Faults escaped in the Printing.  
PAge 3. line 6. for these read those. p. 5. l. 3. for cerul read servi. l. 2● 〈…〉 read that. p. 9 l. 30. for each read those. p. 10. l. 22. for illustrissime 〈…〉 p. 13. l. 1. read, and Blanch●. p. 14. l. 3. leave out (for that cause,) ● 15. for sins read sin. l. 9 read: as Caietan in that place. p. 1●. l. 31. for motion mention. p. 18. ●●. for the read no. p. ●2. l. 26. for. The read▪ That p. 23. l. 〈◊〉 say read saith p. 24 l. 20. f● 〈…〉 l. 22. for inlead in. p. 2●. l. 15. read: 〈◊〉 turn. l. 35. for his r. this. p. 30. 〈…〉 do because. l. 23. 〈◊〉 out (then.)   

AN APOLOGY OR apologetical answer, made by father Paul a Venetian, of the order of SERVI unto the Exceptions and Objections of Cardinal BELLARMINE, against certain Treatises and Resolutions of john Gerson, concerning the force and validity of Excommunication. Printed in Venice by Robert Meietti. 1606  
IT being necessary (as I conceive) to answer the obictions made against the two Treatises, 
Friar Pa●●●  concerning the validity of excommunication, written by john Gerson, a man famous both for holiness of life and learning, and that, not so much to uphold the reputation and credit of the author, as to deliver the true understanding, justifiable both in Law and Divinity, of a matter of this nature and moment, and to maintain the lawful power and authority which God hath given to sovereign Princes; I have resolved to do it, but with all modesty and reverence, avoiding all biting and reproachful speeches; which I hold very unseemly in all occasions that occur between Christians, and especially between Religious or Eccelesiastical persons, in matters concerning the salvation of souls. And herein I will not trouble myself, to repel or retort any injurious speeches, uttered against so famous a Doctor as Gerson was, knowing, that himself if he were alive, would, according to his own Doctrine and instruction to other men, be ready to follow the example of our Saviour, * Qui cum malediceretur, non maledicebat. Neither intent I to propose or set on foot any other doctrine, than the same which was first taught by the holy Apostles, and after them, by the holy Fathers, and other Catholic Doctors, which have from time to time until our age, expounded the divine Scriptures, and instructed God's people: which, notwithstanding I will ever submit, to the judgement of our holy mother Church that cannot err. And proceeding in this manner; I am verily persuaded, that I shall be able to satisfy, not only mine own conscience (which is the chiefest respect that moves me) but all other men likewise, that shall see and read this my Apology: who I am sure would as much dislike impertinent railings and cavilling speeches, as they will now be well pleased, that I do with all sincerity of heart, and singleness of speech, undertake a defence of this kind, for the glory of God and the edification of my neighbour. And to avoid that tediousness, which commonly groweth by the repetition of titles, though due & justly belonging: I that intent to bend myself and my discourse, chiefly to the substance of the matter I handle, resolve to forbear to name the opponent, with his attributes of honour that were fit to be used unto him, and to deal with him in all this Treatise, by the only name of the author: reserving nevertheless unto his most honourable and reverend Lordship that due and humble respect, that at all times belongs unto him, and which I have long ago professed to bear him, when I had occasion to treat with him, even before he was made a Cardinal.  
The poem of Bellarmine whom he calls the Author.  
How true that saying is of our Saviour Christ. Qui male agit, odit lucem. john. 3. May evidently appear in this man, that hath translated into Italian, and published in print, two little Treatises of john Gerson. For knowing in his own conscience, how many untruths he had heaped together in one preface of his, though a very short one, and that in the two little Treatises themselves which he translated, there were errors of no small importance. And withal to how little purpose those Treatises served him, for the end which he pretended, he was ashamed to make either his own name known or the Printers. And which is more, the better to cover and disguise it, he feigns that he wrote it from Paris: Whereas it is but too well known, that it was both written and printed in Venice. Now therefore, lest this man should abuse the simple readers with his hypocrisy, we will proceed to examine, first the words of his preface, and after the words of Gerson, which he hath translated, though not so faithfully as he pretendeth.  
Certainly the translator had no cause at all to be ashamed, as if Gersons considerations were impertinent to the business that is now in question: 
Answer. Friar Paulo.  For if his whole works had not been extant, printed above a hundred years ago, I for my part should easily have believed, that these two treatises had been compiled at this time, and upon this occasion. So directly & particularly do they touch all those points, that are material to be touched and handled in this question. And indeed it was commonly so believed in this country, when they came first out, until many men had compared them, with the Ancient copies printed in Paris. 1494. But now these old impressions give us cause rather to think that there was in Gerson some prophetical spirit, joined with that extraordinary portion of learning and piety, wherewith he was endued. And of this every man that reads him shall easily judge. But in sooth, if Gersons treatises be nothing to the purpose now in hand, why doth the Author take so much pains, and trouble himself so much about them? Why doth he labour so much to confute them? Evermore he contradicts his doctrine, but no where he goeth about to prove, that it is not pertinent to the present case and question.  
Whether the considerations of Gerson contain error or not, we shall see hereafter, when the objections that are made against them, shall be examined: all which objections (or oppositions) do either presuppose things that by the book itself appear to be false, as that Gerson wrote those considerations in time of schism, or they presuppose and assume that which is in controversy, and the very question itself, as namely that the Pope's commandment to the Venetians is just and lawful, or else taking some ambiguous and doubtful term, that may have a double understanding, and accordingly settling a position in the one sense, which is true, and so purchasing it some credit and assent in the reader's mind, in the end the objection concludes in the other sense, which is false.  
The preface of the translator of Gerson, contains no other doctrine than is contained in the Books themselves: Therefore I see no reason, why of necessity he was to put his name to it; unless it be taken for a rule, that every translator is bound to do the like. But neither is there any commandment to that effect, in any of the holy counsels, or elsewhere, neither doth the common use and practise require or exact it: We do rather use commonly to blame those men, that think to win themselves credit, by making a preface, or a table to some book, or by translating some little Phamphlet. And there are divers works extant of the greek Fathers, translated into Latin, that carry not the names of the translators, although I confess some do. Christ approved not the advise of his kinsfolks. Transi hinc & vade in jucinam, ut discipuli tui videant opera qua tu facis, nemo quip in occulto quicquam facit, sed quaerit ipse palam esse: Si haec facis, manifestate ipsum mundo. But he answered that which in many cases his servants may answer. Tempus meum n●ndum advenit, tempus autem vestrum semper est paratum.  
God be thanked, the world is long since come out of his infancy, & gins now to relish and judge of meats, not by the quality or condition of them which serve it to the Table: but by the savoury taste it hath of itself. And surely the glorious lustre of the Author's titles, is not a matter of such prejudice, as should overthrow the cause of one, who proposed it without manifesting his own name; according to the course holden in the counsel of the Areopagites: That the printer did not put his name to it; I will give no reason, because I have not undertaken his defence, but this I will say, that by occasion of these present controversies, there came forth a writing or phamphet from Milan, without name of Author or Printer, and without mention of place or time, containing withal certain doctrine, which how dangerous and pestilent it is, time will discover; and hereunto no other answer can be made, but this: We will have one law for ourselves, and another for other men.  
Whether the translation be faithfully performed or not, we will consider as we proceed, when we shall come to any exceptions that are taken against it. But now let us see what the Author saith further.  
The first words of the translators preface are these.  
A common report being spread throughout this City, that upon Christmas day last there were censures and excommunications publicly denounced, against the most glorious renowned and religious common wealth of Venice, because they refused to submit unto the will & discretion of an other, that liberty which God had given them.  
If we shall carefully examine all the kinds of liberty, which a private person or a common wealth is capable of, we shall find no more but these six following: Liberty, or freedom of will, opposite to natural necessity: Christian Liberty, opposite to the bondage of sin: Civil liberty, opposite to slavish bondage, liberty of a common wealth or free state, opposite to the subjection of a King or Monarch: Liberty of an absolute Prince, which acknowledgeth no superior in temporal matters, opposite to the rightful subjection of an inferior Prince, to a greater or superior: And lastly, Liberty to do evil, opposite to the service or subjection of righteousness, which liberty to do evil, Saint Paul affirms to be all one with the bondage of sin. Cum cerui essetis peccati, liberi fuistes justitiae. Rom. 6. I do not think that the Author of this preface meant to speak of the freedom of will, which is natural, and cannot be lost by any means, but in the erroneous conceit and fancy of Lutherans, and other such heretics: Neither can he with any reason mean Christian liberty, which is opposite to the bondage of sin: for that is not lost by obeying Christ's vicar, but rather by not obeying him: Nor can we think that he intends to speak of civil liberty, whereof all slaves are deprived; nor of the liberty of an Aristocracy, or Democracy, (that is where some few of the better sort or the generality of the people bear the rule) which kind of liberty those people do lack, that are subject to a kingly power, or as we may call it a monarchy: for neither the present Pope, nor yet any of his predecessors, hath ever attempted to change the form of government of the City of Venice, as knowing very well, that there is no form of regiment, be it of a Monarch, or of some few principal personss, or of the whole people, but may well stand with Christian religion, whereof the Pope hath the principal care and charge. Nay rather this variety, doth not a little adorn and beautify the City of god, which is the universal Church.  
I know not to what purpose, the author makes such a flourish of six kinds of liberty, seeing it is apparent to every man, of what kind of liberty the question is now between us. But if he will needs set forth all kinds of liberty, that are incident either to a private person, or a common wealth, why doth he not as well mention the Ecclesiastical liberty, and tell us clearly what this is? being a matter so much debated and doubted of among the Canonists, as to this day it is not determined? The ecclesiastical Hierarchy is surely a common wealth: yet I see not under which of those six kinds, that liberty may be reduced, which is commonly attributed unto it. And therefore in saying, that there are no more kinds of liberty, but those six, he makes us wonder, as if he meant to exclude or renounce that, whereof notwithstanding there could not be a fit place to speak, nay, to treat fully and at large, than this we have now in hand. But forasmuch as in this discourse of the six kinds of liberty, the Author useth an ambiguous proposition, it is necessary before we go any further, to restrain and limit it to the true sense, lest any man be deceived by it.  
Speaking of christian liberty, he saith, that well a man may lose it by not obeying Christ's vicar, but never by obeying him: this must be thus limited, when Christ's vicar commands according to Christ's institution. But when he commands, according to his own private opinion and passions, whereunto as being a man he is subject, and may be more subject than many other, as Caietan saith 2. 2 quaest. 39 art. 2. then christian liberty is not lost by disobeying him, but indeed by obeying him.  
As for example, that man should no doubt have lost his liberty, that had obeyed Honorius the first, commanding that no man should affirm, that in Christ there was either on will or two, or he that should have obeyed Gregory the 3. ordaining that it should be lawful for a man that had a wife, unfit by reason of any infirmity for the use or act of matrimony, to take an other besides her. And likewise, that should have obeyed the several censures of Stephen. 6. against Formosus, and of john. 9 against Stephen. And of Sergius the 3. against john. 9 And in like sort if he had obeyed Celestin. 3. when he taught this doctrine, that marriage might be dissolved for heresy: nay he had undoubtedly sinned, that had obeyed john. 22. and believed for obedience sake, that the souls of the saints deceased, did not see gods face. All which I have here briefly 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 show, but that it is with all deceitful and captious, being delivered in such a generality; and unless it be limited with this restriction, when he commands according to gods law.  
four where he saith, that no Pope did ever attempt to change the form of government in the City of Venice. I will be bold to put the auctor in mind, that it is very much that he undertakes, to pronounce an absolute negative, in a point of ecclesiastical history, for the space of nine hundred years; during which time, there have been about nine hundred and forty Popes since the first began to intermeddle with temporal matters: of which number, as it is true that the most part have favoured that state, so yet can it not be truly said of them all: although it hath pleased the divine providence (almost) miraculously to protect and preserve the liberty thereof, even when it was apparent, that some did labour mightily to overthrow it utterly.  
And further it may be well replied unto him: that it seems strange and not to be endured. That no Pope having ever before this time, according to the authors own saying, attempted or pretended to desire, to alter the government of that common wealth. This Pope should be now so peremptory, and confident that he may do it, by offering (as he doth) to intermeddle with the making of their laws, which is the very life and soul of civil government.  
At last the author passing over that which made not much to the purpose, is contented to acknowledge that the translator speaks here of the liberty of a sovereign Prince, which among other things consisteth in making laws necessary for the good government of his state, and punishing offenders. And thus he goeth on.  
There remaineth only that liberty which belongeth to an absolute Prince, that acknowledgeth no superior in temporal matters: and of this kind of liberty, it is likely that the author of the preface speaketh: But out of all question he is deceived, in saying, that the Pope's holiness sends out excommunications against the state of Venice, for refusing to subject the liberty which God hath given them to the will of another. And if any man object, that to make laws & punish offenders, is the proper right of absolute Princes, and yet Pope Paul the fift, excommunicates the heads and principal officers of the common wealth of Venice, because they will not obey him, in disannulling & recalling some laws they have made in temporal matters, & in setting at liberty certain offenders which they had put in prison: I answer, that Pope Paul the fift, excommucates the heads of that common wealth, for refusing to obey him, in disannulling not all laws, or any law, concerning temporal matters, but unjust & wicked laws, made in prejudice of the Church, and with great offence to God and their neighbour. And who can or will deny, if he be a true Catholic that the Pope hath authority, as universal pastor, to rebuke & reprove any Prince or state for their sins, & if they refuse to obey, to compel them unto it by ecclesiastical censures. For accordingly we see, that S. Gregory did very sharply reprove the Emperor Mauritius, for a law which he had made, that was prejudicial to God's service. And Innocent: the third, as we may read in the chapter. Novit de judicijs, doth plainly determine, that it belongeth to the Pope, to censure the sins and offences of all the Princes of the world. Non intendimus saith he judicare de feodo cuius ad ipsum (regem viz.) spectat judicium, 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 divinae potius innitamur, quia potestas nostra non est ex homine, sed ex deo, nullus, qui sit sanae mentis ignorat, quin ad officium nostrum spectet, de quocunque mortali peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum, & si correptionem contempserit, per districtionem ecclesiasticam coercere. Sea forsitan dicetur, quod aliter cum regibus & aliter cum alijs est agendum. Caterum scriptum legimus in lege divina, ita magnum iudicabis ut parvum: nec erit apud te except to personarum. Hitherto are the very words of Pope Innocent. And Pope Boniface in the extravagant unam sanctam, de maiorit, & obedient: Saith very well, that the temporal authority, when it erreth; aught to be ●●formed and rectified by the spiritual power. For although a temporal prince that is absolute, acknowledgeth no other temporal Prince for his superior, yet if he be a Christian, he must of force acknowledge the head of all Christendom, which is the Pope, Christ's vicar in earth, to be his Superior: which Sovereign Bishop or Pope, because his chief end and care is the spiritual good of men's souls, doth not therefore intermeddle in the government of temporal princes, as long as they use not their authority, to the hurt of their own souls and their subjects, or to the prejudice of Christian religion. But when they do the contrary, he both may and aught to put to his hand, and to bring them into the right way again. And he that believes not this, is no true Catholic: and if any man shall object, that those laws of the Venetians, contain in them neither sin nor hurt to the Church, I will answer him, that to determine, whether any law do contain sin or prejudice to the Church, or not, belongs likewise to the Pope, who is the supreme and highest judge of all; even as to judge, whether a civil contract offend in the sin of usury, belongs properly to the same ecclesiastical judge, to whom the cognisance of sins (generally) appertaineth. So the Pope's Holiness blames not the Venetians for punishing their subjects that offend, but because they presume to lay hands upon ecclesiastical persons, which are subject to no superior, but spiritual: & make no reckoning of the sacred Canons, & of the grievous censures denounced against all such, as lay hands upon persons consecrated to God. Therefore whosoever will rightly consider of this point without passion, shall find that the Pope goeth not about to bereave the State of Venice, of any other liberty, but the liberty to do evil, which is not given of God, but of the devil and our own corrupt nature, and is the self same thing with the bondage of sin, opposite to true Christian liberty. And as temporal Princes will not give liberty to their subjects to rob or kill, or commit any such heinous offences; because they are repugnant to the peace and good government of their states, so ought not the Pope, who is head of all Christendom, to give any liberty or permission to Christian Princes, to make laws that shall be injurious to the Church, or prejudicial to the salvation of souls. And as the good shepherd ought not to give his flock free liberty to wander where it listeth, and to feed upon herbs that be ven●mous, and drink of corrupt and unwholesome waters; nor the good Pilot to give free scope to his Ship, to be carried with every wind upon shelves & rocks, so ought not the Pope chief shepherd of Christ's sheep, and principal pilot of Saint Peter's ship, to give any such liberty unto Christians, as may both deprive themselves, and make other to be deprived, of eternal salvation. Lastly, as the Venetians, upon just caus●, refuse to admit that liberty of conscience, which all the heretics of these times so much affect, because they know it is nothing but a liberty to adhere to all kind of errors, and therefore they are contented to countenance and assist the proceed of the holy inquisition: so ought they as little to covet this liberty, to make laws repugnant to the honour of God, and displeasing to their spiritual mother, which is the holy Church, and be rather glad to be admonished of their error, and corrected by their spiritual Father, which is God's vicar on earth.  
This whole discourse deserves 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 alleged the translators words, which are these: his holiness excommunicates the common wealth of Venice, for refusing to subject the liberty that God hath given them, to the command or will of an other: he turns them another way, saying, that the Pope excommunicates the heads of the common wealth. But if he will vouchsafe to look upon it, he shall find that the translator hath spoken truly, and that he hath cunningly and skilfully changed the names & persons, to excuse a notable error. The Pope's brief presented upon 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 brief, he commands them to whom he writes, that under pain of excommunication latae sententia, they do disannul and repeal each two laws. The translator therefore hath said truly, that he excommunicates the common wealth; and the Author, to defend and cover a notorious error, committed in excommunicating a community or corporation, contrary to the doctrine of all divines and Canonists, and the papal constitutions themselves; cunningly affirmeth: that he excommunicateth the heads of that common wealth. And he observeth the same art throughout, although the Pope not only in this brief, but in that also which was presented the five & twentieth of February, excommunicates in express terms, the common wealth. And in the last brief of the seventeenth of April, excommunicateth also the Duke and the Senate or Council, which is likewise a College or community: Therefore we will desire the Author henceforth, to speak clearly & plainly, and confess, that the Pope excommunicates the common wealth, and the Senate or Counsel, and tell us no more of the heads or principal magistrates, for such excuses can not be admitted, especially before they be required. The error was committed indeed in excommunicating a community, But let it be defended by some other means, rather than by trusting upon our grossness & dullness in discovering his cunning. It is also worthy to be observed, with what modesty he speaks of a common wealth, whereunto the Sea of Rome hath been so much beholden and obliged; and not only of the men that are alive now, whereof the present State is constituted and compounded, but of all those which have lived since the year 1300. until this time; taxing the laws that were made by them to be unjust & impious, though with some contradiction to his own Doctrine: for a little after; he saith that it belongs to the Pope to judge of Prince's laws, and the Pope hath never yet pronounced that these laws are unjust and impious; whence then shall we say that the Author hath fetched those epithets modesty becomes all men well: unless peradventure great persons & such as carry the title of illustrissime, be out of the rule.  
Two things he proposeth: the one, that these laws of the Venetians, are unjust & wicked; the other, that it belongs to the Pope, to reprove them for it, and if they obey not, to compel them unto it by his censures. The former which is the Principal, and wherein he ought chiefly to have insisted, and to have proved it to be so, he is contented to balk altogether; peradventure because he saw he was not able to make it good. The second, which is of little moment, unless he had proved the former, he goeth about to confirm at large, by three authorities and other reasons. But let us follow his own order, and see how well he hath proved his purpose; and first by the authority of Saint Gregory, who (as he saith) did sharply reprove the Emperor Mauritius. In the threescore and first epistle of the second book, there is contained, a very humble advertisement or remonstrance of Saint Gregory's to Mauritius the Emperor, upon occasion of a law he had made, that no man, that was tied to serve in the war, or in any public charge, might become a monk, until he had given up his account, and finished his time of service in the wars. Saint Gregory showeth, that their accounts might be as well made, when they were entered into the monastery; and that a soldier becoming a Convert, might profit the common wealth more by his prayers, then by his souldiorye, and that this law in general, was a hindrance to the service of God. But let us see how sharp his reproof is, first he saith. Ego autem indignus vestrae pictatis famulus in hac suggestione, neque ut Episcopus neque ut servus, iure reipublicae, sed iure privato loquor. And a little after. Ego vero haec dominis meis loquens, quis sum, nisi pulvis & 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 Emperor, 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 Emperor, he saith: unde per eundem tremendum judicem deprecor, ne illae tantae lachrimae, tantae orationes, tanta jejunia, tantaeque elemosnae domini mei, ex qualibet occasione apud omnipotentis dei oculos fuscentur. Sed aut temperando, pietas vestra aut mutando, rigorem eiusdem legis inflectat. This humble and decent remonstrance, worthy indeed of a Pope or supreme Bishop, deserves not to be termed by the Author a sharp reprehension. But those other words that follow, are yet more worthy to be considered. Ego quidem iussioni subiectus, eandem legem per diversas partes terrarum transmitto, & quia lex ipsa omnipotenti deo minime concordat, ecce per suggestionis meae paginam, dominis nunciavi: Vtrobique ergo quae debui, exolui, qui & imperatori obedientiam praebui, & pro deo, quod sensi, minime tacui. I would not have produced these words of Pope Gregory, if I had not been forced unto it by the Author, to let him see, that it was not a sharp reprehension, but rather an humble and respective remonstrance, which Saint Gregory used to the Emperor: But seeing he hath drawn me thus far, I must entreat him to answer me, whether Saint Gregory's calling himself so often the emperors unworthy servant, and his saying, that as one that acknowledged himself subject to his commandment, he had sent abroad into diverse parts of the world, a law which in his conscience he held not to be just; and that other saying of his, that in so doing, he rendered unto the Emperor that obedience that was due unto him, whether I say these speeches do agree, with the doctrine which the author now, publisheth: wherein he makes the Pope supreme temporal Monarch, and the Princes of the world less than his vassals; as I will show him (before we part out of this argument) that his words do necessarily infer, although they dare not yet avow it in express terms. But before we go from this point, it will not be unpertinent for me to let the Author know, in what Court of Chancery, or campo di sancto fiore it was, that Saint Gregory caused this his sharp reprehension or admonition to be published, and set up to be read. In this 64. Epistle he writes to one Theodorus Physician to Mauritius, that he had made a remonstrance unto the Emperor (for so I will be bold to interpret suggestionem, yet with the Author's leave, lest he tax me as he doth the Translator) but that he was not willing that his Agent should present it unto him public, but prayed that Theodorus rather to deliver it unto him privately, at some convenient time, when it might not divert him from greater business. I must also crave pardon, if whiles we talk of the mayor proposition, by occasion of Saint Gregory's words, I shall incidentally touch a point belonging to the minor. To show the iniquity 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 have wished, that our holy father the Pope, had in like sort required the Venetians to consider, whether any king of Portugal, Castille, Arragon, Poland, France, Sicily, or any count of Burgundy, or the state of Genoa, had ever made any laws like unto theirs. For so he should have truly imitated Saint Gregory. And surely I cannot but admire the authors great wisdom, in that he forbears to quote the place itself of Saint Gregory, being so precise and subtle in his allegation of other places, throughout this whole Treatise. But let us go on to the second argument, drawn from the Chapter novit, of Innocent. 3.  
