himselfe he must bee put into the handes of the secular power that hee may bee punished according to his deserts, and a sentence of this nature must not onely not be obeyed, but also not so much as feared, because our sauiour saith nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus and a man should sooner choose to die then obey such a law. Whereby there can bee no discouery made of this fourth part which Gerson produceth, which is that some sen­tences either ought or may be feared, yet not obeyed, speaking of that feare which is an inducement to obedience: though there [Page 99] may bee a naturall feare of a tyrant which commaundes wicked­nesse. But neither in this hath the Commissary erred, because hee alwaies spake of such a sentence as though it were vniust, was yet of validity, as this can not bee which commaunds sinne; and may be plainely condemned of a nullity. See then how the whole dicourse of Gerson is built in the ayre; And he which translated it & brought it to light to teach the Venetians to dispise the Popes sentences, be­ing iust and of validity, shewes himselfe to bee more fraught with malice then iudgement.

For the better expressing the meaning of Gerson, Frier Paolo. and declaring the truth, it is very necessary (ouer and aboue tha [...] which we haue saide before that it is no hard matter to finde sentences which are to bee feared yet not obeyed) to proceede with the same distinction the author vseth, that a sentence must either commaund a thing which is manifestly good, or plainely bad, or that which is doubt­full. And as for the first part when the thing which is commaun­ded is manifestly good and equitable, wee hold with the Author that it is to bee obeyed. For the third part which imports a doubt­fullnesse, for feare of his equiuocations wee must distinguish this worde doubt, as wee haue done before, into that which goeth be­fore an orderly admonition, and that which followes after. The first doth not tie vs to obedience but to take counsell onely, and then if vpon consultation the doubt can not bee ouercome, wee a­gree with him that the subiect is then bound to follow the opinion of his superior and not his owne.

And I would craue pardon of the Reader in that I so often repeat this doctrine, because the author comes out so often with his equiuocations to make Ch [...]istians runne blindly forward in beeing led by other mens passions. In the second case when a bad matter is comaunded vpon paine of excommunication, and a time set down for the fact, or els the excōmunication to take effect, this sentence hath two parts: the one which commaunds obedience to the in­iunction within the time prescribed, and the other which com­maunds forbearance from the Communion: if it bee not obey­ed before the saide time be expired. As for the first part, I say it is sinne to feare it as the author requires, and he that feares it in that sort doth commit sinne: and here that which he alleageth is properlie verified, nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus: but for the [Page] second part, which is forbearing the Communion, it is more then the subiect is bound to; but if hee will doe it of himselfe (beecause hee will not transgresse the other iniunction) hee doth not offend. And thus saith Gerson in these wordes, which the author must needes haue reade, because in some cases they may bee feared by timorous consciences, yet notwistanding they are not to be obeyed: for there is great difference in saying they are to bee obeyed, and they are to be feared: to obey a sentence of excommunication, is vnderstood by Gerson to execute the iniun­ction, either by that meanes not to incurre the sentence of excō ­munication, or if it bee incurred yet to be absolued. But to feare an excommunication, Gerson takes that to bee, to forbeare the Communion. A sentence of excommunication ioyned to an iniunction which commaunds an vniust act, hee which obeyes it doth sinne, whereas he that feares it only sinnes not, though he be not bound to feare it. Wherefore there is great diffrence in saying, Our sentences, though they be vniust, ought to be feared, because this signifies a forbearing of the Communion, for the reuerence is had of them, and the Commissary speaking in this sort had fai­led no otherwise then in saying ought, in steede of may: but when he said they ought to bee obeyed, he committed a greater fault, because they not onely not ought, but further, not so much as can be obeyed without sinning, yet may they be feared, though that be more then needs. And this is the fourth part expressely de­clared by Gerson, which the author saith is not to be found, though it may easily be found both in Saint Gregory and Gratianus, by any that will enter into consideration of the matter without affecting contradiction. But the author, as it seemes, not well assured be­fore of what the Commissary spake, yet here as if he spake vpon better ground, saith neither in this yet hath the Commissary erred, because he euer spake of an vniust sentence, yet such a one as was of validitie, as this is not which commaunds sinne: which enforceth mee to make a little digression to declare the fact which is the subiect of this booke.