After long wars between Philip Augustus King of France, and Richard King of England, about the year 1199. Richard died, and his brother john, surnamed Lackeland, succeeded him in that Kingdom, either by the nomination & appointment of his brother as some affirm, or by usurpation upon Arthur, who was son to another Elder brother of his. But those territories which the Kings of England possessed in France, submitted themselves to the Dominion of Arthur. Whereupon there ensued great wars between Philip and john, because Arthur followed the faction of the French King, and was supported by him. But at length, in the year 1200: by means of a marriage between Lewis son & heir, & successor of the French king, Blanch of Castille, king john's sister's daughter (of which marriage issued afterward S. Lewis) a peace was concluded between Philip and john; wherein Arthur was likewise comprised: upon this condition; that john should do homage to Philip, for the Dominions of Britain & Normandy, and Arthur should do homage to john for the same. After this, upon some occasion that fell out, Arthur was put in prison by his uncle the King of England, and there died, in the year 1203. And the common opinion was, that he was murdered by his uncles commandment. Whereupon Philip Augustus, as chief Lord of the Fee, caused john to be cited to Paris: and upon default of his appearance, condemned him, and confiscated those territories which he held of him, and went afterwards with an army, to seize them into his hands by force. john pretended, that this was directly against the peace and treaties between them, and made his complaint unto Pope Innocent: the third, who commanded both the Kings, upon pain of excommunication, to keep peace, and to surcease from war, and sent also a Legate unto them for that purpose. john, for whose advantage this commandment was, did gladly embrace it. But Philip found himself much grieved, and took great exceptions against it, and so did the Prelates of France in this behalf: unto whom Innocent the third, made that answer contained in the Chapter novit. 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 prevail any thing by his commandment. In the year 1208. Pope Innocent 3. excommunicated the aforesaid john, and interdicted his whole kingdom, which interdict continued six years and three months: Yet did not john yield to obey the Pope, in that he required of him. Therefore the Pope sent Pandolphus his Legate into France to Philip, to persuade him to make war upon john. Philip made his preparations accordingly, and many Barons of England combined themselves with him. But in the mean time, Pandolphus coming into England, and letting john see the danger wherein he stood, advised him to become the Pope's Feodatary: john enforced by the present peril, accepted the advise, and made his kingdom tributary to the Pope, to pay him yearly 1000 marks of gold. Pandolphus hereupon returned into France, and commanded Philip, upon pain of excommunication, that he should molest john no longer, as being now become the Feodatary of the Church. But Philip refused to obey, and the war continued. Whereupon in the year 1215. in the Counsel of Lateran, Pope Innocent. Sent out an Excommunication against all those that molested john King of England for th●● cause, and for that cause in the year 1216. another Legate called Guallo went to Paris, who by virtue of that sentence of Excommunication, commanded Philip & Lewis his son, to forbear to pass with an Army into England, which they were then prepared to do. But all this notwithstanding Lewis desisted not, but entered john's kingdom with a great power. Although the same Guallo were gone over into England, and there ceased not daily to thunder out his Excommunications. This war continued until the death of john; after which, Lewis of France who had gotten many places of that kingdom into his hands, made truce for five years with Henry the son of john, who succeeded his father. Now to apply this story to our purpose: The Lawyers hold, that to show that you have commanded, is not sufficient to prove a jurisdiction, unless the commandment have been obeyed. I will leave it therefore to the authors exquisite judgement, to make the conclusion that follows of this, seeing that so many commandments, 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 took to be just, although the Pope judged them unjust. I will say thus much more: That Cardinal Hostiensis, who lived shortly after, writing upon this Chapter novit, takes much pains to defend it, and proposeth many conjectures of his own, how and with what limitations the matter must be carried, to make that rule or precept of the Popes, delivered in that chapter, to appear just; But it sufficeth that in France it was not so esteemed nor obeyed. Therefore from the authority of that chapter novit, there can be no such thing concluded, as our author would infer.  
The proposition of Pope Innocent. 3. alleged 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 quocunque peccato mortali corripere quemlibet christianum: were not meant by him, in that generality wherein some do vouch them. First because there must be excepted, according to the doctrine of saint Thomas, all internal motions of the mind whereof the Pope hath no power at all to judge, unless it be in foro paenitentiae. And of this sort, are the greatest number of sins. And all divines and Canonists do agree, that in the excommunications granted against heretics, those are not comprised which err only mentally. And that any Canon that should be made to comprehend them, were of no validity. So as here will be a general proposition framed: That the Pope may judge 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 own laws without just cause; as saint Thomas proves 1.2. quaest. 96. art. 5. And yet of this sin a he cnnot be judged of any, but god alone: Caietan in that place, declareth, showing that in foro poenitentiae, and in the sight of God is all one in sense. Certainly, to affirm that a prince doing against his own laws, should be therein subject to the censures of the Pope, were wholly to take away the power and authority of princes. And one the other side, to affirm that he should be subject to them in other crimes, and not in that, were to overhrow the very ground of the reason presupposed in that chapter novit. Namely, that it belongs to the Pope, to take care of the souls and salvation of men, and to remove all things that be adverse or repugnant thereunto. But a Prince may incur damnation by the sins he commits against his own laws, therefore as well of these sins, as other, it belongs to the Pope to judge: which as I said before, is directly contrary to the doctrine of Saint Thomas. Moreover it is necessary, well to observe the very words of Innocent: where he saith, that the censure of every mortal sin belongs unto him; quam censuram in quenlibet exercere possumus & debemus. And a little after, ad officium nostrum spectat de quocunque peccato mortali corripere quenlibet christianum. Now if he be bound (by the duty of his place) to denounce censures against every mortal sin, & against every christian so offending, surely if he do it not, he sins himself: But we do not see that the Pope sends out any censures against the courtesans and professed harlots, who yet persist and abide notoriously in their sins. Therefore either he must needs sin grievously, or it will behove him to do nothing else but thunder out censures, so as those words, de omni peccato mortali, are not to be understood generally of sins, seeing we have already showed so many instances of particulars to be excepted. And therefore Gabriel Biell: upon the Can. Lec. 75. Laboureth much to give some tolerable interpretation to this place, but can find none but this, that this decretal and all other of the same tenor, must be understood in foro poenitentiae only. I will not trouble myself to prove that the words of the decretal are to be understood as Gabriel interprets them. I will only say this, that whosoever will affirm, that they are to be understood in foro exteriori, shall have much to do to avoid the absurdities, and the utter overthrow of the secular power ordained 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 Navarro among the rest have taken much pains, but with no good success, neither need we travel much to reconcile and fit the words of this Pope to the true doctrine, which distinguisheth the secular power, from the spiritual authority; especially seeing the same decretal containeth some other things, which had need to be well expounded: as namely this, that K. Philip Augustus was of the offspring (e genere as he saith) of Charles the great, which is not true unless he suppose and imagine some marriage, and so derive the descent by the way of some woman; a thing never used in France.  
A certain french Historiographer derives the houses of Charlemaigne and Capet, from Merone, by linial descent of several women. But to show that the house of Capet, comes of Charlemaigne will be very hard, without devising some thing without the compass of all stories.  
It is time to get out of this chapter novit, which the author in reason, should have been careful rather to have expounded, then to enlarge it, and extend it as he hath done, for contrary to the meaning of Innocent: who saith, that to him did belong the correction of every christian, our author hath interpreted these words, quemlibet christianum, all the Princes of the world. So as now it shall belong to him to excommunicate the Turk the King of Persia, the King of Samarkand, the Tartar: And diverse others of whom we have yet no knowledge. And Saint Paul may no longe● say, Quid mihi de his qui foris sunt judicare.  
But of private Christians, which Pope Innocent intended to comprehend, the author; thought not good to make any motion: as if it were sufficient to have command and rule over Princes, and an Indignity and an abasement to intermeddle with other. To interpret quemlibet Christianum all the the princes of the world, is both at once, to enlarge and restrain the true sense of the decretal. It is restrained, by excluding private Christians, and it is enlarged, by extending it to Princes, that be no Christians.  
Concerning the Authority cited out of the extravagant, unàm sanctam I would be glad the Author would resolve us of a doubt, which groweth by the reading and comparing of this extravagant, with an other of Pope Clement the fift, who came not long after him, which gins thus: Meruit de Privilegiis: Where Clement saith, that he determineth and declareth, that by the aforesaid extravagant, unam sanctam, there shall be no prejudice or injury done to the King and Kingdom of France, nor that the said king and kingdom, shall be any more or otherwise subject to the Church of Rome, than they were before; but that all things shall continue, in the state they were in before that extravagant. And this he professeth to do, to show favour to that King, who was worthy of it, both for his own good affection, and for the merits of his ancestors, and in respect the whole nation of the French had deserved it by their true piety and sincere devotion. Hereupon I ask this question: Whether Boniface, in this extravagant, unam sanctam, did make a declaration of Ius divinum, in this point (that is expound and declare the jurisdiction which the Pope hath, De iure divino, over Princes: or whether he did thereby impose a new subjection over Princes, in some matters, wherein God had not made them subject before unto the Popes. If any man shall answer it was the latter, I may then reply, that is was an innovation after 1250. years, a void act, an usurpation, an incrochment, and an abuse of the power given them by God. Besides in this case, it was not fit that Clement should declare or mean, that France alone should be exempted from that constitution, but it behoved him to declare and determine the same; for all other Princes and Kingdoms. Neither was it a matter of favour, to be yielded as in recompense of the good deserts of that King or Kingdom, but a thing due unto them of right and justice. But if it be answered: That it was a declaration of ius divinum, I would feign know then, how Clement could free the King & Kingdom of France, from that subjection which God had appointed them unto; the case being very clear, that the Pope cannot exempt any man, from his own power and jurisdiction which he holds de iure divino. But to come to the very point of that extravagant, which the Author allegeth: if that which Boniface saith, to wit: That the authority temporal, when it erreth, aught to be corrected and rectified by the spiritual: be a declaration of the law of God, I say that it ought to be understood only for so much as concerns the salvation of their Souls, and in foro Dei, and without any temporal power of that kind which the Lawyers term Coactive, and that all the Ecclesiastical power over Princes is therefore only spiritual. And herein we shall not need to go so far as to the Pope of Rome: for this kind of authority is as well in every Prelate; though between him and them there be this difference, that other Prelates have no such general power and command over all, as the Pope hath; and that their authority is subordinate unto his. But whereas, out of those three authorities before mentioned he concludes, that a temporal absolute Prince, although he recognise the other temporal Prince for his superior, yet of necessity he must recognise the head of all Christendom; I would not that any man should be deceived, by the Equivocation and ambiguity which rests in these two words, recognise and Superior: for in one sense, to recognise him, is as much to say, as to be subject to his laws, and do homage unto him, and to acknowledge that you hold your state by his favour: In an other sense, to recognize him, is no more but to account him the Minister of God, in matters which concerns the kingdom of heaven. In which sense, I say and affirm, that Princes do not only acknowledge or recognise the Pope, but the Bishop also. The word Superior likewise in the former sense, signifieth that which in our common speech, we term Lord of the fee or Superior of Dominium directum. But in the latter sense, Superior signifies no more, but one that teacheth the Law of God, ministereth the Sacraments, and generally directeth men the right way to eternal salvation. In which sense, I say, that even the Bishop also is Superior 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 affirm in gross and in one breath as it were, that an absolute Temporal Prince, although he acknowledge the superiority of no other Temporal Prince, ought yet to recognize the Pope for his superior, and so confound the two superiorities. For if it should be thus proposed, that an absolute Temporal Prince, though he acknowledge no other Temporal Prince for his superior, yet must acknowledge the Bishop to be his superior, no man would allow of it, because the fallacy would be apparent to all men. Therefore if Recognising be understood in the former sense (in case) of Dominium directum, I say, that it is not true, that a Prince ought so to recognize the Pope. For the Pope is not such unto him; but that in the same manner that he recognizeth no other Prince, he ought as little or less to recognise the Pope himself. But if superior be understood in the second sense, for a Spiritual superior, it is not true that any Temporal 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 superior, is as much as to account or accept him for a spiritual Father. And for such a one, the homager ought not to acknowledge his Lord. How ought we therefore to beware of delivering such divinity, whereby both the kingdom of God, and the kingdoms of the world are disordered and confounded, and the simple people abused, and made to believe, 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 Christendom, by reason of the Equivocation of the word Christendom. Among the ancient writers we find him thus styled, The Bishop of Rome, the successor of Saint Peter; by some, Saint Peter's Vicar; and in the latter times, Christ's Vicar, God's Vicar, head of the Church: fashions of speech, which begets no ill meaning: But it is otherwise, in the use of the word Christendom in this place, by reason of the ambiguity and double sense which it hath. For it signifieth not only the Christian Church, but the Christian states and kingdoms: and this latter signification is the more usual; as when we say, that Asia or Egypt are not within Christendom, we do not mean, that there is no Christian Church in them, but that they are not within the compass of the Temporal states of the Christians. So it is apparent, that under this new form of speech the fallacy is hidden. For his purpose is to conclude, that the Pope is head, that is, hath the government & command in temporal matters, over all Christian States and Princes. Let us therefore keep our ancient forms, and let us call him head of the Christian Church. But seeing the Author's drift is, out of this whole discourse to draw this conclusion, that where Princes use their power to the hurt of their own souls, or their peoples, and to the prejudice of Christian religion, the Pope may take the matter in hand to redress it: although we have spoken much of this point before in the exposition of the Chapter Novit; it will not be impertinent to our present purpose, to consider what notable inconveniences will follow in this Doctrine, thus generally delivered. There is no action of a man in individuo, but either it is a good work, or a sin. Now if it belong to the Pope, to exercise jurisdiction overall sins, and withal to take upon him to determine, what is sin, and what not, I say, there is no longer any Prince but the Pope, nay further, that there is no place left for any private government. For suppose the Prince make a law to exact some contribution, for the extraordinary relief of the state, by occasion of some war that he is forced to undertake, this law is not just, but a sin, unless the end and ground of it be lawful, and unless the subjects do submit and bind themselves to contributions, according to the rules of justitia distributiva, hereupon the Pope may say, I will know the end why this tax is imposed, and so he may dive into the secrets of that estate: he may also examine the distribution, whether it be equally and proportionably made, and thereby come to the knowledge of the secret of the forces, and wealth of that state: And being a temporal Prince himself, who in that right and quality, may have occasion of war with an other Prince, by this course, it will be an easy matter for him to infeable his enemy, and to get the mastery of him at an easy rate. In sum, the Pope may (by this Doctrine) examine all laws, all edicts, all conventions, all successions, and all translations of Princes, what shall I say? he may call in question, and examine all inheritances and contracts of private men; because it belongs to the shepherd, (as the Author saith) to have a care, of what his sheep do feed, of what waters they drink, and where they have their walk: and this inference doth not only necessarily follow of this supposition, but is also allowed by all the Canonists that writ upon that chapter Novit: and yet nevertheless, have the wisest men and of most understanding, noted and taxed it to be full of absurdities. Which to avoid, some men have out of that Chapter Novit, framed a distinction: That it is one thing to judge of the matter, or of the action, or of the contract, and an other to judge of the sin. But they make a division where there can be none: for if it be the Pope's right to judge of all things as they are sins, and to forbid them, and enforce 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 bargain and sale made wherein there were Iniquity and Injustice, and the Pope should determine it to be sin, and cause it to be revoked; I would gladly know, what there remains for the Prince to intermeddle in, or to determine further touching that contract? And I will hold myself satisfied, if any man can show me that there is left for the Prince as much as one of Democritus motes. Surely by this Doctrine, either all authority of Princes must be abolished, or Christendom must be holden in perpetual combustion. And here I use not the word in any ambiguous sense: but I understand by Christendom▪ all Christian states & Kingdoms. And because the Author hath taught us a very general doctrine; that, to judge whether any law contain in it sin or not; It belongs to the Pope: as it belongs to the ecclesiastical judge, to determine whether a civil contract contains in it the sin of usury: I must be bold to tell him, that from hence it will follow, that not only the Pope, but every ecclesiastical judge, shall have power to determine of all matrers; for it can belong no more to him, to judge whether a contract offend in usury, then whether it carry with it, any other wrong or hurt to a man's neighbour: for all that do so, are sins, aswell as the other. And by the same reason, it will belong to the ecclesiastical judge, to determine of all manner of murder, or killing of a man, because it may be so done as it shall be a sin, and it may be otherwise. And to them it shall likewise belong, to judge of the price set upon Corn, and other merchandise, whether there be sin in it or not, and to appoint that it shall either stand or be altered: and whether a mortgage contain extortion or not, or a warrant for the apprehending and imprisoning of a man, contain violence or Injustice; (for even in these matters there may be sin) and whether the women's attire be scandalous, or the men be too superfluous or too sparing in the expense of their table: for even all these are sins. And as they may by this means intrude themselves into the government of all kingdoms, so may they likewise, into the government of particular families, and examine how the father governs his children, or the husband useth his wife. And in conclusion, because there is no action or affair, other public or private, whereunto sin is not incident, if it shall be in the power of the ecclesiastical judge to determine & judge of it, & either to allow it, or forbidden it, & to enforce obedience unto his own determination: All Courts of justice, all places of contracts, and all private families, may well be transferred into the Bishop's palace. And as these consequences are necessarily deduced from this doctrine, so it were well, that they should be thoroughly & with good insight considered of by them, to whom indeed they belong. But the true Christian doctrine and the common practice which we daily see▪ avoids all these absurdities, subjecting all Crimes and offences unto the temporal jurisdiction in foro mundano, and to the ecclesiastical in foro animae: wherein how men ought to proceed, we can not be better taught, then by the example of Christ and his holy Apostles, who never pretended, to have or exercise any temporal coercion or coactive authority over (mens) sins. But the Author goeth on, and inveigheth against the translator, not only in the point concerning the laws, but addeth further, that his holiness is not offended with the common wealth of Venice, for punishing their subjects that offend, but for presuming to lay hands upon ecclesiastical persons, who are not subject to any superior, but the ecclesiastical: and he concludeth, that whosoever will consider of the matter without passion shall find, that the Pope goeth not about to deprive that common wealth of any other liberty, but the liberty to do evil, which is not given of God, but of the Devil. Here first he layeth to the translators charge, that, wherein he is not faulty at all: yet hath he truly cited the words of the translator: namely, that the Pope's censure was denounced upon Christmas day. But upon that day, there was no brief of the Popes presented, but that which concerned only the two laws; That neither Churches should be built, nor lands conveyed by lay-men to ecclesiastical persons, without leave of the State. And that other censure, for judging and punishing of certain Churchmen delinquents, came not out till February: And therefore could not be mentioned by the translator, writing as he doth concerning a report which was spread abroad of the censures denounced upon Christmas day. Surely a person of gravity ought not to stir envy against an other man, but upon true grounds. But to the matter itself. The ecclesiastical persons offending against a law, are not subject to punishment, he only saith it, but proves it not. If we find hereafter that he goeth about to prove it, we will answer him, as shall be meet for the defence of the truth. But in the mean time, I may not defer to say, what is fit to be said, concerning that proposition of his: Ecclesiastical persons (saith he) are not subject to any, but their spiritual superior. This very proposition is produced as a special objection against Cardinal Bellarmine, by a certain Frenchman who condems it, as tending only to sedition. And Lewes Richehomme the provincial of the Jesuits, in an Apology of his directed unto the King of France; answers in the Cardinal's behalf, in the 33. Chapter, that he doth not affirm this position, but only in causes merely sacred, as of faith, religion, Sacraments etc. and that it was not his meaning to tax or reprove the custom of France, where the secular magistrate useth to judge of crimes, which are specially reserved to the ecclesiastical courts. And the same provincial, turning his speech afterwards to the King, say thus. Episcopi Archiepiscopi, Cardinals, generalesque praepositi Religiosorum ordinum, in totò sacr● ordine excelsissimi omnium atque immunissimi primas tenent: Propterea ne tamen, aut tuae maiestati subiecti, vel esse vel dici, aspernantur, quod fiat immune●, subiectique pontifici Romano. And a little after, having said that they acknowledge him for their King, he goeth on. Quod quomodo sane praestandum 〈◊〉 constituerent, nisi se pari iure cum alijs, atque sub tuo imperio esse faterentur? Parentemne potest Davidem suus Salomon compellare, nec se eius tamen filium ea compellatione dicere?  
And certainly Cardinal Bellarmine in his first Book de Clericis Cap. 28. And the second conclusion with the reason he renders for it, saith, not by way of argument or question, but definitively, that ecclesiastical persons, are subject to secular Princes.  
But because this word subditi is not there (so) formally expressed, I thought better to allege one of his own company, that in express and direct terms hath said it: & not only in that place before cited, but repeats it also in the 36. chapter. I forbear to vouch S. Gregory in his epistle mentioned before, where he calls himself the subject & slave, or servant of the Emperor: And brings in God speaking thus unto him. Sacerdotes meos tuae manui commiisi: which manner of speech, I find to be ordinary with the holy Fathers, & frequent in the Epistles of the Ancient Popes. And here me thinks a man might well reply upon the Author, that this saying of his, (that the Pope went not about to debar the state of Venice of any other liberty, but to do evil) 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 ecclesiastical liberty, nor go about to take any other liberty from them, but liberty to do evil: for we be all agreed in this; That ecclesiastical persons breaking a law, do therein sin: But in the other point we do not agree, that the common wealth hath sinned in correcting them.  
I am prone to believe, that the Author being so exceedingly well learned as he is, had a good meaning, when he said, that the liberty to do evil, is not given by GOD, but by the Devil. Yet those words so delivered are not Catholic: for by liberty to do evil, is understood free-will, which is natural and of God: and this will be denied by none but Manicheus, who makes the Devil Author of it. But I do not deny, as I said, but the Author might have a good meaning in it. Yet a good meaning is scarce to be allowed for an excuse unto him, that is so severe and rigorous a Censor of other men: Especially considering what Saint Hierome saith, ex verbis male prolatis incurritur haeresis. The Author proceeds, and by a comparison drawn from secular Princes, from a shepherd and a Pilot; he concludes, that the Pope, Head of Christendom, ought not to allow any liberty unto Princes, to make laws that be prejudicial to the Church & the salvation of men's souls, and whereby they procure damnation both to themselves 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 think, that the author hath all right and reason on his side. But when we shall examine and sift them, we shall find them to contain nothing but ambiguities, and to conclude with the like Paralogism that the rest have done. For first, what meaneth he by the Church? If the same which the holy Scripture meaneth, and which the word itself doth properly signify, to wit, the company of the faithful; it is very true that he saith: But in this sense, no Prince can make laws hurtful to the Church, but withal they must be hurtful to himself also (who i● a principal member of it) and he must needs sin in so doing: Likewise if by the Church he understand the ministers thereof, i● as much as they be ministers, I am of the same opinion: But I add this withal, that these laws of Venice, are not any way hurtful or prejudicial to them, but rather, as may easily be proved, they tend in some sort to the favour and benefit of their calling. But if by the Church, he understand some temporal power or state, I deny that the Pope hath any right to hinder, or prohibit laws to be made, to the prejudice of the Church in that sense. The ambiguity of the word doth deceive us. It is true, that no man ought to make laws that are hurtful to the Church: but this must be understood of the Church in the first or second signification. But if a Law be made against carrying of corn to Ancona (a Town of the Pope's Dominions) this must needs be understood in the third signification And therefore, to say that such a Law is against the Church, is an Equivocation. In like sort where he saith, that the Pope ought not to suffer Christian Princes to make laws that may hurt or hinder the salvation of men's souls, we will put him in remembrance, that it is Cardinal Bellarmine's own doctrine, That ecclesiastical persons have their exemption in criminal causes, only iure human: be it either by the grant of Princes, or by the constitutions of Popes, or by both together. Hereupon I would ask this question; whether before such grants 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 maintained: for they neither broke any law of God, as both himself, and other truly hold: nor any law of man; for there was then no such law made, et ubi non est lex, nec prevaricatio therefore it was no sin: It was not against the salvation of men's souls, it was no wrong or prejudice 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 law yet to the contrary. But now the law is made, it is so no longer. Then say I, they have stopped and straightened the way to heaven, without them it would have been more easy, and therefore this they have done, is not to edification. If it were once lawful for Princes, by punishing such ecclesiastical persons as did offend, to maintain the public peace of their states, and to give satisfaction to the parties grieved, without committing any sin themselves: what need was it, or to what purpose; to invent this devise, so contrary to the common good, and so likely to breed confusion in all estates, whereby the punishing of malefactors, which is agreeable to the law of God, shall now become sin to them that do it? Can this avail any thing to make the way of eternal salvation more easy? Can it be for the good of wicked clergymen themselves, who take the more liberty and boldness hereby to do evil? Can it be of any use in respect of them that are injured? or do they not rather by this occasion conceive the deeper malice, and practise private revenge? Do the Princes reap any good by it, whose states and governments are disordered and disturbed thereby? Or can it be any credit or reputation to such Clergy men, as are good and virtuous, that the lewd should continue amongst them? Is God honoured and glorified by any but such as be obedient to his laws? But here I foresee an objection. that by this opinion, I seem to dislike all those immunities and exemptions, which so many Princes, worthy of everlasting memory, have granted to the clergy in Criminal causes. No, I am so far from disliking them, as I do much commend them, and propose them as worthy patterns to be followed by all Princes present and to come. But this is that which I say. That if we begin at Constantine the great, and go along to Constantine the son of Irene, and from him, through all the greek Emperors, until the final destruction of that Empire, and among the Latins, from Charles the great, to Fridericke the second, inclusive, we shall not find, that any Prince did ever exempt the Clergy from his own authority. But all the exemptions they granted, were from their inferior offiicers and Magistrates; some from all, and other from some only. And some, in certain kinds of offences, and other in all respectively. But there remained still unto the Princes themselves that supreme authority which could not be severed from them. Now so as offences be punished, to what Magistrate it shall belong to do it, and to what not, and over what persons he shall have authority, and over whom he shall not, it belongs to the Prince to appoint, according to the congruety and fitness of times, places, and matters. And accordingly we see, that when the state of their affairs so requires it, Princes do sometimes grant privileges and exemptions unto soldiers, and sometimes to men of other conditions. In like sort, when it is requisite for the planting or propagating of religion in their dominions, they are content to give convenient privileges and exemptions to ecclesiastical persons: and therein they deserve to be much commended, as I do highly commend all tha forenamed Princes, and likewise the common wealth of Venice, which though not by a written law, yet by a laudable use and practise, hath exempted Ecclesiastical persons from the ordinary Magistrate in ordinary crimes, and such as carry no enormity with them. But for such a Law, as shall take away from a Prince all authority to punish offences, even when the necessity and peace of his state doth require it, I do not see how any man can either allow it, or account it agreeable to the law of GOD or nature. It followeth not therefore. that because we commend many holy privileges which Princes have granted in this kind, we must of necessity commend also an exorbitant exemption, which tends so directly to the confusion and general disturbance of the state. Therefore let us conclude, that it is true, that the Pope neither can, nor aught to give permission or allowance of any of those things, which in their own nature are evil and opposite to the salvation of men's souls, and which, though he should permit them, would nevertheless continue to be sins, and exclude him that doth them from attaining salvation. And surely those Popes are worthy of exceeding praise, that have endeavoured to remove such abuses, and other things forbidden by God, which remaining, make it impossible for men to be saved: These many years, the world hath sighed and groaned for such a reformation: and so many a time have they been deceived and disappointed of their hopes. But in those things which are not repugnant unto the will of God, the Prince's liberty ought to be reserved unto him; to do that which the good and weal of his state requires. And if the Pope go about to debar him of this, he shall usurp temporal authority, contrary to Christ's commandment, hitherto the Author hath maintained this dispute in some friendly manner, but in the second place, by occasion of these words of the translators, where he saith, that he had bend his study and endeavour, to find out, what force and validity excommunications carry, when they are denounced upon so unjust causes, he falls very fiercely and violently upon him, as followeth.  
The Author proceedeth to another untruth saying. 
Bellarmine.  I have bend my endeavour to search in approved Authors, of what force & validity they are, when they are denounced upon so unjust causes. This is the second untruth, coupled with incredible rashness and untolerable pride, in this, that the Author of the preface dares pronounce, that the causes of the Pope's excommunication denounced against the common wealth of Venice are unjust. And peradventure if he that writes this, might be spoken with, he would be found not to be well informed of the matter, nor acquainted with the causes, why it was ●enounced: especially since himself confesseth, that he was moved to write only upon a fame or report spread in Paris: so as he must needs be one of those of whom the Apostle speaks. Non intelligentes neque quae loquntur, neque de quibus affirmant. 1. Timoth. 1. Is it possible that thou shouldest be ●orash, as without perfect 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 God's Vicar? And if thou hadst studied it thoroughly, and conferred with other, and wert fully informed of every point, did it become thee to be so saucy as to condemn the highest judge of the world of injustice, and to publish this thy presumptuous sentence in print to the sight of all men.  
But seeing that all the reason which moveth thee to judge the cause of the Pope's Censure to be unjust, is grounded upon nothing else but report and fame spread abroad: that the State of Venice was excommunicated, for refusing to subject unto the will of an other, that liberty which God had given them, & I have clearly proved that this reason is false: And for that the justice of the Pope's proceeding in this excommunication is apparent to the whole world, & approved of all men, but of the parties interessed, who are rather transported with passion, then guided by reason, we will spend no more words to confute this untruth.  
Surely in reading well over again the translators words I cannot find that he doth absolutely define that the Pope's sentence is unjust, 
Friar Paulo,  for in a Parenthesis he hath these wonders (which seems to me neither reasonable nor credible) which parenthesis the Author hath purposely omitted. But admit that there were no such parenthesis, and let us take his bare words without it. A report being spread, that the Common wealth was excommunicated for refusing to yield or give away her liberty, I have laboured to find out in approved authors etc. here the translator presupposeth one thing as certain: That an excommunication denounced against those that shall refuse to subject their lawful liberty, is unjust: and two other things remain doubtful, the one in law, to wit, what force such an excommunication carrieth, the other in fact, whether this excommunication now spoken of be such a one, as common fame had delivered it to be. The latter point he could not gather by his study out of books, therefore he bent himself to study the former. So it seems that he doth not definitively pronounce any thing as the Author affirmeth. If a man should use such a speech as this: A common report being spread in Venice, that Demetrius Prince of Muscovia with many of his followers was murdered, for suffering himself to be led by the Jesuits (and persuaded) to attempt divers things against the laws and orders of the state: I have bend myself to search in approved Authors, what punishment (those) religious persons are worthy of, which intermeddle in matters of state with the loss of many men's lives, and extreme danger to the common peace and quietness of the states they live in: Can any man justly say here: This man pronounceth that the jesuits are disturbers of the common peace? No truly. But in this sentence, the point which is certain and out of doubt, is this. That whosoever doth disturb the common peace sinneth: the two points in doubt, are, the one in law, which may be studied out of books, to wit, what punishment a religious person merits that doth so, the other in fact, what indeed fell out in Muscovia: the certainty whereof may be known in time. Such for all the world is this point, that we have in hand. And I am verily persuaded, that the Author in his judgement thinks the same. But to take the better occasion and fit scope to inveigh against any man, that should affirm this excommunication of the Popes to be unjust, he makes a show to believe that the translator had said so. The Author is wont to reprove very sharply, such as draw and wrest to a sense of their own framing, another man's words, to the end to confute them. But in this particular, it fitted his purpose very well, thus under a colour of confuting a person unknown, to rail upon all them that withstand the Pope's Excommunication. Now if a man should take occasion of that which the Author hath said in the Text before alleged, to wit, that the laws of Venice are unjust and impious: return upon him his own very words, and tell him, that it is an untruth coupled with etc. to determine that the laws of so great and worthy a Commonwealth, agreeing with the laws of all Christian Kingdoms, are unjust and impious; and that if a man might confer with him, he would be found peradventure to have but little understanding of the matter, and should by way of Interpellation or Apostrophe direct his speech thus unto him: is it possible that you should be so, etc. as to presume to pronounce the laws to be unjust, of so wise and religious state, which hath maintained and governed itself these 1200 years, to the great admiration and notable pattern of the whole world? especially those laws not being singular and peculiar only to that state, but received and admitted in all Christian states, and also accounted just and so approved by all, (but such as are interessed) who are rather transported with passion, then guided by reason. The Author could not much complain, being but fettered with his own gyves, and reproved with his own proper terms. But we will forbear to use any such forms of writing. Yet this I will be bold to add: That if any man writing of the present occurrents and affairs of the world, should deliver his opinion that his Excommunication of the Pope were unjust, it were not so heinous or damnable a matter. For in reading the Christian Historiographers, we shall find infinite example of writers, that have delivered their minds freely of the decrees, commandments, and actions of the Popes of their time, and of those that lived before them. And Indeed go no further then to that which all modern writers have reported of Alexander the sixth, and julius the second, and of some other, both of their successors and predecessors; only God hath this perfection, that he cannot err, and to be unreprovable. All other aught to be very careful and heedful of that which they, because the good conceit and persuasion that the world may have of their goodness and wisdom, may serve for a bridle, to restrain such, as by the check of their own conscience will not be contained within the limits of their duty. But let us go on to the third objection, where he saith thus.  

Bellarmine.  Now followeth the third untruth. And reading in the sacred Council of Trent those words, worthy indeed to be written in letters of Gold. Although the weapons of Excommunication, etc. I could have wished, that as those holy Fathers have prescribed unto all Prelates, a Rule which they are to observe, to make the use of that medicine profitable, where it is applied; so they would have likewise instructed religious and devout consciences what their duty is, in case that their Prelates shall denounce censures against them, contrary to the form prescribed by our Saviour Christ, by Saint Paul, and by the ancient sacred Canons. The translator not contented to have utteted an untruth against the Pope, addeth here an other against the general council, and so wrongeth at once both the head and principal members of holy Church, he condemns then the holy Council of Trent of insufficiency, in that, having giving a rule unto Prelates, not to use Excommunication in sleight and frivolous causes; It did not also instruct lay men, how they should carry themselves, when their Prelates observe not that rule being agreeable unto the rule of Christ, of Saint Paul, and of the ancient holy Canons. But if he would have read out the whole decree of that holy Council, and not the first words only, he should have found that which he makes show to desire, & he would have easily perceived, how falsely & wrongfully he doth attribute unto that Council, insufficiency of doctrine. The decree which he allegeth, is the third of the last Lesson concerning matter of reformation. And as in the beginning of the decree, Prelates are admonished not to use the sword of Excommunication, Temere & levibus de causis, that is, rashly and for sleight and frivolous causes, so in the end, a caveat is given to Lay men even such as are placed in public offices of civil government, that it belongs not unto them, to judge, whether the Prelate in his Excommunication, observe the due form and course prescribed or not. And therefore the Counsel commandeth all secular Magistrates, that they presume not to forbid or hinder the prelate from denouncing any excommunication, much less command him to revoke it, under colour that it is not done, orderly and according to the rule appointed. Nefas autem sit saeculari cuilibet magistratui prohibere ecclesiastico judici, ne quem excommunicet, aut mandare ut latam excommunicationem revocet, 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 council, which hath therein provided for every thing, and taught us, that the duty of secular 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 answer.  
Here he accuseth Gersons' translator of too things, the one that he chargeth the council with insufficiency, the other that if he had read the rest of the decree, and not only the beginning, he should have found that he sought. To the first objection I will answer briefly, because the second, carrieth me away from insisting upon any other consideration. This is the very same argument that heretics use against us, for when we say, that traditions are necessary, because every thing is not found expressly in holy scripture; as for example: The crossing with the sign of the cross, the adoration of Images, the inferior orders, the consecration of Churches, and altars; they tell us by and by that we make the scripture to be insufficient. But indeed the scripture for all that can not be said to be insufficient, because it contains all that which was convenient and needful to be written, and leaves the rest to traditions, which it giveth good allowance of. Thus doth Cardinal Bellarmine answer very often the objections of the heretics. And so in this question we must say: That the council is not therefore to be holden insufficient because it delivereth not all that aught to be known, touching excommunication, if it have omitted some particularities and referred them to be taught by catholic writers. And it is well known to every man, with how many necessary declarations, Pius Quintus hath supplied some defects of that council▪ in the point of spiritual consanguinity, of affinity, by reason of fornication, and of public honesty. And the congregation of Cardinals doth daily supply in some other points, under the title of declarations. The council is no to be accounted among Canonical writers. But we are to think, that if it had continued longer, it would have declared much more than it did, and the author ought not to speak as he doth, being so directly against the new constitution. De quesito de auxilijs.  
But here perhaps some man will object, that Gersons translator hath then committed an error, in wishing that which the holy council thought not expedient to do. But it is not true, that it is always evil, to wish that which one uncapable of sinning even by nature, hath determined otherwise: I wish that it had pleased god to have permitted Pope Clement, the eight, to have lived till these times: and I do not sin 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 sufficiency only unto the Council, as we have spoken of; but they would gladly have 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 need of a Council. And in this point concerning the sufficiency of the decree, made touching censures, we should have been freed of much labour, if as well the acts as the decrees of the council had been printed. To this day, if any acts of the Council of Ephesus be found, which was at least. 1200. years ago, or of the Council of Nice; which is more ancient: they are embraced and received with all greadinesse. The acts of the holy Council of Trent, are extant, & I leave it to the authors great wisdom to judge, whether it were not good they were published. Sure I am that they would resolve and clear this doubt we have in hand. To the second objection, I could have wished, that he which is so curious to find faults in the translation of Gerson, would have been more exact & faithful in translating the words of the Council. The Council saith: Nefas sit seculaeri cuilibet magistratus. The author interprets it thus, let lay men take heed, even those which are placed in public authority. I suppose that any grammar scholar will expound, Saeculari cuilibet magistratui, for any secular magistrate, and not for lay men, even those which are placed in public office; so that of private persons there is nothing spoken: but the translator of Gerson desired instruction, for devout and religious consciences, and not for magistrates: and the author hath added these words, lay men to include private persons, contrary to the meaning of the Council. Those other words likewise. Sub praetextu quod contenta in praesenti decreto non sunt obseruata, are not truly rendered by him in these words, upon pretence that it is not done orderly and according to the due form: he should have said thus, upon pretence that the things are not observed, which are contained in this present decree, for there are many other due forms and rules in Saint Matthew, Saint Paul●, and S. Augustine: which are not contained in the decrees of that Council. The Council forbiddeth lay magistrates, that they shall not by their authority, command any excommunication that is denounced, to be revoked, upon pretence that all things were not therein observed, that are contained in that decree. But if some other things be omitted, which ought to be observed, the council doth not determine, whether in such cases, lay magistrates may command the censure to be revoked. And peradventure in some case they may, according as they use to do in the Parliaments of France. It is evident therefore that the council hath given no instruction to devout and religious consciences, that is, to such as are unjustly excommunicated, and to them which live among them, who are to converse and communicate with them, what their duty is in that case, which is the point that Gersons translator desired. But after the Author hath alleged the words of the council. Nefas autem sit saeculari cuilibet magistratui prohibere ecclesiastico judici ne quem excommunicet, aut mandare ut latam excommunicationem revocet, 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 council: which hath provided for every thing, and hath taught us, that the office and duty of secular magistrates is, not to resist with force and violence the publishing of excommunications, as the magistrates of the common wealth of Venice do at this time. Here I cannot choose but be much amazed. The council saith that the magistrate ought not either to forbid ecclesiastical judges to excommunicate, or to command them to revoke their excommunication when it is denounced. The Author saith that it commands them not to resist the publication of an excommunication with force. These things are as different as heaven and earth, for the publication may be hindered, without either forbidding the sentence of excommunication to be pronounced, or commanding it to be revoked when it is pronounced. The one is an act of power and jurisdiction over him that doth excommunicate, the other an act of natural defence, which requires no jurisdiction at all, & doth not only appertain to magistrates, but to private men also: as we may see in Caitan, Soto, and Victoria, who do all entreat at large, of the resistance that both private men and secular magistrates, aught to make, against all unlawful commandments, & especially the Popes. And with them agreeth also Cardinal Bellarmine in his treatise de Romano Pontifice, written in a time, when, this controversy not being as yet begun, he judged without all passion and parciality, where then doth there appear, or whence is there proved any such untruth, as the Author affirmeth that Gersons translator hath uttered against the counsel; and that other point, that if he had read out the whole decree, he should have found etc. So in conclusion, the objection that is made against the translator in this point, is grounded only upon three untrue and improper interpretations made by the Author, contrary to the true sense and words of the Council. But let us pass 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 over many Authors, I chanced among the rest to light upon john Gerson, a most Christian Doctor, worthy of eternal memory etc. It cannot be denied, but john Gerson was a Doctor of very great learning and piety, but the unhappiness of those times, by reason of the long continuance of the schism in the Church of Rome, gave occasion to that Doctor, as well as to some other of that age, to think somewhat underfoot of the authority of the Apostolic seat. Because that while they sought by means of the general Council to remedy the schism, & to induce the Popes of several obediences to submit their claims & pretensions to the Counsels declaration; hereupon they set themselves to entrance the authority of councils beyond measure, & 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 general judgement of the divines that have been before and since▪ so that Gersons Authority in those matters which concern the Pope's power, is not of any moment: and there were enough other writers more sound, which might have been quoted, to give us to understand how far the force of an excommunication extends; as are Saint. Thomas, S. Bonaventure, S. Antonine, and infinite others; without bringing in an Author suspected, yea and apparently erroneous, in the point that is now in question.  
It had been good dealing in the Author, since he hath reported some of the honourable titles, which the Interpreter gives to Gerson, to have put them down all, that so the objection which he makes against him, of being a debaser of the supreme Bishop's authority, might happily have been refuted. For if he had adjoined the opinion which that age held of him, styling him the most Christian Doctor, and his so long continued exercise in teaching sacred divinity, and the things he effected by his teaching, his example, and his public authority withal, he could hardly have persuaded his reader, that Gerson was a man likely to be stirred by indiscreet affections. But so powerful 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 tax them as manifestly erroneous, and suspected, and contrary to the Scriptures. We cannot deny the unhappiness of those times, and the long durance of that schism in the Roman Church; but withal we must needs acknowledge a much greater infelicity in these of ours, wherein so great Kingdoms have made a total separation from the same Church: whereupon there is bred an appetite in some, to supply and make up by an intensive way of improvement within those few regions that remain, all that was so lost in extent and territory abroad: yea an infelicity indeed may we rightly term that of our times, when there is not that father of the ancient Church that is not censured, and when they dare take upon them to say, that if they had lived in these days, they would not have spoken as they have spoken. Neither is it to be believed, that the occasions of those times did transport men more to favour the authority of Counsels, more I say, nay or any thing so much, as the present occasions transport some to depress them: since it is evident, that all the Kingdoms that are sequestered from the Church, do desire and groan after a Council.  