Before the councell of Constance, and about the yeare 1399. Henry the sixt king of France, called an assembly of the Clergy & Scholemen of his kingdome, where amongst other thinges, it was concluded: that the Romish Buls of reseruatio [...]s and papall pro­uisions, [Page 100] should not be admitted, but that electiue benefices, should be conferred by election, and the presentations of others should be made by the Ordinaries; which decree that it might be the better obserued was many times renued within the twenty yeares following, as well by other decrees, made by Churchmen of that king­dome, as by acts of Parliament, which were often renued and re­uiued notwithstanding all lets and impediments, which were laid in the way by Briefes and Commissions from the court of Rome against the obeying of them. Now it plainely appeares in the second proposition, that Gerson spake of a Commissary which went into France vpon some such occasion, and that the time in which Gerson wrote, was in the Popedome of Martinus Quintus may bee seene in the same Proposition, where it is said that for 20. yeares space, the king held a councell of Prelates, which councell (as Guagninus reports) was first assembled in the foresaide yeare 1399. And in the third proposition when Gerson spake of the Sonne of Charles the sixt he vsed these words, To his lawfull sonne now Regent. who as Francis Belforest doth testifie, tookel to him this title in the yeare 1418. So as by all these circumstances, it is to bee gathered, 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 sētences vniust: but like one that how euer the world went would be obeyed, to ease himselfe of trouble in iustifying his man­dats [Page] 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 cōtrary 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 [Page] 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. [...]rier Pa [...]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 fur [...]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 [Page] 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 mē 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 vpō 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 I will not speake. France is not the country of Ia­pan from whence we must expect aduertisements but once a yeare to know how that kingdome is gouerned. All the French writers make mention of the liberty of their Church, and they are al colle­cted into one volume printed at Paris 1594. out of which I will ga­ther somewhat to this purpose, and leaue it to be iudged of by the Reader. And thus beside many more particulars it is plainely set downe in that booke.

The Popes can neither commaund nor giue order in any thing either in generall or particular which concernes temporall matters in the countries and territories vnder the soueraignty and obe­dience of the most Christian King; and if so bee they commaund or determine any thing, the kinges subiects, yea though they bee Churchmen, are not in this respect bound to obey them.

Although the Popes supremacy bee acknowledged in spiritual causes yet notwithstanding is there no way giuē in France by any maner of meanes to an absolute and infinite power, but it is restrain­ed and limited by Conons and rules of auntient councelles of the Church which are receiued in this kingdome. & in hoc maxime con­sistit libertas Ecclesiae Gallicanae.

The most Christian Kings haue at all times according to occa­sions and affaires of their country, assembled or caused to be assem­bled Synodes or prouinciall and nationall councels, in which a­mongst other thi [...]es which did import the conseruation of their states they did in [...]ke manner handle affaires concerning the Ec­clesiasticall [Page 102] rule and discipline of their countries: and in these councels the Kings themselues haue caused prescriptions, chapters, lawes, ordinances and pragmaticall sanctions to bee made vnder their names and authorities: and at this day there are many to bee read in the collection of decrees which are receaued by the vniuer­sall Church, and some of them approued by the generall counceles.

The Pope can by no meanes send into France his Legates a la­tere with commission to reforme, adiudge, bestowe, dispense or such like matters, which are vsually specified in the Buls of their commission, if it be not at the request of the most Christian King, or at least wise by his consent; and the Legate is not to execute his c mmission but vpon promise made to the King in writing, and a solemne oth taken by his holy orders, not to exercise the said com­mission in any kingdome, country, land or Lordship vnder his sub­iection but for such time onely as shal stand with the Kings liking; and as soone as the Legate shalbe aduertised of the kinges pleasure to the contrary, he shall presentiy desist and stay. In like manner he shal not vse any part of his commission, but such as may be with the Kings liking, & conformable to his wil, without attempting or doing any thing in preiudice of the holy decrees, generall councels immunities, liberties, and priuiledges of the French Church, and the Vniuersities, and publike Colledges of this kingdom. And to this end are the Commissions of the Legates presented to the court of Parliament, where they are seene, examined, approued, publish­ed, and registred with such prouisoes as shall seeme expedient to the Court for the good of the kingdome. With which prouisoes, further, are all differences and contentions adiudged which do rise vpon occasion of the Legats actions, and no otherwise.

The Prelats of the French church, though they bee sent for by the Pope vpon what occasion soeuer, yet are they not to go out of the kingdome, without commaundement, licence, or pasport from the king.