Forasmuch as in very deed to speak in favour of a Council can not touch any one man's proper interest, since no one person can aspire to become a Council, whereof he must be content to be but a five hundredth part: so as it is more to be misdoubted, the unhappiness of the present times carries on an affectation of excess, then that of the ages past, did of any diminution. A good zeal to cure schism, such as was that of Gerson, and the rest of that age by the Authors own confession, it is not wont to transport to any perverse opinion, specially such as are no way interessed; but this caitiff zeal of enlarging once own greatness, is a perilous motive to seduce into blindness. Here I must not omit to note, that it is a kind of taxing of God's providence, to say, that he suffered an age to fall into a manifest error & contrary to the divine scriptures, an age that was moved out of a Godly zeal, to reduce the holy Church to unity. Men of much knowledge and godliness, 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 exorbitant, that by the Author's good leave, I will aver it, that who so falleth into it, hath no spark of either godliness or knowledge. To err manifestly against the Scriptures is the greatest blindness that can happen to any Christian, & the greatest chastisement that God can impose in punishment of him whosoever shall make use of the divine authority, to serve his own turn in mondaine interests. It is too to gross, & express a contradicton, to be forced to confess the great learning & piety of Gerson, and to say withal, that he fell into open errors, contrary to the Scriptures.  
It is not as yet decided, who holds the better opinion touching the authority of the sea apostolic, whether Gerson, or our Author: that he should presume to pronounce it so absolutely, that Gersons authority in the question of the Pope's power is of no moment. Moment is a term relative, and that which is of no moment with him, is nevertheless of moment with others: and if the Author's opinion be of value in any place, then that of Gersons is esteemed of in many more.  
But to leave this apart; in all these twelve considerations the Author could find no fault, but at one only point, & that propounded incidently: the rest of the doctrine he must needs allow, & howsoever he strains himself, what by limitations, what by extensions, to make a show of the contrary, yet in fine he approves all: so that in direct dealing, he ought not to have made this point of the superiority of general counsels for his principal question; since that is not the point now in question, nor any man affects to make any such use of that point, to draw in his holiness purposely for his object; that it might bear any such construction, that the defence of Gerson, were in offence of his holiness.  
There wanted not (saith the Author) other writers more sound, which might have been alleged, and he nameth Saint Thomas, S. Bonaventura, S. Antonine in particular. But Gersons doctrine, That excommunications abusive and null are not to be feared; That we ought not to obey them, but defend ourselves against them; That in cases doubtful we ought to take advise, and that all aught to be united to the common good, it is the doctrine of both S. Thomas, and of S. Bonaventura, & of S. Antonine, & of infinite others more; but it is not indeed compacted all into one place, so as it may be seen under 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 scholars, he shall find their doctrine (I speak not here of that head, touching the superiority of the Council, but of the rest to be in all, and through all points conform to that of Gersons. Here I will add this, that if the author shall protest unto me, that he will admit of all S. Bonaventures' doctrine, (who was a man of so great sanctity and knowledge) I will undertake to produce him places, that shall give him much more traverse, than Gerson and those other of his time have done▪ and well he might have forborn these terms of suspected & erroneous, & not have ascribed them to one, whom himself acknowledgeth for one of great learning & religion. But let us now hear another greater reprehension.  
But the cause, 
Bellarmine.  which induced the Author of the preface to translate and publish Gersons two treatises, is most blameworthy of all the rest; To the end (saith he) that every godly and religious conscience in reading them may take comfort, and not incur that great judgement which God sends upon the reprobate, to conceive a fear of those things, which are not to be feared. Trepidaverunt timore ubi non erat timor. Behold how far man's blindness aspires to abuse and misapply the word of God, to take away the fear of God. The holy Prophet in the 13, and in the 52 Psalm, he saith, The ungodly fear not the true God, who is most worthy to be feared: Non est timor dei ante oculos eorum and on the contrary they fear their false Cod which have no power all, Illic trepidaverant timore, ubi non erat timor. And now this new Doctor takes the words of the Psalm in a clean contrary sense going about to persuade by them, that God's Vicar is not to be feared, and consequently that we should not fear the true God himself, since he hath said it to his Vicars, Qui vos audit, me audit: qui vos spernit; me spernit. Luc. 10. Very repugnant are the words of Saint Gregory, to these of our new divine. For he in his 26 Homily speaking of excommunication saith, that the sentence of the Pastor is to be feared, be it just, or unjust; and this man saith, that who so feareth the Pastor's sentence which he holds to be unjust, falls into that judgement of the reprobate, which fear where no cause is. And the mischief that grows out of this doctrine it ceaseth not here, but goes on, and spreads out further, even to the utter ruin of souls: for he that fears not the censures of the supreme Pastor, much less will he fear that of the Bishops: and he that gins once to despise the orders of the head of the Church, will make small conscience of disregarding any other order whatsoever. By this cunning, Martin Luther hath persuaded many men, that Christian liberty consisteth in having a large conscience, and in not fearing to transgress all the orders of the Church: and hereupon have we seen so many Monks, and Nuns without any scruple at all to abandon their Monasteries, cast away their sacred habits, and take husbands & wives; and so many nations to trample upon the holy Images, to forget the feasts, and feast event, not to know any longer what is meant by Lent, Confessions, vespers, and Mass: and finally we may see from this beginning of not fearing the authority of Christ's vicar in earth, how some whole Provinces are brought to that pass, that they have no note or mark at all of any Christian religion left.  
In conformity with the Author we may here begin by exclamation, always provided it be not slanderous. Behold how far the confidence of the great ones aspires, and attributes that to a defect in others, which proceeded indeed from their own greatness. 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 original from any disobedience of the subjects, but out of an abuse of power and greatness in the Prelates. It is well known that it grew out of in discreet extortions, & out of extravagant fashions of granting Indulgences: I trust in God that these present alterations shall be determined with the health & safety of the body that remains entire, & not with the ruin & perdition of it; and tell me for God's sake, whence began these alterations, but because they could not be contented that a few persons in number (who if a man survey them well, will hardly make up 1000) should enjoy a fourth part of the riches of the whole state, which contains four millions of persons; and because they would infine have stripped all the laity out of their goods? And even as they began, so have they proceeded on, because they would have brought it to that pass, that some which have nothing else but the bare name of Churchmen, might without fear of justice, uncontrolled offend other men both in their lives and honour. Admit now some great mischief had befallen us, who should have been in fault? but they that would have innovated and changed the courses of judicature that have been used and established these 1200. years past, and the laws that took their beginning above 300 years since? It was not greatly to the purpose when the question is made between Catholics of the validity, or nullity of a Censure: to enter into Monasteries, Matrimonies, Images, Feasts and Feast-evens, Lents, Concessions, Vespers, Masses, and all to enforce other men to answer them, and lay open whence the mischief grows: it had been much better to have stood upon the matter, & treated of it as it comes to hand with charity, & not to bear themselves in hand, that the world is so simple, as not to understand, whether this present difference be about a temporal matter, or a spiritual. Now to leave these digressions, into which the Author hath withdrawn me, happily beside the question, let us consider of the strength of the opposition he makes against the interpreter touching the meaning of the words in the Psalm. And to begin with the very exposition which the author himself gives them, which I will not note for false, but I will grant him, that for that short verse alone it may pass, being peradventure quoted from some other exposition: but he that will read over the whole Psalm shall see that it suits not with the letter, and that the Interpreter hath cited it indeed in it own true and literal sense according to the clear light of God's word. For the argument of the Psalm, it is an affectionate complaint against the ungodly, or if you will so call him, the Atheist, together with the consolation he receiveth from seeing him punished: and not against him that fears false gods. This is cleared by the very beginning: Dixit insipiens in cord suo, non est Deus. Now to understand the fifth verse, Deum non invocarunt, illiuc trepidaverunt timore, ubi non erat timor, we must know that, Dei invocatio, in the divine Scripture is often taken by a Senecdoche for the recognition and acknowledgement of God: whereupon the literal sense is, they acknowledged not the true God, & yet nevertheless they feared things that were not to be feared: for as much as that is the special chastisement which God lays upon the wicked, that though he seem free from all fear, yet he of himself frames in his own apprehension divers & contradictory conceits, which cause & work in him an apparent fear: so may we see some in antiquity, that denied the immortality of the soul, and yet were infinitely troubled with fear of infamy after death: & others that denied providence, no less apprehensive of conjectural divinations, & other fancies. This is the very literal sense: let us now see whether it was alleged to this purpose. There are some (saith S. Paul) which confess in words that they know god, but deny him in their deeds. These are they, that living at random care not at all for God's law; they will not stick to murder many men, to violate many marriage beds, and of these wickednesses they will never repent, they will rob as much as they can finger, and consume all their own goods, and other men's: but when they are cited to the Ecclesiastical Court to pay a toeth, and there excommunicated, being now become unable to pay it; they are more traversed and grieved at this, then at all their offences committed against God. here we are to conceive 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 less evil or mischief to him, than any the least venial sin: and there is no divine which holds not thus; and I note further that an excommunication thundered out for any other cause, then for sin, and without his sin against whom it is passed, doth not prejudice a Christian soul at all. Therefore of him that shall have no respect to offend against the commandments of God, & shall yet stand in fear of such an excommunication, it may be rightly said according to the Psalms literal sense, Trepidaverunt timore ubi non erat timor. He that hath a serious intent to live Christianly, he will be careful to observe the commandments of God, and of them whom God hath commanded that they should be obeyed after himself, in the things appertaining to their superiority; to the Pope & Prelates in things spiritual, to the Prince in civil, to the father or master in things Domestical (for so much as he obeyeth them all, because God commands him, and for no cause else) but where this order is not preserved, and Gods own commandments not preferred before all the rest, there God permits it for their punishment, that intolerable precepts shall be imposed upon their shoulders, to which indeed they are not bound, & menaceth them with vain punishments which they in like sort are more afraid of, then of the true punishments threatened them by God himself, much like a child that cries at his mother's threatening him with a scaring & no real chastisement. But if lively reasons shall find no overture nor way in the Author's conceit, to persuade him that the place of the Psalm, Trepidaverunt timore, is rightly alleged: yet me thinks he should suffer himself to be overruled by Navarra his authority, who alleages the same Text against such as fear void excommunications. Super cap. Cum contigat: Rem. 2. Numero 14. & Numero 13. He saith, that to fear the Censures that are void and null, it is Deum falsum pro vero colere. But our Author he saith, that who so fears not God's Vicar, fears not God himself, because he saith to his vicar's, 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 will fear God, must stand bound to subject himself, even to the indiscretion of the Prelates to whom God hath given no power at all, further than it shall be accompanied with discretion. And me thinks it stands not with the wisdom & learning of so great a man to allege scriptures in a most strange, yea in a contrary sense to it own, albeit I am persuaded that he hath not only read the place itself, but the whole chapter. There is no speech there of any vicar's, nor of the supreme Bishops, but of the Preachers of God's word, who if they shall preach the doctrine of Christ who so heareth them, heareth Christ, and he that despiseth them, despiseth Christ. So saith S. Luke in his tenth alleged 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 received nor heard; and in the conclusion of all this he adds, Qui vos audit, me audit. Here I would request not them of judgement only, but every man of ordinary understanding but to view the place. It is commonly received 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, whereof we have not now to treat, further than this, that where Christ saith, to the 72. Qui vos audit, he speaketh as a Preacher to all Preachers. here the Author may object, them among these the Pope is likewise comprehended. I admit no less, touching the preaching of Christ's doctrine: but I will not allow him that impropriety of speech, as to say, Christ saith to his vicar's, Qui vos audit, me audit. For them to hold that the Preacher ought not to have a coactive jurisdiction, if the place, Qui vos audit, had stood alone by itself, and not been conjoined with the antecedents and consequents (which demonstrate it to have been spoken to the 72 as Preachers) would have good show for it, and so it hath if we will read it apart; but the holy scripture is to be read entire, and not by piecemeal. Neither is that saying of S. Gregory, That the sentence of the Pastor is to be feared, though it be unjust, contrary to that which Gersons interpreter follows. For when S. Gregory's words are, The sentence of the Pastor, though it be unjust. etc. he presupposeth that it is a sentence; because if it be not a sentence, it cannot be an unjust sentence, but a non sentence. Such must that be that a lay man shall take upon him to give in causes ecclesiastical, and an ecclesiastical person in lay causes: but that sentence which is unjust, and yet to be feared, is when 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 & observed: but when it doth contain an intolerable error, than it ought not indeed (as we will show in place) to be proudly despised, but yet with a kind of reverence unreceived. This, which is the common received doctrine the Author hath passed over in silence, & to him it would be but needles to say any more: but some other body to whose hands this discourse may come, I will allege two Canons, the one of Saint Leo the first, a Pope of great sanctity, who preceded S. Gregory some 20 Popes in rank, there remains then (saith he) S. Peter's privilege, wheresoever judgement is pronounced according to his equity, & where there is neither to much severity, nor too much indulgence, where nothing shall be bound, nothing loosed, but what blessed Peter, Aut soluerit, aut liga verit: which last words I have put down in Latin, as loath to restrain them to either of their two significations, in which respect I hold it yet better to recite it all in Latin: Manet ergo Petri privilegium, ubicunque ex ipsius fertur aequitate judicium, nec nimia est vel severitas, vel remissio, ubi nihil erit ligatum, nihil solutum, nisi quod beatus Petrus aut soluerit, aut ligaverit. And S. Gelasius a predecessor of S. Gregory some 15 Papanties, saith (I will quote his own words in Latin, 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 gravare sententia, ita rigo ea se non absolui desideret, quà se nullatenus perspicit obligatum. The Author's words which next follow, that this doctrine extends & spreads itself further, to the disparaging of Masses & Vespers, Confessions, Feasts, and Feast-evens. Vigiles etc. they require no further answer, sithence the resistance which the state of Venice makes against the foresaid precept, is not made, but merely to preserve the Masses, & Vespers, the Feasts, and their Vigiles which some would take away, & put the state in hazard to inebriate, & fill itself with some pernicious opinion. Some other men might here say, that such & such a kingdom in the age last passed hath lost the sound religion by reason of scandals given them from Churchmen; & indeed the famousest and truest Historians affirm no less. And if this state did not at this present out of it own piety use all diligence to preserve the religion, but should be earnest to put the Pope's words in execution (I will not say his meaning, sot I hope it is exceeding good) it would for truth be utterly overthrown with an extreme downfall. These men have not yet sound by experience, what the taking away of the exercise of holy religion from the people, it may import in these times. All the Hebrews that have sprung up since the year 1300, & are grown to the height of this day, they had no other beginning but out of those innumerable excommunications & interdictions which began to be put in use in the year 1200, and so continued on all that age through. He that shall read over the stories of all those years, will have much ado to abstain from tears, in reading such a spirtual havoc & fall of souls. Thus are we come by the grace of God to the 6. & last opposition, where the Author saith.  
In the end the writer of this preface not satisfied, with having abused a place of the old Testament, he serves his turn 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 arms of the spirit, which is the word of God. Luther nor Caluin could not more apparently have employed the word of God against God. The Apostle in the Epistle to the Ephesians, the last chapter speaketh of the resistance which the faithful are to make against the infernal devil:  possitis stare contra incidias diaboli, And a little after; In omnibus iumentis scutum fidei, in quo possitis omnia tela nequissimi ignea extinguere. As also saith S. Peter, Cui resistite fortes in fide. and S. james, Resistite Diabolo & fugiet à vobis. And this new divine applies this resistance to the censures of the supreme Bishop, as if the Apostle in stead of saying, Arm yourself with faith, and with the word of God to resist the devil, had said, Arm yourselves 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 God's vicar? Nay what manner of faith is it, or what word of God, which doth not teach us to be subject and to obey the Prelates of the holy Church: saith not S. Paul in the 13 chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Obedite praepositis vestris, & subiacete eyes? Saith not Christ himself, Mat. 18. Si ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & publicanus?  
Indeed the Author allegeth S. Paul's text in it right sense, but yet not in a contrary sense to that to which Gersons interpreter did apply it. S. Paul spoke in general against the assaults of the devil; 
Friar Paulo.  and the interpreter understands it, that indiscreet excommunications are one kind of the assaults of the devil: and it should be a contradiction to term them indiscreet excommunications, and not to hold withal that they proceed from the devil. S. john saith, Omnis qui facit peccatumex diabolo est: And I believe this to be a most Catholic & holy position, that an excommunication thundered forth against him that doth well, and that obeyeth God's commandments, hath it original from the devils persuasion: and it is one sort of those insidiations which he practiseth against the faithful. The Author knows it, that we have not to combat with the devil in flesh & bones. All that whatsoever tends to the destruction of the spiritual state of the Church, which is the kingdom of christ, it is the work of the devil; & if it be secret, it is an insidiation, & of all works that are wrought to the Church's detriment, whose doing soever they be, the scripture makes the devil the author, as indeed he is, though he do not put them in execution by himself: the destruction of many Churches, & the deformation of others by reason of these indiscreet excommunications make proof, that the devil lies in wait to supplant christs flock even with the same means, which Christ instituted to preserve it. When S. Paul saith to the Thessalonians that the devil had often hindered him from coming to them, he doth not mean that this was otherwise done, then by the actions of men. The devil he practiseth & employeth all sorts of persons to this end, & then not always out of malice, but out of error; and who thinking to do well with an indifferent zeal do but execute his wicked intentions, & the holy scriptures tell us expressly, that these & such like are the devils own deeds. We may read it in S. Matthew, how after S. Peter had confessed our Lord to be the son of God, & that he had promised him the keys of the kingdom of heaven; how he commanded his disciples not to make it known to any that he was the Christ, for that it behoved him to suffer & to die in jerusalem. Then S. Peter reproved 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 will make any doubt, that S. Peter's 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 work of our redemption, & the edification of the Church, which was to issue forth of the side of Christ opened upon the cross, Christ calls him Satan. Now it is no inconvenience to hold, that if S. Peter, through want 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 advised as were fit, may attempt that thing, bearing himself in hand that he doth right well, which another man that is nearer concerned in the fact, & therefore can judge better what it imports than he, may see clearly that it must needs sort to the Church's undoing. The Author is (I confess) a man most excellent in learning, & of singular efficacy in persuading, yet for all this, he shall never make me believe, nor happily any other that shall read, how that every mortal man of what place or dignity soever, may not sometimes either through his own will, or through human infirmity, give an aid & furtherance, yet without any wicked intent in himself, to some subtle design of the devils: and from this escape let him never strain himself to exempt any one man, until he shall have exempted me him first from praying, Et ne nos inducas in tentationem. The Author demands, what faith is that, which teacheth to resist God's vicar? I answer him, it is the very faith of my L. Cardinal Bellarmine, who saith in formal terms thus. Itaque scilicet resistere Pontifici invadenti corpus, ita licet resissere in vadenti animas, vel turbanti remp. & multò magis si Ecclesiam destruere interit, licet, inquam, ei resissere, non faciendo quod jubet, & impediendo ne exequatur voluntatem suam. So then here, the word of God in the last to the Ephesians, entreateth of the resistance we have to make against the devil whom God permitteth, through his most hidden, and just & secret judgements, to plot & devise against the peace & quiet of the holy Church.  
The Author allegeth that of S. Paul to the Hebrews, Obedite praepositis vestris, & subiacete eye, and it likes me very well; first because it is not meant of the Pope in special, but of the Bishops, yea and of all Curates, so that it makes nothing for the Pope in particular; but he should indeed have produced the whole place of S. Paul, Obedite praepositis vestris, et subiacete eyes: ipsi enim pervigilan; quasi rationem pro animabus vestris reddituri, or as he saith in the Greek, Obey them that are set over you, & be subject unto them for they ward over your souls, as they that must render an account of them. So far forth as those that are set over our souls, so far it appertains us to obey them; which is as if he should have said, we must obey them in things Spiritual, which appertain to our soul's health; and because the Author brings in that si ecclesiam non audient, sit tibi sicut ethnicus & publicanus; we must know that the Church is, as S. Paul styles it, the pillar and basis of the truth, and that it will never teach any thing but the Doctrine of Christ, nor command any thing but what shall be conform to that; but we have not yet perceived that the Church commandeth that which the Author saith: See here our paralogism, which answers from our taking the name of Church, in diverse significations. In this very place, many writers do understand dic Ecclesiae, id est Praelatis Ecclesiae, but no one understands it of the Pope alone; we will understand it then of him indifferently as of all other Prelates, & not in any manner of speciality, reserving notwithstanding to every one his own degree & place. And this, si ecclesiam non audierit, shall be understood, when they shall speak in the ministry of excommunication, according to the doctrine of the Church. Now it is notorious that the proceed of the Venetian state, are according to the Church's doctrine, since the custom & use througout all Christian Kingdoms are just after the same manner.  
Here I would feign learn, why in that Gospel, which is read upon the tuesday after the third sunday in Lent, where it was written in the Mass book, Respiciens jesus in discipulos suos, dixit Simoni Petro si peccaverit etc. why they have in all the Massebookes that have been printed of late years taken 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 mass-book, & not in the books of the new Testament, it is said they come ex traditione Apostolica; & so one will tell us, that howsoever the Evangelist doth not affirm it, yet it comes by tradition, that these words were directed to Peter. Here then must needs grow some distinction by which there may appear a difference between this tradition and the others; which when it is made, yet all will be to little to take order, that for many hundred years it was not so read, & consequently so believed of all the faithful for so many ages, that it was spoken particularly to Peter, dic ecclesiae. So that we must needs aequiuocate in the noun Church, & interpret it, dic tibi ipsi ye & yet further it will be a sense too to wrested, to understand by (the Church) one sole person, and that not so much because the noun itself brooks it not, as for that Christ himself interpreting it in the words immediately following saith, ubi fuerint duo vel tres, etc. So that it is apparently cleared, that he understood 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 exposition, we will speak hereafter, where the Aut. also treats the matter more at large, & show him how S. Chriso. is not for him, but is opposite.  

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

Friar Paulo.  Here before I proceed, to the particular defence of Gersons considerations, I must not overslip to admonish the godly reader, that it is a trick of art, or a desseine of the Author, for some of his own ends, that he never leaves repeating & iterating (aswell in the matters we have already surveyed, as in those that follow) & charging the Venetian state, that it will not acknowledge, it will not obey, that it despiseth the supreme Bishop, the vicar of Christ, and with other like terms apt to raise envy, & engender hatred in so many as cannot be rightly informed touching the controversy now a foot, and of the justice of the sttates cause; which end that it may more easily be obtained, we may observe how they hinder it all they can that the reasons of the State may not be seen; a practice directly against all reason, divine and humane. To which I will say once for all, the so many inculcations ingeminated by the Author, that this is not to handle the matter in question with sincerity. For that the Venetian state doth acknowledge & obey (as it hath always done) the holy Apostolic sea neither doth it introduce any novelty, but conserves & defends with all godliness & religion, the holy Apostolic faith, which it prefers before all human respects whatsoever; but only in causes temporal, where the Pope, either for not being well informed, or through other body's counsels, or for some other cause doth thunder out his censures notoriously against all justice, they intent within the bounds of the Catholic religion to maintain their own liberty, & the authority given them from God, it being conform to the laws of God, & nature, & according to the doctrine of the godly & catholic doctors. But now whether Gersons considerations make or make not to the purpose, & whether they be erroneous or not, let us peruse them every one a part, as the Author shall present occasion.  
The first consideration is, that excommunication & irregularity are founded principally upon a contempt of the keys of the Church, that is to say, 
Gerson.  of the Ecclesiastical authority. This consideration is true, so you understand by contempt, disobedience; or if you will so term it, contumacy, 
Bellarmine.  & it is not contrary to our Lords practise.  
2 The second consideration is, that the contempt of the keys 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 interpretative, which two words are in a manner quite contrary For Apparens is that which appears or seems to be, and is not; and interpretatiwm is that which seems not, and yet is. But this scape little imports the matter in hand. For the first consideration since he allows it for true, I shall not need to defend it, or add any thing else unto it.  
The second consideration he admits likewise for true and reproves not Gerson, but only the traslation. And in deed the interpreter should have stood greatly bound to him for his instruction, if he had not troubled and confounded all with an equivocation. True it is, that sometimes Interpretative signifies that which is, & appears not; and some times it signifies as much as  & implies that which is not manifest but needs interpretation & is not opposite to the word (vere) but to the word expressly: in this sense we call it licentia interpretativa, that is to say, tacita non expressa. But otherwhiles it signifies also that which seems, & is not; as when we say, not to salute a man, is interpretative a kind of disdain; that is as much as it seems a disdenie, but peradventure it is not: & here interpretative, is opposite to vere. I can not tell what edition of Gerson the Author hath, but in mine which was printed in the year 494; in the very end of this consideration, his formal words are; Et isto modo reperit contemptus in omni peccato, praesertim mortali, directive, vel indirecte; vere, vel interpretative, If then vere be opposed to interpretative; then cannot interpretatinum be that which appears not but yet is; because that which appears not, but is in itself, is verum. And if this suffice to clear the Translators integrity; I will yet add that Gerson in his third consideration saith, that a contempt of the third sort, which is contemptus interpretatiws, doth not always deserve the Church's excommunication: if it deserves not excommunication always; ergo it deserves it sometimes; but that which is, and appears not, can not be subject in any sort to the Church's censures, as all the divines & Canonists affirm; therefore interpretatiwm is not that, which appears not, and yet is. I hope well that the Author will now rest satisfied for this point, & consequently that his objection of mistranslating made against the Interpreter is avoided; which when I first read in the Author's poem, I expected that in further reading I should have found many more places taxed for infidility & misinterpretation; but when I had done reading over all, I found no one word so noted but this alone, & that with this addition. But this scape little imports the matter in hand. Me thought it strange, that a man should be noted as an unfaithful one, for one poor word, & that of little importance, & that in the very noting & taxing it, the Author should, serve his turn with an equivocal word, which in the very same place is explained by Gerson.  

Bellarmine.  3 The third consideration is, That the contempt of the keys in the first and second kinds do justly deserve excommunication, and by consequence irregularity: but that of the third kind, doth not always deserve excommunication from the Church, but from God because he that sinneth mortally is excommunicated by God. In this consideration there is nothing much amiss, saving the last words; for if a man will speak properly of excommunication, it is not true, that every one that commits a mortal sin is excommunicated by God. For then sinners might not come to Mass, nor to divine office without committing new sin, which is false, as every man knows.  

Friar Paolo.  In the third consideration it is apparent, that an inordinate affection to find fault, doth transport a man no less than any other affection whatsoever; Since he doth not reprehend Gerson, for that which is here concluded, which he allows all for true; but fastening upon one word spoken immediately, he charges him to have spoken amiss, for saying that who so sins mortally is excommunicated of God, & his reason is that this cannot be true if we speak properly of excommunication, because that then sinners could not come to Mass, without sinning anew Now I affirm against him, that it is a proper speech to say that every sinner is excommunicated of god, because excommunication is a general word, which imports all separation from the communion of Saints; but there be two communions of Christians, one internal in caritie with God and with the Saints, and this is properly the communion of Saints, either for a separation or privation, 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 ecclesiastical; & avoiding to this kind of excommunication, every sinner is not excommunicate, and may therefore repair to the Mass, it being a matter which doth not so necessarily require charity. Now Gerson never said that he was excommunicated by the excommunication, which is the church's censure. S. Augustine. 12, de Gen. ad literam. cap. 40 useth the same fashion of speech, Adam ab esu ligni vitae excommunicatus 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 iandiu apud deum excommunicatus fuerat, which is just according to Gersons words. And again how will you term excommunication in Greek but Anathema? yea our Divines make no difference between Excommunication mayor, & Anathma. And S. Paul saith, cupiebam Anathema esse a Christo and in another place, si quis non amat dominum nostrum jesum Christum sit Anathema. Now let him on that lists, to find fault with S. Paul, and say he spoke improperly, sithence every sinner Non amat dominum jesum, & therefore is Anathema to favour such; and after let him proceed to blame Gerson for mistaking. It needed not, iwis, admit there had been some impropriety, when he understood Gersons true sense, who spoke not of that excommunication, which is the Church censure, when he accorded with him in substance, to strain and force his words in matters of no moment. And this might have sufficed me, but that my desire was to show by alleging S. Augustine, Gratian and S. Paul, how the Author reprehends that, for which indeed Gerson deserves to be commended.  
4 The fourth consideration is, 
Gerson.  that a man is not to be said to contemn the keys in any of the three kinds, when a Prelate doth manifestly, & notoriously abuse the power of the keys. This consideration is true, if it speak of the abuse of the keys in points essential; as if the Prelate should exceed his commission, or should excommunicate a man, without giving him any warning before; 
Bellarmine:  or should command under pain of excommunication, things contrary to god's commandment, in which case we say with S. Peter, Obediendum est magis deo quam hominibus. Act. 5. But howsoever Gersons Doctrine be true, yet the Interpreters intention, may be very infectious & full of poison, for that happily his drift is that the world should conceive, that the excommunication which our Lord the Pope hath published, were a notorious abuse of the keys, whereas it is indeed their lawful & most ancient use, as we could most clearly demonstrate, if we were to insist upon that point. 
Bellarmine   
This consideration might even as well have been passed over by the Author, since he finds nothing to reprehend in it. The limitation he brings in, that the manifest & notorious abuse of the keys excuseth the faithful from contempt; where he saith that this is true if the abuse be in points essential, it is superfluous. Who makes any doubt that it is so meant? The very word abuse imports no less in it own signification. But when the Author adds, that howsoever Gersons doctrine is true, yet the interpreters intention may be full of poison. This is nothing else but to fight against shadows, to oppose against that which may be, and to wrangle with ones own conjectures. Is this S. Paul's precept, not to judge our neighbour, till our Lord himself shall come to reveal the secret of hearts. Is this that charity, quae non cogitat malum? 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 own, & yet it is objected for all this that the interpreters intention may be very venomous. Admit there had been some word which might have been turned either to the right hand or to the left, yet it had been the part of Christian charity to have interpreted it to the best: but to come to what may be, & that purposely to accuse, & to give a brand, this exceeds the bounds of that we ought to do. This poisonous intention which may be in the interpreter, he explains saying, peradventure his meaning is to bear the world in hand, that this excommunication thundered by nostro signore, is a notorious abuse of the keys, which indeed is contrarily a lawful & most holy use of them, as might clearly be demonstrated, if that were the point to be handled. 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 controversy, & which would determine the strife, & without which it can not be determined. And of this I would feign the Author he had entreated, & laid aside all other by-matters as little pertinent to the purpose.  

Gerson.  5 The fift consideration is, that when a prelate abuseth the power of the keys, he doth more disparaged the keys, & offends more grievously than doth any man subject to his jurisdiction, when he obeys not his prelate: & hence it is gathered that it is a meritorious work in such like cases, to resist the prelate to his face as S. Paul 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 seems scarcely safe, & less grounded. For to lay by comparisons, which may vary according to their diversity of circumstances, whereupon it may fall out, that sometime the prelate that abuseth his authority offends the more, and sometimes the subject that obeys it not: if we shall simply consider the misusing of this power, & the disobeying of this power, it is a greater sin wilfully not to obey, than it is to use this power amiss: for he that abuseth this power, commits but a sin of injustice, & offends a man subject to him; but he that will not obey the prelate that commands justly, & despiseth his excommunication, commits a sin of rebellion, & offends Gods divine 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 book of Kings the 15. Chap.) a kind of Idolatry.  
To that which were here to be said, & is not said by the Author, I can make no answer, neither ought I to divine, & sin in rash iudgmet. Two things he opposeth. First that Gersons doctrine seems scarcely sound, & less grounded, because that in respect of the circumstances it may so fall out, that sometime the prelate shall offend more in abusing his power, & sometimes the subject in not obeying it. The Author shall never find any Divine, that when he is to compare two sins, to find out the greater, that will do it ex circumstantijs, but only ex genere. The consideration, ex circumstantijs is infinite, & no wise man will pitch & insist upon that which may vary in infinitum. And S. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 39 art. 2. saith expressly. dicendum que grauitae peccati dupliciter potest considerari. uno modo secundum suam speciem, alio modo secundum circumstantias. Et quia circumstantiae particulares sunt infinitae, ita & infinitis modis variari possunt; cum quaeriter in communi de duobus peccatis quod sit gravius, intelligenda est quaestio de gravitate quae attenditur secundum genus peccati. This proposition is most true & most expressly formal. Manslaughter is worse than theft: yet a manslaughter may have such circumstances to extenuate it, and a thief, such to aggravate it, that the theft shall be the greater sin. He that shall hold this Author's doctrine for sound, shall never be able to make comparison betwixt two sins. And yet for all this Gerson hath declared himself, that he meant not to compare them ex circumstantijs, but ex genere, since he saith it, making the comparison only in the abuse. Surely the Author marked not these words, for than he would never have made this objection. Hereupon out he, cometh, & affirms 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 obey it, than it is to use it amiss. And he brings his reason, because he that abuseth this power, offends but a man subject to him, but he that will not obey the Prelate that commands justly, and despiseth his excommunication, commits a sin of rebellion, and offends Gods Ma. in his Vicar, because of qui vos spernit, me spernit etc. Et qui haec spernit non hominem spernit, sed Deum; & Samuel termeth this despising of God in his Vicar, a kind of Idolatre. Here we have two Authors, one in contradiction to the other, one void of passion, having slept in the Lord now 'bove 150 years; the other a man yet living, & a party sided in the controversy. Let us therefore examine both their reasons, & 1. these of this Author. The words qui vos spernit, me spernit, we have showed before that they were spoken to the Preachers, which publish Christ's 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 add this withal, that at the day of judgement, Christ will say to the reprobate, Quandiu non fecistis uni de minoribus his, nec mihi fecistis. So that there is aswell authority of Scripture to show, that Christ takes it for an injury done to himself, that is done to any of his faithful: and this saying of our Saviour in the Gospel, Quandiu non fecistis, is not alleged forth of it own literal sense, for that admonition & correction is indeed a work 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 cannot see how it is cited any thing to the purpose, when S. Paul saith, qui haec spernit, he speaks of the things there spoken by himself, & how then can it now be applied to the commandments of the Prelate? S. Paul exhorts the Thessalonians to labour & proceed according to the lessons of God; ye know, saith he, what commandments we have given you from the Lord jesus, & he names them, viz. that they should be clean, they should fly fornication & deceiving their neighbours, & he concludes, Qui haec spernit, non hominem spernit, sed deum, qui etiam dedit spiritum sanctum in nobis. Every man will plainly understand out of S. Paul's own words, that his meaning was this God hath commanded such and such things, & I have intimated you his commandments, he that despiseth you despiseth god, who hath given me the holy spirit, to intimat his precepts unto you. Let us now make the application to our matters in hand, though it be not here written down, & concluded withal, that when the Pepe shall intimate Gods own precepts, he may subioyne, Qui haec spernit, non hominem spernit, sed deum. But surely to equal any one man of this age, to S. Paul, and a decree of what person soever to a canonical scripture, I doubt how reasonable it will be thought by any godly conscience. S. Paul penning a canonical Scripture, & having an assured faith, that God assisted him in that very particular, to the end he should not commit any the least error, he might freely say, Qui haec spernit, non hominem spernit, sed deum; but a man that will not say, he hath the assistance of the holy Ghost for certain, saving 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 hominem spernit sed deum. It is again a presumptuousness as great as the former, to cite for this purpose the saying of Samuel. 1. Regum. 15. Quasi Peccatum ariolandi est repugnare & quasi scelus idololatriae nolle acquiescere; Samuel as a prophet had commanded Saul by God's express precept, that he should not leave an Amalechite alive, ye & that he should slay all their beasts. Saul saved King Agag, and the herds of cattle to sacrifice, Samuel tells him, how god would rather his precepts should be obeyed, than that sacrifices should be offered to him and that it was as the sin of Idolatry, not to rest upon his commandment. And will our Author now put a human precept subject to errors, into the same balance with an express precept from God- which is of canonical authority? Were there any man here that had, the authority of a Prophet, & of a Canonical writer, that should denounce any thing in the name of god, Esset quasi scelus Idololatria nolle acquiescere; but religious ears cannot hear it with patience, that human things should in this fashion be equalled with divine. It is a dangerous matter to match any man with God. It is a godly office to persuade due obeisance and reverence unto Prelates; but to extend it beyond it own bounds, and to value it equally with the Canonical scriptures, this doth rather depress it, then advance it. Who can here contain himself from extreme marveling at the least? Samuel 1100 years & better before there was any Pope, saith that not to obey Gods express precept devered by the mouth of his Prophet, is as it were Idolatry: our Author saith, To despise God in his vicar, is called by the Prophet Samuel 1. Reg. 15.) a kind of Idolotarie? Now I hope our Author will not deny that S. Peter was God's first vicar; that in the old Testament God had no vicar; that the authority of a Prophet in the old Testament, was infallible, yea even in the least things; that Christ's vicar in the new Testament he may err, having in matters of of faith and of manners in universal ex Cathedra. How can the Author then, unless it be his pleasure to dally & jest with us, say, that the Prophet Samuel terms this despising of God in his vicar a kind of Idolatry? Among so many weighty matters I am drawn a little aside to one lighter. Our Author translateth here: Quasi scoelus Idololatriae, a kind of Idolatry, as if he should translate Nonaginta novem sunt quasi centum, Ninety and nine are a kind of hundredth. And this I had not noted, if he himself had not played the toto harsh Censor against Gersons translator, where he deserved it not: but to return to the sense and meaning. Reader, behold his cunning; all sins are against God; but some touch his divine Majesty 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, murder, & theft: now of this latter sort are both those sins we fear of. Disobedience of the subject towards his superior, immediately is against a man, and in the end it reacheth unto God. The tyrannical government of the superior bends immediately against the subject, but mediately against God. Our Author to delude our simplicity, when he is to speak of the abuse of authority, saith it is but against a subject: when he speaks of disobedience, he saith it offends God's Majesty in his vicar. If a man to encounter him should say, The Prelate that abuseth his authority, offends God in his Creature; he that contemns excommuninication offends a man: what could he reply? But let us proceed sincerely, and lay these things together evenly. Disobedience offends God in the superior; he that abuseth the authority given by god, offends God in the subject. Now let us see if these two offences made to God, whether is greater. S. Thomas, who often makes the comparison of sins between themselves, saith always, that sin is a privation of that which is good, and therefore that a sin is so much the greater, the greater that the good is, which is deprived 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 deprives a man of, is the private good of a subject, which is the virtue of his obodience; the good which the abusing of authority deprives us of, is the good governance of the Church. This is a far greater good, aswell for that a public good is greater than a private; as also for that to command well is a greater virtue, then to obey well: and this is the reason upon which Gerson is grounded, which is found, and stands not upon authorities forced from their proper states. He that would yet further consider of the grievousness of a sin, by the mischief that ensues upon it, or by the person that committeth it; howsoever these be but accidental considerations, and we ought therefore to ground upon the former, and not on them; yet nevertheless one abuse of power & authority gives a greater scandal to the world, and is a cause of greater mischief, than a hundredth disobediences; and the person of the superior, as the more eminent, is much more bound by his greater obligation to God to do 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 scandal, and of most grievous excess. And to apply this consideration to the present purpose, to incite them that are subject, to despise the commandments of Christ's vicar, it is a thing not to be endured. For Saint Paul made no resistance against Saint Peter in matter of obedience, but in matter of a certain observation legal; and it pleased God to show the world S. Peter's humility, to permit that in a certain article of legal observance S. Paul should be illuminated beyond S. Peter: & to S. Peter willingly accepted, S. Paul's brotherly correction, specially for that S. Paul was an Apostle, and no less full of the holy ghost then S. Peter himself; but in matter of obedience and reverence, we are to know that S. Paul always exhorteth those that are subject, to obey their Prelates; and he himself came in person to jerusalem to visit S. Peter, and to confer with him touching the gospel he preached, notwithstanding that he had it by revelation, as himself testifies in the first chapter of the Epistle to the Galathians. Now what consequence were this, Saint Paul an Apostle, and an elect vessel took upon him to admonish S. Peter: Ergo, the people shall do a meritorious work to resist the supreme Bishop to his face, though he command them under pain of Excommunication. This should not be the consequence of a good Logician, but of a perverse schismatic.  
I see not why it should be here 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 scandal; & since Gersons words be, that sometimes it is a thing meritorious, and turns to the honour of the power Ecclesiastical, 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 understanding 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, having added the limitation of such a defence as was not to be reproved, for some thinks Gersons Latin phrase is more clearly expressed; Come oppositione inculpatae tutilae. If the defence be unreprovable, what would the Author have more? who will be so rash to say, that in an unreprovable defence, there may be scandal or excess? Let not the Author come in here with his, (ordinarily or for the most part) it is a scandal: for we will maintain it universally by his favour, that whensoever there shall be a notorious abuse of jurisdiction in the Prelate, & an irreproveable defence in the subject, it shall always hold true, that it is a meritorious deed to resist. And this is the very case, which Gerson understands when he saith (sometimes) and limits it besides (as we see) with those golden words; so that where the Author saith, that in some case it may be meritorious, it sounds to me, that here is put in by way of opposing against Gerson, a flat confirmation of Gersons own opinion. But the Author follows it further. To apply this consideration to the matter in question, that is a thing not to be endured. This makes nothing against Gerson, but against the Interpreter; as though when he had translated the twelve Considerations, he had said with all, that all the twelve made expressly for the case in hand. He should have done well to have set down the whole book entire as it lies, and then it had been the Readers part to apply that which is to be applied. By the same manner of dealing, because Gerson saith in his ninth consideration, If the Pope would seize upon the Church's treasure, or usurp upon it inheritance, or reduce all the Clergy & their goods into servitude, or spoil them of their rights without cause, the Author may object it against the Interpreter, that he hath applied all this to the point in question, and that his meaning is indeed; that the Pope doth snatch at the Church's treasures etc. No, it is no such matter, but peradventure the Author who saith full well the reasons, why this present fifth consideration maketh for the present purpose, he lays it courageously all at once upon the Interpreter. Now whether S. Paul's example be well alleged by Gerson or no, I will say but this, that yet Cardinal Cajetan hath alleged it to this self same purpose in his Opuscula; and Cardinal Bellarmine allegeth Cajetan in his second book de Romano Pontifice to the very same purpose, & directs us to see the place; yea and this example hath been yet further alleged to the same purpose, by Dominicus Solus, and by Franciscus Victoria, and by other most renowned 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 use to thunder it out as now it is) and that S. Paul proceeded against the incestuous Corinthian precisely according to Christ's institution: but it is also true withal, that S. Peter at Antiochia in the fact we speak of, did by his example as it were silently command all them that were present in that place, and Saint Paul affirms it. Et simulationi eius consenserunt caeteri judaei, ita ut & Barnabas duceretur ab eye in illam simulationem. To this silent precept S. Paul made resistancie; and let not the Author tell us, that there was no question or meaning there of any precept, and obedience. For in deed it was intended and meant, but overmuch: but further the consequence of itself is very strong, that if we may resist a Superior in a precept which he makes out silently by his own examples; much more may we do it against a precept express and fulminatory.  