The clauses inserted in the Bull, in Coena Domini, and those in particular in the time of Pope Iulius the second and others after him, haue no admittance in France, in as much as concernes the li­berties and priuileges of the French church, and the rights of the King and his kingdome.

The Pope can neither take vpon himselfe nor commit to others [Page] the triall of rightes, preheminences and priuileges of the crowne of France and the appurtenances, neither doth the king plead or debate his right and pretensions but in his owne court.

The French Church hath euer held, that although by ecclesia­sticall rules, or (as Saint Cyrill saith writing to Pope Celestine) by auncient custome of all churches, generall councels are not to be assembled or solemnised without the Pope (claue non errante) who is acknowledged for head and primate of the whole militant church, and the common father of all Christians, and that no­thing is to be determined or concluded without him or his autho­rity, yet notwithstāding is it not to be thought or imagined that he should bee aboue the vniuersall councels, but it is rather held that he is bound to submit himselfe to the decrees and resolutions of this vniuersall councell, as to the commaundements of the church, which is spouse to our Lord Iesus Christ, and is chiefly represented by this congregation.

The Buls or Apostolique letters of citation, bee they of present execution, or thundered out for admonition, or of any other sort, are not to bee executed in France without a Pareatis from the king or from his officers, and such execution as may be done vn­der permissiō is done by the ordinary iudg appointed by the king, & with the kings authoritie, not auctoritate Apostolica, to auoid con­fusion which would grow by the mixture of iurisdictions.

The Pope can impose no pensions vpon benefices of this king­dome which haue cures of soules, nor vpon others, except it bee by consent of the incumbents, & conformable to the holy decrees of councels and canonicall constitutions, or else for the profit of such as do resigne vpon such expresse conditions, or to let peace betwixt parties which are at strife and in sute about a litigious benefice.

The liberties of the French Church are preserued by diligent obseruing that all Buls and dispatches which come from the Court of Rome be seene and visited, to knowe whether there bed any thing in them which might be in any sort preiudiciall to the rights and liberties of the French Church, and the authority of the King, of which there is yet to bee seene an expresse ordinance made by Lewis the eleuenth, and imitated by the predecessours of the Empe­ror Charles the 5. which were then vassals of the crowne of France, [Page 103] and likewise by himselfe in an Edict made at Madril in the yeare 1543. which was put in practise in Spaine & other countries of his obedience with more rigor, and lesse respect then in this king­dome.

They are likewise preserued by appeales which are interposed to the future councell, of which many presidents (euen of latter times are to be seen, as of appeales made by the Vniuersity of Paris from Pope Boniface the 8. Benedict, the 11. Pius the 2. Leo. the 10. and others.

Were I not restrained by the breuity which in reason I must vse in this apology, I might here recite the arrests and acts of Parla­ment in matter of iudgements in criminall causes, where it is deci­ded that in France the Clergie men of whatsoeuer order they be, may not onely bee apprehended by the secular magistrat and re­ferred to the Ecclesiasticall Iudge for common trespasses, but ad­iudged by the laity for heynous offences; and such for which they claime priuiledge. And further, when for an ordinary fault a man is twice put ouer to the Ecclesiasticall power, the third time he is held incorrigible & is adiudged by the secular. The arrests may be seen in all the French Lawyers and particularly in Gio: Papons col­lections. L. 1. r. 5. art. 4. 9. 30. 31. 33. 34. 35. 44. 45. 46. 47. By this it may appeare to all men that that which the Author saith is most true, that the liberty of the French Church is grounded vpō ancient Canons though it be not therefore true that they are groū ded vpō thē onely; but further vpon the law of nature, & vpō al e­quity & reason. It may further be seen, that that which the Author saith is not true, that at this presēt there is no more speach of the li­berty of the Frēch church: but rather that most florishing & mighty kingdome doth employ as much care & study for conseruing it selfe at this present as it hath done in times past. And comparing this liberty with that which the state of Venice doth acknowledge to holde of God, and intend to preserue with all their power, it may appeare that there is no greater difference, than such as the difference of the countries doth necessarily require. It may rather be seen t [...]at the state of Venice doth not make vse of all the natural liberties (which it might freely doe) and onely to shew the grea­ter reuerence and respect of the holy sea. By which euery man may directly discouer how farre the last conclusion which the Author [Page] [...] makes doth differ from truth that the liberty which the state of Ʋenice takes to it selfe is contrary as well to the olde Canons as the new.