I see not to what end the Author after this brings in the story how S. Paul went to visit S. Peter, and to confer with him of the Gospel 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 jacobum fratrem Domini. Quae autem scribo vobis, ecce coram Deo quia non mentior: deinde veni in parts Syriae, etc. There is indeed in the next Chapter. Deinde post annos quatuordecim iterum ascendi Hierosolymam cum Barnabo assumpto & Tito; ascendi autem secundum revelationem, & contuli cum illis evangelium, quod praedico in gentibus. In his first voyage he speaks of his visiting S. Peter but not a word of any conferring with him; in the second not a word of visiting, but he speaks indeed of conferring, not with S. Peter, but cum illis, howsoever true it is, that S. Peter was among them. Here the Author hath put for one only viage, two of S. Paul's several voyages, the one more than 14. years distant from the other. And that same Contuli cum illis, which is meant, with the whole Church of jerusalem, or if you will not take it so, then at least with the three Apostles, james, Caefas and john (for S. Paul names them in this order) the Author understands it, he conferred with Peter. But I would feign 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 evangelium praeputij, sicut Petro circumcisionis. Qui enim operatus est Petro in Apostolatum circumcisionis operatus est, & mihi inter gentes; & cum cognovissent gratiam quae data est mihi, jacobus & Caefas & joannes, qui videbantur columnae esse, dextras dederunt mihi & Barnabae societatis, ut not in gentes, ipsi autem incircumcisionem, tantum ut pauperum memores essemus: for it may be that out of these words he would have drawn the deduction of the consequence. The scripture recounts us two of S. Peter's actions for which he was reprehended after he had received the holy Ghost; one in the Epistle to the Galathians, the second in the 11. of the Acts, when the jews that were converted contended against Saint Peter, for having received the Gentiles into the Church. In the first there was a fault on Peter's part; in the second he was blamed without cause. Saint Paul said it of the old 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 superior is taught with what charity, and with what manner of doctrine he ought to inform his subjects capacity and understanding, in case he do contend with him, yea though it be against reason. Saint Peter he did not excommunicate those jews, but instructed them with the authority of divine revelations: and if there ought to have been used any other manner of proceeding with the State of Venice, let the Author show me but one example in the scripture, that we may rest upon it. In that other example of the Epistle to the Galathians, since he doth not repeat that which Saint Peter answered, but only what S. Paul opposed, there is no instruction given the Prelate, but to the inferior, how he ought to carry himself when the superior abuseth his authority. And this self-same note shows how far of it is from this scriptures true sense, that God should thus dispose that that then fell out to show Peter's humility, for that it would have been pertinent to have set down the humble answer of that Saint; but contrariwise the scripture omits what S. Peter said, and sets down only S. Paul's grave rebuke, to demonstrate it that the example was given not for S. Peter's humility, but to instruct inferiors how they ought to bear themselves toward their superiors; and in that there is no mention made of any scandal at all that grew after upon it, we may likewise hope that if now there shall grow any, it shall be but an offence taken, and not given. If the Author have yet any other place of scripture, where any superior hath exceeded his bounds, and the inferior hath not made convenient opposition, let him produce it, and we will in like sort rest upon it. We do conceive this consequence for formal & strong. Saint Peter erred, Ergo every Pope may err. Saint Paul a most humble man made him resistance, Ergo, resistance will not misbeseeme one of less humility. 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 authority, 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 etc. Therefore Cardinal Cayetan, who made this consequence was no good Logician, but a perverse Scismatique. But for this other consequence S. Paul exhorts inferiors to obey their Prelates, and came to visit S. Peter. Ergo, we must obey, yea though they abuse their power: we refer it to the Author to style it with what name please him; and if he shall say that he speaks not of the abuse, but of the lawful use of power; why Gerson spoke only of the abuse, and not of the use of it; and we condemn all them that obey not their superiors, when they command according to his prescript that gave them their authority aswell as we condemn the superiors that abuse it.  
6 The sixth consideration is, that such a case may be put, 
Gerson  that one in not obeying his Prelate, shall be a contemner of his keys, and another likewise in not obeying shall be in no contempt: as where the first shall believe the Prelate's sentence to be just, or shall believe for some other reason that he is bound to obey it, and where the second shall know for certain, or shall have sufficient probability, that his Prelate misuseth the power of the keys.  
To this consideration there is little to say, but that every probability, 
Bellarmine  or a probabity of every abuse whatsoever, is not sufficient to exempt a man from obeisance to his Prelate. But that a man should be freed from such obeisance, it must be certain and notorious (avoiding to the common received learning) that the Prelate do abuse this power in some essential point; for it is a general rule given by S. Augustine, libro. 22. contra Faustum. cap. 75. and followed by the rest, that the subject stands bound to obey, not only when it is certain that the superior doth not command any thing against God, but also when he is not certain, whether he commands any thing against God, or no; because that in a doubtful case, he is to follow his superior judgement, & not his own; and then only 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 sixth Consideration, 
Friar Paul  but to marvel at it, that the Author out of a desire of contradiction, gives it a limitation, which Gerson himself gave in like sort, in fewer and plainer terms. For where Gerson saith: It may fall so out, that in the same case, one may become disobedient in contempt, and another without contempt, when the one shall repute the sentence for just, or that he is bound to obey it for some other respect; & this other shall not so think of it, but either knows it of certainty, or hath sufficient probability that his Prelate useth his authority amiss in prejudice of the keys; the Author limits it that for soothe every probability is not sufficient. Gerson saith not every probability whatsoever, but a sufficient probability; and I say, & affirm and warrant it, that a sufficient probability is enough, and in matters human and moral it is as great assurance and certainty as can be said; neither can I believe that any man will say, that which is sufficient is not enough, unless he will contradict himself. So that all the Author saith in many words, is comprised in one short and plain term by Gerson, and they are agreed. But I would not now have any man deceived by that which the Author adds, Viz. That in a doubtful case a man is to follow the judgement of the superior, and not his own. For a case may be said to be doubtful in two senses: either doubtful, wherein a man hath not endeavoured to resolve himself; or doubtful, wherein after his due diligence employed, he cannot yet resolve himself. In the first case, he that stands in doubt, whether the thing commanded be against God, is bound to put in practise all possible means both by himself, and with the help of others to clear his own judgement, or else he sins against God by exposing himself to hazard the breaking of his law. He that after all his diligence remains still in doubt, the Doctors allow him to follow the judgement of his superior. I think well that the Author hath this very same meaning, but it behooves us to stand upon our guard against ambiguities, because all false doctrines make their first entrance masked with the name of good. And he doth so often inculcate it here, That the subject is bound to obey, not only when he is assured that the superior doth not command any thing against God, but also when he is uncertain whether he commands any thing against God, or not; because that in a doubtful case he is to follow his superiors judgement, and not his own; and then only he must not obey, when he is assured that he commands against God: that we are enforced to reply jointly withal, that his assertion is not true, saving only where the subject is not resolved that the Superior commands ought against God after he shall have consulted sufficiently of it; and in a case still doubtful after consultation he hath to follow the judgement of his Superior; and then he is not to obey, when he is assured, that he commands against God: but if he stand in doubt, because he hath not well thought of it, then is he bound to bethink himself seriously of it first, before he yield obedience. Yet my meaning is not, that from hence there should be drawn this conclusion, that as the subject is bound to obey in a case invincibly doubtful (for so I will term it to avoid equivocation) so that the Superior may in like manner command in such a case; for he sins always whensoever he commands that with himself is not assured to be obligatory. So doth Adrian prove and conclude. Quodl. 1. For the authority of the Superior, doth not extend to things doubtful, and it is against the law of nature (saith Adrian) to affirm, that the authority of the keys is extended to that which is doubtful; but the subject is bound in a case invincibly doubtful to obey, because he ought to believe, that howsoever it be doubtful to him, yet it is not doubtful to his Superior. But in case he were assured, that it were a like doubtful to his Superior, than he is not bound at all to obey him. So that when the Superior commands in a doubtful case, and the subject knows, that the Superior himself holds it for doubtful, and yet commands it to advantage himself, here he is not bound to obey him. It shall not be superfluous to repeat it over again, that the doubt which binds a subject to obedience, must of necessity have two conditions. First that it be a doubt invincible to himself; and the other that he come not to know, that the Superior himself holds it doubtful, as well as he.  
7 The seventh consideration is, 
Gerson.  that to discover aright the contempt of the keys, we must observe the lawful power, and withal the lawful use of this power; and therefore that same common saying, that the sentence of the Pastor, or of the judge, it ought to be feared, yea though it be unjust, it needs a good gloze. This is a good consideration, 
Bellarmine:  and the gloss of that common saying, it is extant in the sacred cannons, among which also is the very same saying, viz. in Gratians decreetum, causa 11. quaestione tertia, and that in sundry Chapters. And the sum of all is, that the Pastor's sentence is to be feared, when it is unjust, so it be of force, and good in Law, as when there wants not any one essential part, but only some accidental matter; for example, a lawful Prelate excommunicates one that is under his jurisdiction for a just cause, having before admonished and advised him, but he doth not excommunicate him for pure zeal of justice, but for some particular grudge he bears him, or he doth not warn him three times, or he doth not put down the sentence in scriptis; this excommunication is unjust, but it is strong in law, & therefore aught to be feared. Yea & admit yet further, that it were indeed void, but the invalidity were not known, here it ought likewise to be feared, at least in respect of the scandal. I do not strain myself to prove these things, for that they are clear, & such as Gerson himself would not deny them. And from this consideration, any man may gather, that the sentence of of our Lord Paulus Quintus published against the heads of the State of Venice, hath all the requisites aswell essential, as accidental, and aught therefore to be feared, it being not only of validity, but most just withal. For if you look into the lawfulness of authority, you shall find, that there is a supreme power given him from God, and most universal over all them which pretend to be sheep of Christ's flock, and members of the mystical body of the Church, and citizens of God's city, and domestics in the house of the same God. That the power is universal, it is clearly seen in those words, Quodcunque ligaveris, & quodounque Solueris, Math. 16. And that it is overall, it is seen in those other words, pasce oxes meas. john. 21. Where it is not restrained to these or those sheep, but includeth all those that are his: and he that believes not this, is no Catholic. If you look into the lawful use of this power, you shall find that there wanted not diverse admonitions, nor any of those things which the order of judgement requires. Finally if you look into the cause you shall find that it was in defence of the Church's immunity, which the sacred council of Trent. Sess. 25. Cap. 20. affirmeth to be founded upon divine ordination, and upon the constitutions of the holy canons, and for which we know that many holy prelate's have combated even to the death. God hath honoured Saint. Thomas of Canterbury with infinite miracles, & hath declared him to be his own true Martyr, as the Church also declared him to be afterward, for having spilled his blood for the liberty of the same Church.  

Friar Paulo.  In this seventh consideration it pleased the Author to bring in the Gloss upon that common saying, That the sentence of the Pastor, or of the judge it is to be feared, yea though it be unjust, which Gerson thought good to let pass, as a gloss most known and handled of all the Doctors. Yea further I for my part do not only subscribe to that which the Author says, but I add this more, that even such a sentence as is notoriously void in law, ought notwithstanding to be feared after a sort, that is to say, we ought not proudly to disdain and contemn it, but with modesty and reverence to hinder the execution of it. But howsoever the gloss he brings in contain good Doctrine, yet is not the consequence for all that currant which he would collect thereupon, that therefore the Pope's sentence, which is now in question, hath all the due requisites aswell essential as accidental, and that it is not only in force, but withal most just. This he proves thus. If you inquire into the lawfulness of the authority, you shall find that there is a supreme, yea and that a most universal authority given him from God, which is proved by, Quod cumque ligaveris and by Pasce oves meas, john. 21. If it be taken in the right sense, such as be Catholics make no difficulty to admit of this (proposition; but this same new termed Vniversalium (most universal) is one of those ambiguous words, which though it be first brought in in a good sense, that is to say, bounded & limited in things only belonging to the kingdom heaven, and to the edification of the Church according to the evangelical rules; yet in tract of time it will after extend and strain itself further even to mundane and worldly matters. S. Gregory. lib. 7. epist 30. held this very word for suspicious, and in exceeding jealousy, when he was styled Papa universalis, and he said, it was a proud title, and imported as much, as if he were the only Bishop, and no other man were Bishop but he. And so to have authority most universal, is after a sort to say (if Saint Gregory's discourse may be allowed) that there is no other authority but it. For if the stile of universal Bishop take away other Bishops; Ergo, a most universal authority must needs take away all other authorities. But we will not contend about the word, so that they will give it it own true meaning. Let us consider now how this most universal authority is proved: It is said to Peter, and in his person to all Popes: Quodcunque ligavereiss. etc. Quodcunque solueris, etc. Ergo, their authority is universal. But in the 18. of Matthew it is said to all the Disciples, and in their person to their successors, Quaecunque ligaveritis, etc. Quaecunque solueritis etc. Ergo, there shall be sundry most universal authorities, which implies a flat contradiction. Indeed the Quodcunque is universal, but it is bounded and restrained by the words before Claves regni coelorum. All that perteins to the kingdom of heaven is subject to Peter, who doubts it? but that which appertains to the kingdoms of the earth, Christ committed it not to him. The other proof by Pasce oves meas, it is indeed universal in respect of Oues meas: but god denieth by Ezechiel in his 34. that to clothe ourselves with the wool of his sheep, is to feed them; he denieth that to domineer over them cum austeritate & cum potentia, is to feed them; he denies that to drink the clear water by our selves, & then to trouble that that remains with our feet, is to feed them: the author pursues it yet further, to show the justice of the sentence, that not only the authority in itself is lawful, which we also grant him, but also that the use of it was lawful to, when he saith that there wanted not sundry admonitions, no nor any one of those things which the reach of judgement requires. It was not enough barely to affirm this point, he should have proved it, as his offer bore us in hand. And who soever shall see the state of Venices' reasons, he shall perceive it clearly that many, and those of the most necessary and essential points in law were wanting, & it will appear unto him, that the cause is not for defence of the Ecclesiastical communities, as thy Author affirms without proof; And if matters lie so clear as he professes, why do they not publish to the world their rights and proceed Ecclesiastical in facto, and in iure? And why do they not lay open to the world to see the proceed and reasons of the Venetian State, and so make them rest convict? It bears no show, that forbidding men to write, tends to any such end, but in very deed to the end to conceal the truth, and to show the cause to the world, under a mask, as our Author himself 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 nativity, and the other on the five and twentieth of February, do both excommunicate the State itself, and not the heads, as in place it shall appear. I cannot now pass over here the consideration of a great skill of the Authors, who citing the place of the Council, Sessione 25. Cap, 20. makes the Council say, that the Ecclesiastical immunity is founded upon divine ordination, and upon the constitutions of the sacred Canons; This was no place to enter into treaty of that matter; neither was it so convenient, with a few ambiguous terms to plant a Doctrine, that needs much extension, or else will be very subject to be converted to pervert the peaceable State of the holy Church. But to say no more at this time, but only so much as may suffice for an Antidote to the Reader, it may please him to be advertised that my Lord Cardinal Bellarmine lib. 1. de Clericis, cap. 28. sets down certain conclusions of this very point. The first is, that in causes Ecclesiastical, the Clergy are free, de iure divino, from any secular Prince's authority. The fift is, that the exemption of the Clergy in matters political, aswell 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 Council intends it, when it saith that Ecclesiastical exemption is instituted iure divino, that is, in causes ecclesiastical. And the Author he should have translated constitutam ordinatione diviua, instituted by divine ordination, and not have made it (founded): for that his first word seems to import, that the Canons had authority from GOD to institute it, and that it is established upon this foundation; but it is nothing so. Their exemption in causes spiritual is totally and expressly, de iure divino, in other matters is is totally and expressly de iure humano. To his example of Saint Thomas, I will allow him well, that he died for the jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, but for that which was truly Ecclesiastical indeed; and not for endeavouring to bring to pass, that delinquents should not be punished, or that Churchmen should have so much more possessions, than their own part, and place. But if a man should here instead of the consequence drawn hence by the Author, draw the quite contrary in his own form and say; And from this consideration any man may gather that Pope Paulus Quintus his sentences thundered out against the Duke, the Senate, and the State of Venice, and all their dominion do want many essenall requisites, to omit those that are accidental, and therefore are not to be feared, as being not only void in form, but unjust; the contrary consequence would be never a whit better proved by the Author, than this is proved in this place. But it is not pertinent to do it here, where we have nothing else to maintain, but Gersons defence. Only this we must avow and say, that every man is one of Christ's sheep, but God hath given them a natural defence, if the shepherd shall not follow the institution of the supreme Pastor.  
The eight consideration is, 
Gerson.  that the abuse of the keys in the Pope, is more dangerous then in inferior prelate's, because in case they be abused by inferiors. It is lawful to appeal to the Pope, but from the Pope, no appeal is admitted, save only too a general counsel, which is not so easily assembled. And howsoever before the Counsel of Constance, it was the opinion of many, that it was unlawful to appeal from the Pope to the Council, yet in that counsel it was expressly declared heresy, to deny that the council was superior to the Pope. 
Bellarmine.  This consideration contains a great and manifest error, and he which did produce it, with a purpose to apply it to the business now in hand, discovereth himself not to be catholiqulie affected.  
It is requisite that I insist somewhat longer upon this eight consideration, not that the matter itself doth so require, 
Friar Paulo.  but the Author having made a long and artificial discourse upon it, it is necessary that I discover the secrets and subtleties thereof, in such sort, as the reader may not thereby be carried away from the truth. Gerson in this consideration affirmeth that the contempt of the keys towards the person of the Pope is more dangerous then towards an inferior, the Author inverts his words, and maketh him say that the abuse of the keys in the Pope is more dangerous then in inferiors: is this faithfully to report the opinion, which we undertake to confute? Gerson speaketh of the contempt of the Pope's commandment, in those that are subject unto him, and saith, that that contempt is more dangerous than any towards the commandments of inferior Prelates.  
The Author chargeth him to say, that the Pope in abusing the keys, doth offend more dangerously than an inferior prelate so as that which one speaketh, of the action of a subject toward a superior.  
The other speaketh of the action of a superior towards those that are subject unto him; one speaketh of contempt, and that of a subject; the other speaketh of the abuse of the keys, and that in a superior; this consideration of Gerson is in favour of the Sea apostolic, and showeth that our proceeding towards it, aught to be accompanied with greater reverence; saying, that the contempt thereof is more dangerous, than the contempt of others.  
The Author maketh him say the contrary, that the abuses of the keys in the Pope are more dangerous than the abuses of inferiors, from whence it may be gathered, that less respect is due to that Sea, then to the Seas of other Prelates. Is this to dispute? or is it to enforce men to hold opinions to be sure of something to contradict? How can the Author answer it? Gersons principal scope in this consideration, is nothing else but to make it appear, that in opposing against the commandments and censures of prelate's, we must also have a further regard, that we oppose not against those of the Pope; and tells the reason of it, because from inferiors, we may have recourse to the Pope. And maketh an objection against himself; if any man should say that we may appeal in like sort, from the Pope to a Council, he answereth that this allegation hath sometime been held of no force, namely when the Popes have been said to be above the Council.  
But howsoever this cannot be said (saith he) at this instant for those reasons which he allegeth, nevertheless even acknowledging that this is true, yet for another reason, it is more dangerous to resist him, because councils cannot easily be solemnized, nor ought not upon so small occasions as the hearing of appeals; Lo here the true sense of this consideration, from which if you remove that point of Superiority, you shall find nothing which even in the Author's opinion can be worthy of reprehension.  
And this is spoken by the way. But the Author minding only his own ends, and looking no further, hath taken this for a principal part of the consideration, saying, it contains a very great and manifest error, and that he which did produce it with a purpose to apply it to the business now in hand, discovereth himself not to be catholicly affected, he knoweth very well, that his Commonwealth never thought it convenient to take the benefit of an appeal, for both the Prince, and Senate have made public declaration, whereupon they intent to insist; this than cannot be produced with a purpose for the present affairs.  
What intention he had which did interpret Gerson, before the publishing this declaration, no man can conjecture, neither is it charitable to judge: But whereas he saith, that he is not catholicly affected, it may be, he doth not remember the Doctrine of the Cardinal Bellarmine, who in his second book of the authority of a Counsel, and thirteenth chapter, entitled. An consilium sit supra Papam saith, & quamuis postea in concilio Florentino, & Lateranensi ultimo videatur questio diffinita, tamen quia Florentinum Concilium non ita express hoc diffimuit, & de Concilio Lateranensi, quod expressissimè rem diffinivit, non nulli dubitant, an fuerit vere generale. Ideo usque ad hanc diem quastio superest etiam inter Catholices. Let him review this doctrine written before this passion, wherewithal the present affairs are accompanied, because to free himself from this contradiction, I see not what he can allege save only that in the 17. chapter he speaketh otherwise, saying as followeth of the Lateran Council. Quod vero Concilium hoc rem istam non diffinirit propriè, ut decretum de Fide Catholica tenendum, dubium est, & ideo non sunt propriè haeretici, qui contrarium sentiwt, sed à temeritate magna excusari non possunt. Certainly there seemeth to be little agreement between these two so near neighbouring places, for to charge them with rashness whom himself cannot deny to be Catholics, seemeth to proceed from no great abundance of Charity, but this last place will not enable him to prove that the interpreter is not Catholickely affected; for an opinion may sometimes be rash, and yet more true than the contrary. In times past, the common opinion was that the Angels were corporal, and it was then accounted rashness to affirm that they are incorporal, at this time the common opinion is that they are in corporeal, and it is no longer rashness to maintain it, and so for our purpose: But Martin Navara upon the Chapter, Novit de judiciis, alleging the words of john Maior doth very well declare that the question is in controversy, and that in Rome it is not permitted to hold the doctrine of Panormitan which upholdeth the Soverainety of the Counsel, neither doth the university of Paris allow that any man should hold the contrary.  
4 What shall we say of john Mariana, a modern jesuite, who in his book de Rege, approved by the public examination of the jesuits: as also by another examination made by the authority Royal of Spain saith plainly, that great Authors are of contrary opinions in this question, but certainly this cannot be called 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 there reason nor authority to approve it; or otherwise is over boldly maintained, but an opinion which hath the consent of as many and 〈…〉 if not a greater number of Universities, Countries, and Kingdoms, cannot be said to be maintained without reason & authority; nor yet audaciously. It is not a charitable course, so hastily to condemn men of rashness; but if the Author would needs Discover his affection, he should have expressed his meaning in three or four words, and saved the labour of so long a Discourse; to show that Gerson held a false opinion, and enforce men to think of so great an Author, that he affirmeth that which hath no affinity with his words; for he makes a solemn entrance to the handling of the question, and saith thus.  
And to begin with the Council of Constance, 
Bellarmine.  three things are to be observed in it: The first, that that Council did never declare it heresy, to deny that the Council was superior to the Pope let him overlook that Council again and again, and nothing shall be found in it tending to that purpose. The second, that the abovementioned Council in the 4. Sess. maketh a decree, wherein it doth declare that that Council of Constance doth represent the Church universal, and hath authority immediately from Christ, whereunto every one is bound to yield obedience, even the Pope himself: which decree (as by men of most learning it is interpreted) is not to be extended to all Popes, but only to those, of whom men are not certain, whether they be Popes or no: which was the case at that time, when three several persons took upon them the Papasie, and had their several followers. And in this case it is most certain, that the Church hath power to declare to whom the Papacy doth appertain; and that they which in time of Schism do contend for it, are subject to the determination of the Church, and of the general Council: But when once the Pope is canonically chosen, and undoubtedly accepted for Pope, it cannot be gathered out of that decree, that he is bound to submit himself either to the Church, or to the Council. The third, that this decree can have no force, save only for the redressing of that Schism; for there being at that time no Pope in the Council, the Council was a body without a head, and consequently had no authority to determine any thing in matters of Faith, or in other matters of like importance. And though Pope Martin the fifth, did ratify that Council, yet did he ratify it only so far forth, as the decrees were made Conciliariter, as those were which were decreed against the heresies of john Wickliff, and john hus but that decree of the Superiority of the Council above the Pope, was not decreed Conciliariter; that is to say, upon deliberation, and disputations preceding, and by an orderly collection of the voices of the Fathers; but it was a decree simply intended for the redressing of that Schism: whereupon afterwards, Pius the second, in the Council of Mantua, did excommunicate whomsoever should appeal from the Pope to the Council. The self-same excommunication was renewed by Julius the second, as is testified by Silu●ster, V●rbo excommunicatio. 7. Nu. 93. And since that time, all the Popes have renewed it in the Bull, entitled, In caena Domini. Finally, Pope Martin the fift, by the consent of that Council of Constance declareth, that they which are suspected of Heresy, aught to be interrogated of many Articles, and particularly whether they do believe that the Pope hath the supreme power in the Church of God: and certainly if the supreme power be in the Pope, the Pope cannot be inferior to the Council, for so the superiority should rest in the Council, and not in the Pope: whereby it doth appear, that the Council of Constance in that decree of the 4. Ses. is so to be understood, as we have expounded it, otherwise it should be contrary to itself; and admitting that there is a contrariety, we ought rather to give credit to the second decree, being made by the Pope, and the Council together; then to the first, being made by the Council without the Pope; that is to say, by a body without a head.  

Friar Paulo  I will not affirm the opinion of Gerson to be true; or maintain either his doctrine, or his reasons in this Apology; but this I will say, that the reasons which the Author doth produce against him, have been considered, and answered, either by Gerson himself, or by some other of his opinion, which have written since his time: and here I will set down some of those resolutions, not that I intend to take upon me to determine any thing, but only to show that the question is to be disputed with more solid arguments; and that Writers so excellent both for learning, and piety, are not so hastily to be condemned.  
Concerning that Council of Constance, alleged by Gerson, our Author hath three Observations: The first is that, that Council hath no where declared it Heresy, to deny the superiority of the Council above the Pope: if the Author's meaning be that these express words (it is Heresy to deny the superiority of the Council, above the Pope) are not to be found in the Council, he speaketh but the truth: if he will say further, that the Council of Constance hath not said, that he is Anathema which denieth the Superiority of the Council, he sayeth as truly. Nevertheless Gerson doth deny that the Council hath not determined it, which I desire may be taken for Gersons opinion, and not mine own; and after such manner as is usual in matters of Faith, and saith, that it was reputed Heresy to hold the contrary: this is to be seen in the fourth Ses. where these words are used, Ordinat, disponit, statuit, decernit, & declarat: And in the fift Ses. where the same doctrine is repeated in these words, Ordinat, d●fi●●●, decernit, & declarat. And because Gerson saith in this consideration, that it is Heresy condemned by most express constitution, & put in practice by the said council of Constance; as is else where more largely set down. The author may read, the places mentioned by Gerson in his works; where he shall see that which will serve for answer to these objections. The Council of Trent hath doubtless condemned it for Heresy, to deny Purgatory; & yet you shall not find where it saith, that it is Heresy to deny Purgatory; or that he is Anathema which doth deny it. But the doctrine of Purgatory is sufficiently expressed in Ses. 25. and 22. in such sort, as it is evident that it is determined as a matter of Faith; and he which in the question of Purgatory should use the Author's words, and say, that the Council of Trent, hath nowhere declared it Heresy to deny Purgatory; let him read over the Council again and again, and no such thing shall there be found; should show that he is more ententive to the words, then to the meaning of the Council: In like manner it may be said of Gerson.  
The second Observation of the Author against Gerson, is; That men of most learning do expound this Decree of the Council of Constance, as spoken of a Pope uncertain, which is most true, and not of a certain Pope: this second Objection doth in all, and every part of it contradict the former: for if the Decree of the Council, be it what it will, doth not make him an Heretic which is of a contrary opinion; and that it be to be understood of a Pope uncertain, than it is no Heresy to deny that a Pope uncertain, is subject to a Council: But to say that such a Pope is not subject to a Council, is manifestly heresy: so that whosoever will affirm that the Decree is to be expounded of a Pope uncertain, must acknowledge it to be such a Decree as maketh the contrary opinion to be Heretical. And whosoever will affirm, that it is not a Decree of this nature, must affirm also, that it is understood of a Pope certain:  
It is true (as the Author saith) that very Learned men do expound it as spoken of a Pope uncertain; but it is as true, that very Learned do expound it as spoken of a Pope certain: yet this difference is to be observed, that they which do expound it of a Pope uncertain, were not present at the Council: But they which do understand it of a Pope certain, were all those which were present at the Council, and have left any writings; and besides them, all those which survived, and being not otherwise hindered, were present in the Council of Basill; which of necessity must be many, because between these two Counsels, there was the space of fifteen years.  
Furthermore the Author ought to observe, that Gerson doth not only say, condemned, but practised: and to consider the practice of that Council, and observe; if that Council did not command as well the Pope's certain, as uncertain, let him read the Ses. 17. and there he shall find that the Council doth decree, that no future Pope shall have power to depose Angelo Corrario, formerly called Gregory, 12. either from being a Cardinal, or from his office of Legate Della Marca, which the Council bestowed upon him; or have any power to call him in question, or proceed against him for any thing which he had taken upon him to do in the Papacy. Let him read also Ses. 39 which ensued the deposing of all the Pope's uncertain, where it commandeth all future Popes within a time limited, to summon a general Council. And here let him mark, the words whereby it bindeth all Popes to the execution of it; let him then turn over to the Ses. 44. where Martin the .5. after he is elected, executed the Decree: and let him observe the word Teneatur, which is both in the Decree of the Council, and in the execution of it. Afterwards in the last Ses. the Ambassadors of Polonia and Lituania, made humble supplication to the Pope, that before the dissolution of the Council, a certain Book of a Friar called john Falkembergh, might be condemned in public Session; otherwise, protesting in the behalf of their Masters, De gravamine & de appellando ad futurum Concilium. Neither did the Pope find himself any way aggrieved at this protestation, nor the Council think it strange: and by the practice of this Decree, the Author may understand, how it may be from hence collected, that a Pope Canonnically chosen, and undoubtedly accepted for Pope, is bound to the obedience of the Church, and of the Council: which conclusion, the Author doth affirm cannot be collected from that Council of Constance; and therefore let him compare the Decree, with the practice alleged, and he shall see that Gersons speech deserveth no reprehension.  
The third Observation is, that the Decree can have no further force, save only for redressing of that Schism, because it was the work of a body without a head: but foreseeing an Objection that might be made against him, drawn from the confirmation of Martin the 5. the Author notes, that the Council was approved by the Pope only, so far forth as the Acts were decreed Conciliariter: but this was not so, that is; upon disputation preceding, and with an orderly collection of the voices of the Fathers. And where I pray you doth the Author find, that this Decree was made without deliberation, and disputation, or without collection of the Father's voices? Peradventure he means, because it is not set down in writing; by that reason in the Council of Trent, nothing was decreed Conciliariter, because there is no mention made either of suffrages, or disputations: So than though the disputations whereupon that Decree was made, were not set down in writing; yet it is to be believed that there were disputations, and the rather for that the works of very worthy men were written at that time of this subject: amongst which, that learned Book of Gerson was one, De potestate Ecclesiastica, & origine viris, & Legum; as any man may know, who will read it. Moreover, Gerson in this consideration doth declare, that this question was very much disputed, for that it was begun in the Council of Pisa, which was five years before that of Constance: And who then can doubt, but that in the Council of Pisa, in the Council of Constance, and in the interim, of those five years, 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. he shall evidently perceive, that Conciliariter doth not signify that which the Author would have it, but is an interpretative. In the 45. and last Session of that Council, it is said; That the Mass and Litany being ended, the Cardinal of S. Vito by the commandment of the Pope, and of the Council said; Domini ite in pace; whereunto Amen was answered: and afterward a Bishop, being by order from the Pope about to make a Sermon for the conclusion of the Council: The Ambassadors of the King of Polonia, and of the great Duke of Lituania did demand in the name of their Masters (as hath been already touched) that Falkembergh's Book might be condemned in public Session, which was formerly condemned by those that were deputed in causa fidei; and of the Nations, of the Council, and of the College of Cardinals: the Pope's answer was, that he did confirm whatsoever the Council had concluded, and determined, in matters of Faith, Conciliariter, and not otherwise; whereby it doth appear, that Conciliariter is opposed to that which the Ambassadors had alleged; Namely, that the Book was condemned severally by those that were deputed in causa fidei, by the Nations, and by the College of Cardinals; and that Conciliariter doth signify as much as if he should have said, In public Session.  
But let us yet come somewhat nearer the matter: if this answer of the Pope were given upon some unexpected proposition happening, made after the end of the Council; then neither was the Council approved before, neither was it the Pope's intention to approve it. And if these Pole-axes had not proffered this proposition, the condemnation of Wickliff and Husse, had not been authentical: and it will follow, that a general Council was accidentally confirmed: And yet this is as tolerable as many other things which are usual with our Author. That Council was a body without a head, to conclude, that in the vacancy of the Chair apostolic, the Church is to be reputed unperfect, as being defective in some Essential part. After the death of Marcelinus, the Church continued seven years & a half, without a Pope, under Diocletians persecution, as Damasus doth testify. And who will therefore affirm, that the Church was defective in some Essential part, in that time of so great perfection? I know that some men do not believe that the vacancy had so long continuance; moved thereunto by some probable inducementes: But it is more credible, that Damasus should know the truth of it, being himself a Pope 69. years, after the death of Marcelinus, and borne shortly after that vacancy; then we in our time upon uncertain conjectures: But let this be as it will; let us speak of things which are certain.  
Upon the death of Clement the fourth, in the year 1270. the Church was without a Pope welnie three years; Shall it therefore be said, that the Church was all that while without a head? No, rather let us hold the doctrine of S. Cyprian, and S. Augustine, 24 quaest. 1. C. Quodcunque. & C. lequitur.  
The author concludeth his Discourse of the invalidity of this forenamed decree of the Council of Constance, saying: Whereupon afterwards, Pius the second, in the Council of Mantua, doth excommunicate whomsoever should appeal from the Pope to the Council: here we are to observe, that there may be a Fallacy in the word Onde. Whereupon (for it may import) as though Pope Pius the second, did excommunicate such appealance, because the Pope is superior to the Council; but in the Bull itself, it is not said so. It is true, that it prohibits such appeals; but the reason is, because they have reference to that which is not, and of which there is no certainty when it shall be: In the mean time the poor are oppressed by the mighty, offences remain unpunished, Rebellion is fostered against the first sea, it is free for every one to offend, all Ecclesiastical discipline, and hierarchical orders are confounded: where you may perceive, that Pius 2. doth not allege his superiority for a reason which had been an evident and pregnant argument, because there is no appeal but to a Superior.  
Let no man reply, that though it be not expressed, yet it may be collected out of those words; for there is no likelihood that he would so slightly pass over that which is most substantial, and insist with such diligence upon so many things, that are but accidental. Besides this, before he doth allege these causes above mentioned: he affirmeth that he omitteth others manifestly contrary to this corruption; which argueth that the causes alleged, are the most principal; and that the others are of less importance, and therefore that point of Superiority is of no force in this place. Moreover, these words of our Author, in the Council of Mantua serve only to abuse the Reader; for it was neither done in a general, nor provincial, nor any other Council 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, save only his own Court; as by the words of the Bull it appeareth, which saith; By the advice, and consent of our reverend brethren the Cardinals of the holy Church of Rome, and all the Prelates, with the Civillians, and Canonists which follow the Court. But yet that which followeth in the Author, is worse: that Pius the 2. did excommunicate whomsoever should appeal from the Pope to the Council. And that julius the 2. did renew this Excommunication: and that all the Pope's succeeding them have done the same, in the Bull entitled, In Coena.  
If this Bull of Pius the 2. and that of julius the 2. and all the other Bulls of that title, were not extant; this Objection would remain unanswered: But I will maintain, that no Pope did ever excommunicate for appealing to a Council,  
Unless it were to a future council; 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, shallbe excommunicated by virtue of these Bulls, this than will not serve him to prove that the Pope is superior to the council. But why did the author leave out the word futurum? If Gersons interpreter had committed such a fault, what censure would have been thought severe enough for him? the reason of Pius 2. is good against those, which do appeal to that which is not, neither is it certain when it shall be, that is a future council: but it is not good against appealing to a present council, and this is the reason that all Popes have excommunicated appellantes ad futurum concilium. Let not us then leave out the word futurum, howsoever our passions could be contented to conceal it.  
After this digression, the author returns once again into Constance, and saith that Pope Martin 5. with the consent of that council did ordain that they which should be suspected of heresy, should be interrogated whether they did believe that the Pope had the Supreme power in the Church of God: from whence he doth conclude, that the council did intend the Superiority to be in the Pope, and that the decree in the 4. Sesse. is to be understood of a Pope uncertain, according to his own exposition, for that otherwise the council should be contrary to itself, but how this interrogation is understood, whereof the Pope and the council do make mention, let the author vouchsafe to peruse the 8. Ses. where, amongst the 45. condemned errors of Wickliff, the 41. is Non est denecessitate salutis credere, Romanan Ecclesiam esse supremam inter alias Ecclesias. The council followeth. Error est, si per Romanam Ecclesiam intelligat universalem Ecclesiam, aut Concilium universal, aut pro quanto negaret primatum summi Pontificis super alias Ecclesias particulares.  
This one point being read, doth make it manifest that the council of Constance did intend that the Pope had the superiority over all churches severed, but not united. And here the author leaving the council of Constance, walks another way, 
Bellarmine.  and takes upon him to prove by authority of scriptures, by the consent of counsels and by reason, that Gersons opinion is manifestly erroneous, saying.  
But laying aside the council of Constance, it is most easy to be proved by the authority of Scripture, by councils and by Reason, that Gersons opinion is manifestly erroneous. The Scripture doth nowhere give authority to the Church, and to the counsels above their Pastors, much less above the supreme Pastor, but contrarily, that Bishops are ordained to govern the Church of God, appeareth Act. 20. where Saint Paul saith, that God hath placed Bishops to govern the Church of God. And by these words of our Saviour in the 16. Mat. where he saith to his Vicar, Super hanc Petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam: where Christ making Saint Peter the foundation of his Church, did make him the head of that mystical 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 over all the rest of the body, but the rest of the body hath no power over the head. In like manner Io. 21. when Christ said to Peter, Pasce oves meas, he made him shepherd over all his flock; and doubtless the flock hath no authority at all over the shepherd, but the shepherd over the flock. Lastly where as our Saviour Luc. 12. Quis est fidelis dispensator & prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam. saith, Doubtless he doth declare that a Bishop in his particular Church and the Pope in the church universal, is as it were, a high Steward in God's family, and as the high Steward hath authority over the family, and not the family over him: so hath the Bishop over his Diocese, and the Pope over the Church universal, and not the Diocese over the Bishop, nor the Church over the Pope, though assembled in a general council, and to this end it is that our Saviour in the same place addeth these words. Quod si dixerit servus ille in cord suo moram facit Dominus meus venire, & coeperit percutere servos & ancillas, edere, & bibere, & inebriari; veniet Dominus servi illius in die qua non sperat, & dividet eum, partemque eius cum infidelibus ponet. Out of which words it may be gathered, that when the high steward of God's house doth mis-behave himself, it is not God's pleasure that the family should proceed against him; but reserves to himself, the power both to judge and punish him: so that according to the Scripture, the Church, and consequently the Council, which is a representation of the Church having no power over the Pope, it followeth that it is unlawful to appeal from the Pope, to the Council, but contrarily that it is lawful to appeal from the council to the Pope.  
There was no necessity of writing so much upon this matter in regard of those few words wherewithal Gerson hath touched it and for my part I would forbear to allege that which Gerson & others of the same opinion do answer, 
Friar Paulo,  were it not that I would not interrupt the course which is begun of handling every point in that order which is observed by the author.  
First he affirmeth that the holy Scripture doth nowhere give the Church power over the pastors, much less over the supreme pastor, to this Gerson answereth that our Saviour Christ sent S. Peter to the Church when he said unto him dic Ecclesiae, for Gerson in his time read the place according to the ancient Missal, and not according to the newly corrected. Respiciens jesus in discipulos suos, dixit Simoni Petro, si peccaverit. etc. As the author may see both in his works, as also in the text of the scripture which he allegeth to this purpose. But to prove that the contrary is to be found in the scripture, the author doth allege a place Act. 20. where S. Paul saith that God hath placed the Bishops to govern his Church, be it that S. Paul saith so, although in truth there be great difference between Posuit vos Episcopos, and posuit Episcopos. But though that be granted he can conclude nothing out of this place that the Pope is above the Church no otherwise then any other Bishop is. But from hence a man might strongly conclude, that all Bishops have their authority immediately from God, which peradventure would not be very pleasing to our author.  
Who would ever have inferred this consequence? God hath placed Bishops to govern his Church: ergo Papa est supra concilium: but this had been a strong inference, God hath placed Bishops to govern his Church, therefore if they do not govern it, they do not discharge that office whereunto they are assigned. This is a true proposition God hath placed a King to govern a kingdom, doth it follow therefore that a king is superior to his whole kingdom assembled together; the author anon will tell us that it is no good consequence and certainly it is not good neither in our authors opinion, nor in the opinion of john Mariana the jesuit, but I may say truly that it holdeth not in all kingdoms.  
In the second place he allegeth Matthew 16. Super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam etc. 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 upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets. And in the Apoc. the wall of God's City hath twelve foundations with the name of the twelve Apostles, so he will not believe that the author would condemn another exposition which doth interpret super hanc Petram upon Christ and upon 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 appear that the author upon a place of scripture which hath two interpretations, and both probable, will cull out that which serveth best for his purpose, and make it absolutely a ground of an article. But because it is true that Peter is a foundation, is he therefore superior to all the building? Gerson will say, it followeth not, because he is not a principal foundation, but such a one as is itself founded upon Christ, and not a total foundation, but only a twelfth part according to the meaning of the Apoc. And less than a 25. part according to the meaning of S. Paul, & as concerning our author's 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 Analogy is not intelligible, viz. that there should be 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 find 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. Again who will say that as the head giveth sense and motion to the body, that the foundation doth so likewise to the building; what then doth it communicate? the propositions, that we intend to establish for doctrines, ought not to be grounded upon similitudes especially upon such similitudes as are themselves grounded upon similitudes, but why do we trouble ourselves with the proofs, seeing we are both agreed of the conclusion that S. Peter is a head, but what then the Illustriss. Cardinal Pinelli is the head of the inquisition, is he therefore superior to the whole congregation of the inquisitors being assembled? this followeth not in my understanding: upon the like reason it is that Gerson will not admit this proposition viz. that the rest of the body hath no power over the head, especially being such a head as the body itself hath constituted, but as I said before articles are not to be grounded upon similitudes.  
In the 3. place he bringeth in Pace oves meas, and lastly he to doth allege the 12. Luke Quis est fidelis dispensator, & prudens. etc. both which places Gerso will make one answer to wit: that it cannot be collected out of any place of Scripture that Christ instituting pastors in the Church hath exempted them from the Church's obedience she being the common mother of all Christians as well Ecclesiastical as secular; the practice of those times which were freest from corruption, even when the holy Martyrs were Bishops was, that Pastors were subject to the censure of the Church, whereof Saint Cyprian Lib. 1. Cap. 4. giveth an express testimony, where speaking of the people he saith: Quando ipsa maxime habeat potestatem vel eligendi dignos Sacerdotes, velindignos recusandi; quod & ipsum videmus de divina auctoritate descendere, ut Sacerdos plebe present sub omnium oculis deligatur etc. Lib. 1. Epist. 4. Our Author affirmeth that Christ doth evidently declare that a Bishop in his particular Church and the Pope in the Church universal is, as it were, a high Steward in God's family, and hath power over the family, and not the family over him. Saint Cyprian saith that the supreme power of choosing such Priests as are worthy, and refusing unworthy doth principally rest in the people, and if the author will read the place he shall perceive that he speaketh of Bishops, particularly, though in the words alleged, he mentioned Priests, and withal, that it is not only Cyprians Epistle, but the Epistle of 36. Bishops; and written to the common people of Leon, Asturia and Emerita: and if he will let him read the 14. Epistle of the 3. Book such authorities as these we ought to allege for the maintenance of our cause: and not come in with such mystical, and those enforced explications, as the author doth in this place; where if he had been disposed to deal sincerely, he should have alleged that place of Saint Luke entirely; Quis putat est fidelis dispensator, & prudens, quem constituit Dominus super familiam suam, ut det illis in tempore tritici mensuram; and than it maketh against the author; for this servant cannot be a general dispen●er of all the Lords treasure, to whom he hath committed nothing, save only the distribution of the Corn, there are many other things to be distributed, as meat, drink, and apparel, all which his Lord will commit unto him, if he behave himself faithfully in this particular office: for thus he saith, Beatus ille servus, quem cum venerit dominus, invenerit ita facientem, vere dico vobis, quoniam super omnia, quae possidet, constituet illum. Let him read the place and see whether it can receive any other interpretation. If either the Pope, or any other, to whom the charge of all things is already committed, be that faithful Steward: what are those other things which shall afterwards be committed unto him, for having so well discharged his duty in this administration; if the author will say that we are to understand those words of the Celestial Paradise, we must answer that the charge thereof, is peculiar to Christ and the Angels; the holy Popes entering into the kingdom of heaven, receive from God, a reward of their labours; but their governments they leave behind them, and are for ever exempted from labour, as for the words that follow Quod si dixerit servus ille in cord suo etc. From whence the author will gather, that if God's high Steward doth misbehave himself, he reserveth the punishment of him, to himself, and will not impart it to his family, I answer that the consequence doth not hold in all Stewards, neither can the example which he bringeth of a vice roy avail him to this purpose, it is one thing when the father of a family being absolute Lord of it doth commit the government to another; but if the father of the family shall give leave to his family to choose them a governor with such, and so great authority over their masters treasure as he himself shall set down, it is a case of far different consideration, in like sort, different it is when a King, who hath no dependence of his kingdoms shall constitute a Viceroy, and when he giveth leave to his subjects to choose them one with such authority as he himself shall prescribe; for in the first case, I acknowledge that the family hath no power over their governor, nor the subjects over the Viceroy; but in the 2. case as the family hath power to institute him, so hath it also power to censure his actions: And the subjects in like sort, the actions of the Viceroy: and as the Cardinal Bellarmine saith that the authority which the Church hath of choosing the Pope is nothing else but an applying of the power to the person, so Gerson in his book, which he writeth upon this occasion, saith that when the Church doth judge the Pope, it doth no more, but separate the power from that person; if Christ had so instituted the Popes, as it should have been in their powers to appoint their successors, peradventure that might have followed which the author would infer that the Church should have no power over the Pope, but he which affirmeth that God hath given power to the Church to annex power to the person should also have showed that it hath not the self same authority to remove it but the common doctrine that the pope hath no authority of electing a successor, doth evidently declare that he is not a governor of the first sort deputed immediately from the father of the family: but of the second elected of the family by the father's appointment: and with this doctrine doth Gerson answer that of Pasce oves meas, and all other places of Scripture like unto it: Namely, that although he which is by the owner appointed to be over the flock, is not subject to the flock, yet if it be such a flock as hath power to choose a shepherd, the shepherd when he is chosen, shall be subject unto it; the faithful flock of Christ ought to resemble sheep, in humbleness, and innocency, yet ought they not to be so sheepish or foolish, as to forego the authority which their owner hath bestowed upon them, either of choosing them a good shepherd, or of judging a wicked. Saint Augustine doth prove with reasons unanswerable, that doctrines are to be grounded only upon the literal sense of the scripture, and not upon any mystical interpretation, whosoever will read all that chapter shall easily understand the meaning of our Saviour, and the literal sense of the Gospel. He spoke 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 kingdom for them, that they should be watchful in well doing, as not knowing when the Lord will call, that if the goodman of the house knew at what hour the thief would come, he should find him watching, in like sort they should be prepared, because Christ will come at an hour when we think not; then Peter said unto him, Master tellest thou this parable to us or even to all, Christ replied, who thinkest thou is that dispensator fidelis, & prudens, etc. inferring thereby that he spoke to all, whereas if it had been spoken only to his Vicar it would follow that the commandment of watching, of not regarding the things of this world▪ of waiting for the kingdom of heaven, and the unexpected coming of Christ, should have been given to him alone, but because such commandments as these are equally given to all the faithful, the literal meaning is, that they all are these faithful stewards, which God hath commanded to exercise their charity, by imparting their goods, and other abilities, which God hath bestowed upon them to the rest of his family, this is that measure of wheat, and that office for the faithful administration whereof God will multiply his blessings upon them, this then, as all interpreters do agree, is the literal sense of this place, howbeit besides this general exposition, some men with an argument a minori, do, as it were, by a singularity apply it to the pastors: but the author doth well to conceal; that all the fathers when they apply this place to the pastors, add these words also, Quod si coeperit percutere servos, & ancillas, edere, bibere, & inebriari, etc. and make long digressions against their faults and errors. And peradventure this percutere servos & ancillas, is that which we see is come to pass in the present occasion: Gerson therefore will not deny, but this parable spoken to all, but more especially to Pastors, is most properly to be applied to the Pope, and therefore let it be said unto him, that if he give himself over to surfeiting and to injury his neighbours, the Lord will come and punish him when he looks not for him, howbeit we cannot conclude that he is therefore subject to no other punishment, for by that reason it would follow, that no fornicator or adulterer could be punished of men, because it is written, Hebreves: 13. Fornicarios & adulteros judicabit Dominus, by that reason no sin is punishable by man, because it is written, justum & impium judicabit Dominus, Ecclesiast. 3. & in like sort it is not permitted to men to judge; because our Saviour, in the 5. of john saith, Omne judicium dedit filio, it is not well that the scripture should be thus wrested and perverted, all these texts are to be understood of the judgement of the world to come whereunto it is not repugnant that there should be punishments in this world both Civil & Ecclesiastical, neither is there any common person so ignorant, but doth understand that these ordinary phrases God shall judge, God shall punish, etc. tend not to the excluding of humane judgements and corrections: and thus we see that this text serveth not to prove that the Pope is exempted from the censure of the Church, and consequently of the council, and Gerson doth not insist upon the parable but upon the literal sense of the place, now let us examine our authors other proofs, wherein he proceedeth after this manner.  
Unto this truth which we have proved by Scriptures, 
Bellarmine.  the sacred Counsels do also bear witness, at what time Pope Saint Marcelinus for fear of death committed that sin of offering sacrifice to Idols. A great Council was assembled in Sinuessa to treat of that matter, but all that council did acknowledge that it had no power to censure the Pope, Prima sedes a nemine iudicabitur: of this council Pope Nicolas doth make mention, in his epistle to the Emperor Michael; in like sort a Roman Council assembled by the Pope saint Silvester in the last Canon of it doth declare that the first Sea, namely the Sea of Rome is not to be judged of any, the Council of Chalcedon, which is one of the four first general counsels, in the 3. Act of it condemned Dioscorus the Patriarch of Alexandria, together with the whole second Council of Ephesus, because they took upon them to judge the Pope of Rome. Now if that Patriarch, which after the Pope possesseth the highest place in the church, together with the whole Council, have no authority to judge the Pope it plainly followeth, that the Council is not above the Pope, otherwise they might have judged him. After this the 5. Roman Council, under Pope Simachus approved that opinion of Ennodius, as if it had been an opinion of their own, Aliorum hominum causas Deus voluit per homines terminari, Sedis istius Praesulem suo sine questione reseruavit arbitrio. Voluit Petri Apostoli successores Coelo tantum debere innocentiam. in the Act. 7. of the 8. general Council, we read thus: Romanum Pontificem de omnium Ecclesiarum Praesulibus iudicasse de eo vero neminem iudicasse legimus Paulus Emilius, in his 3. book of his story writeth that a great Council of Bishops being assembled in the presence of Charlemagne by occasion of certain matters objected against Pope Leo the 3. all the Bishops cried out with one voice, that it was unlawful for any man to judge the Pope. The general Council of Lateran under Alexander the 3. being to make a decree touching the form to be observed in the election of the Popes, saith, we are to proceed in this election, with singular diligence, for if any error be committed in it there is no Superior to whom we may have recourse, there is none upon earth superior to the Pope, Let him read the chapter, Licet, extra de electione.  
Finally in the Lateran Council under Leo tenth in the Sess. 11. it is expressly determined that the Pope is superior to any Council whatsoever, and therefore it appertained only to him to summon the councils, to transfer, and to dissolve them. Now if these councils themselves do acknowledge that they are subject to the Pope, who will be so hardy to say, that the Council is superior to the Pope, or that it is lawful to appeal from the Pope to the Council?  

●rier Paolo.  The first proof which our author bringeth, is that when the Pope S. Marcelinus did for fear of death offer sacrifice to Idols there was a great council assembled in Sinuessa to treat of this matter, and all the Council did confess that they had no power to judge the Pope, and that Pope Nicholas the first, did make mention of this Council, which is true and which is more, the Acts of it are extant to this day, to this they of Paris do answer that this Council was not general and that under these words Prima sedes a nemine judicatur, a general Council is not comprehended, it seemeth strange unto them that the Council being assembled only upon this occasion, it should conceive that it had no authority to determine it, and it is more strange that Marcelinus denying the fact that the Council had not eftsoon departed, for so the matter had been at an end and not proceeded to convict 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 up the number fourteen. The second day they produced 14 more, who being interrogated by the Bishops, affirmed the same. The third day he examined 44. more, so that the number of witnesses amounted to 72 called Labra occidua, it is certain that to examine witnesses is a judicial act of a superior, and it is as certain that Marcelinus after the examination of these 72. prostrated himself up on the ground and acknowledged his offence and the Teste saith that the Bishops Subscripserunt in eius damnationem, & damnaverunt eum, and one of them said, just o'er suo condemnatus est, & ore suo Anathema suscepit Maranatha, quoniam ore suo condemnatus est, nemo enim unquam iudicavit Pontificem, nec prae●ul Sacerdotem suum, quoniam prima sedes non iudicabitur a quoquam, it is very true that judica causam tuam, nostro judicio non condemnaberis, is often iterated by those Bishops, but what their meaning is, the reader may easily discern by the contrariety which seemeth to be between their words and their actions. The Pope denieth the fact, the Council 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 conceive according to the doctrine of those times, why the Council should not have to do with it, for if the words Prima sedes a nemine iudicabitur, be to be understood in matter of heresy, it is contrary to the doctrine of this time, if it be to be understood in aliis causis, it agreeth not with the purpose of the Council. Another great difficulty that they find in the Acts of this Council, is, that Dioclesian in person bringeth in Marcelinus to sacrifice, the 72 witnesses are accorded to testify the fact, the Council is assembled in Sinuessa, it lasteth three days, and in the end of it, it is said that Dioclesian being in the wars of Persia had advertisement that 300 Bishops, 30 Priests, and three Deacons, had met together and that when they came to set their hands to the sentence, Marcelinus himself was the first that subscribed his own Anathema. Doubtless Dioclesian made great haste into Persia, & the difficulty is so much the greater, because it should seem that Marcelinus was put to death by the express order of Dioclesian.  
Moreover Marcelinus was excommunicated: for so saith the Acts and his Anathema was subscribed by himself and the Bishops, by whom was he excommunicated by himself? no, the Schoolmen hold that to be unpossible. Was it by the council? no, the author saith the council did not judge him; by whom then? if any man will answer that it was A jure; tell us who made that Canon, whether the Pope, or the council? no man can make a Canon for the transgression whereof, he himself shallbe excommunicated, neither can an inferior make a Canon to bind a Superior, it is confessed that Marcelinus received the sentence of Anathema, he could not receive it from himself, from whom then did he receive it? if the council, at least in that cause were not superior unto him: How shall we reconcile this contradiction, which seemeth to be between the words and the deeds of the council: two things there are, which may certainly be concluded out of these Acts, but such is the contrariety between them, as they can hardly stand together, one is, that the bishops speaking to Marcelinus bade him judge himself: the other that Marcelinus denying the fact they produced witnesses against him, and examined them, and in conclusion, Marcelinus was excommunicated. But because this council was not general, all which hath been said of it, maketh nothing against the opinion of the Parisians.  
In the 2. place, he citeth the Roman council under Silvester, in the last Canon where of it is declared, that the first Sea which is the Sea of Rome, is not to be judged of any; he might have done well, to have alleged the forenamed Canon entirely, because the Canon itself doth make it manifest, what is meant when it is said that the first Sea shall not be judged of any for these are the words of the Canon Nemo judicabit primam sedem, quoniam omnes sedes a prima sede justitiam de siderant temperari; neque ab Augusto, neque ab omni clero, neque â Rigibus, ne que â populo judex iudicabitur: This according to the divines of Paris, is the reason why the first Sea cannot be judged of any; namely because all other Seas appeal to it for justice, but all other Seas being united, as in a general council they are, can have no controversy with any inferior Sea, & consequently no cause of appeal to the first, but be cause all Seas, considered severally may be at controversy among themselves, therefore it is that the first Sea is superior to all other being so considered, but not when they are assembled in a council according to that of the Council of constance Article 41. against Wickliff formerly alleged, and they give this for a general rule; that wheresoever these words are found Prima Sedes â nemine judicatur, they are to be interpreted, a nulla alia sede particulari; others there are which say precisly that this Canon extendeth generally to all the patriarchal Seas and not particularly to the Sea of Rome, for that Pope Nicholas the first doth allege it in that Epistle to the Emperor Michall in the behalf of the Church of jerusalem: and this Epistle ought to be of great authority with the author, because himself doth vouch it upon this occasion; and therefore the author doth not well to interpret these words of Pope Nicholas Prima sedes as spoken of the Sea of Rome, which himself spoke of jerusalem and are equally to be extended to all the Seas of the patriarchs. The Author himself will not deny but that a general council may proceed against a Patriarch; and by the same reason it may proceed 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 council it is said that this council was assembled by Silvester, by the advise of Constantine who was newly baptized and yet in the end of this Act it is said that it was in his 3. Consulship, by this account Constantine was baptized in his 3. Consulship, whereas in the Chapter Constantinus dist. 96. the Baptism of Constantine, is said to be in his 4. Consulship, contradictory to that of the council.  
Here unto they add that Cardinal Baronius hath convicted of falsehood this Chapter, Constantinus. Wherein it is said that the Baptism of Constantine was in his 4. Consulship with Gallicanus, and that by the authority of Amiânus Mercelinus who affirmeth that Constantine was never associated with a private man in the Consulship. This reason seems to be at variance with that council, in the end whereof it is said that it was solemnized Constantin● Augustus, the third time, and Priscus being Consul, so that by Cardinal Baronius his reason, we are not to give credit to that Roman council. There are also certain other passages observed in this council though peradventure not of so great importance as that Constantine called himself Donnus a word not in use till some hundred of years afterwards; Again it is said Prima sedes non iudicabitur neque â Regibus, as if there were some King, reigning in Italy, at that time, of whom they stood in fear: whereas all Kings in those times were unchristned, and lived beyond Euphrates, and Danubie, and also that in the 2. Canon of that council in the ecclesiastical ordinations so large a time is assigned as the space of 55. years to proceed from a Reader, to a Priest.  
In the 3. place he urgeth the authority of the council of Chalcedon in the 3. Act whereof Dioscorus is condemned for that he with the whole second council of Ephesus took upon 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 general council, had no power to judge the Pope, it followeth that the council is not above the Pope: Hereunto they of Paris do answer briefly that the second council of Ephesus which our author termeth a general council was only a Conventicle, and branded with the infamous surname of Predatorium, and therefore in that third Act of Chalcedon alleged by our author, Dioscorus is condemned, not only for the excommunicating Leo, but also for receiving Eutiches to the communion, whom his ordinary had excommunicated, for using violence to Flavian of Constantinople, and for many other offences, but especially for his contumacy which he used that day against the council.  
If out of these premises any man will go about to prove that a council can not condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople, I will deny the consequence, but this were a good consequence, that therefore no Predatorie council can condemn a Patriarch of Constantinople, because he holdeth the true catholic faith, and in like sort it followeth that no Council can proceed against the Pope in favour of an heresy, because he teacheth the catholic faith. There are some others who do observe that in that third act many complaints were exhibited against Dioscorus, as well viva voce of them which were present, as under the hands of others which were far off. Dioscorus, though he were present in the city, yet absenting himself from the Council, was at three several times summoned to appear, which he utterly refusing to do, the Council resolved to condemn him, in this condemnation. 186. Bishops pronounced their sentences, as it may appear by the Acts of that council where these sentences are formally set down. The legate of Pope Leo said thus that Dioscorus against the orders of the church taking upon him the primacy had restored Eutiches that he would not suffer Leos epistles to Flavian to be read & that for these errors he might have had his pardon, but for that he did afterward presume to excommunicate Leo the Archbishop of great Rome and for that he was accused to the Council of many heinous offences, and for that he being thrice summoned refused to appear, they in the behalf of Pope Leo that holy Synod and blessed Saint Peter did deprive him of his Episcopal 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 excommunication of Leo. Maximus of Antiochia said, I do concur with Leo of Rome and with Anatolius of Constantinople in the deposing of Dioscorus, for that beside other things he disobeyed the citation. After these 184. Bishops pronounced their sentences successively, and some of them said, I condemn Dioscorus for his contumacy, others, according to the voices of the three Patriarches, others according to the sentence of Anatolius, from whence they do gather that the deposing of Dioscorus by the council was for divers faults committed, whereupon he being called, refused to appear. The excommunication of Leo which the Romans did insert amongst the causes of his deposing, assented unto by some of the fathers, was not they say the general sentence of the council and prove it as to them it seemeth manifestly. For the intimation of the sentence against Dioscorus is not in the Acts of the council, but alleged 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 be 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 divinos Ecclsiae Canones contempseris; tum quod Sancto huic, & Generali Concilio minime obtemperaveris; tum propter alia mul●a crimina praeterea quae commisisse deprehensus es, tum quod tertio vocatus â Sancto hoc, & celebri Concilio ut 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, etc.  
And to make it appear yet more plainly that the council of Chalcedon was of a contrary opinion to that which the Author would father upon it, they add that in the first Act of it, the Senators and the bishops being assembled in the presence of the Emperor and the Empress, the Emperor and the Senate sitting in the midst of the Church and at his left hand the Pope's Legates with Anatolius, and the Bishops under his jurisdiction, at his right hand Dioscorus of Alexandria, Iwinall of jerusalem with their Bishops, the Pope's Legates went into the midst of the council and said, that they had commandment from the Pope of the city of Rome, which is head of all the Churches, that Dioscorus should not sit in the council, wherefore they desired, that Dioscorus might departed the council, or otherwise themselves would go forth of it, the judges, and the Senate demanded what was objected against Dioscorus, one of the Legates answered that he had assembled a council without any authority from the Sea apostolic, another of the Legates said we cannot transgress the commandments of the most blessed Pope, and another of them said we cannot endure so great an injury that that Sea should be judges. The judges commanded that Dioscorus should sit down; and that all the rest should likewise sit down in their places. In the last Act also the fathers, and the judges being set, the Legates of Pope Leo demanded of the judges that they might have leave to speak, which being granted they said, yesterday after you departed and we followed you, certain Acts were made in the council which we conceive to be contrary to the Canons, and to the descipline Ecclesiastical, wherefore we do require that you cause them to be read again, to the intent that every one may see whether they be just: The judges commanded that they should be read, and accordingly a Canon was read, where it is said that the ancient fathers have given great privileges to the Sea of old Rome, in regard of the Empire of that city, therefore also the second council of Constantinople, hath given as great privileges to the Sea of Constantinople, new Rome▪ judging that a city adorned with the Empire and Senate, aught to have privileges and authority in Ecclesiastical affairs, equal to old Rome, and to have the next place after her: The Canon being read together with the subscription, one of the Legates said, you see with what subtlety, holy Bishops are dealt with all, in that they have been enforced to subscribe without producing the copy of the Canon whereof they have made mention: The Bishops cried out no man is enforced, and the contention being prosecuted; the judges did order that both the parties should propound the Canons; the sixth Canon of the Nicene council was read in the behalf of the Romans and in the behalf of the Constantinopolitans, & the reading was different; for in that which the Romans read, these words were in the beginning of it; Quod Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum, which are not in the other copies, after this a Canon being read of the council of Constantinople, the Bishops reasoned sufficiently, & finally the judges demanded of them what was their opinion; whereunto they answered that that which was determined was just, one of the Roman Legates did protest that either the decree might be annihilated, or that his protestation might be recorded against it, let the reader therefore judge what opinion the council of Chalcedon held of the Pope's superiority.  
As to the Roman council under Simachus, the Parisians do not deny that the Popes of Rome have held that they ought not to be judged of any, & also that the provincial counsels they have assembled in Rome have not confirmed the same, but they say with all that never any Roman council, neither this fift nor any other came to specification that the Pope may not be judged of a general council and when they say that the Pope can be judged of none, they understand that he can be judged of none, that hath not general authority in the Church. For the Pope having general authority, it stands not with reason, that he should be judged by him that hath but particular authority: wherewith they answer also to the history which he allegeth of Leo the third.  
But here I am enforced to set down a little thing of mine own. Paulus Emilius in the third of his history reporteth this fact: Where yet it shall not be found that he saith, there being assembled a great council of Bishops, as the author maketh him speak. He saith simply, first that Charles sent Leo to Rome, with many Bishops and secular noblemen: and entertained himself elsewhere about public business. afterward he went to Rome, and there heard the accusations against the Pope: and having diligently examined them, he required their opinion: and the Bishops made answer, that it were well that the Pope should judge himself: and it was acceptable to Charles to be delivered from proceeding to that judgement. Let the author read the place, and he shall see no mention there of a council: and that it was rather a convocation of the imperial council, where were both seculars and Bishops: and that the Bishops did favour the cause of the Pope. And let the author also remember himself, that he 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 main foundation of a thing which was spoken by some Bishops in a particular fact, thus assembled, and having their opinion unpremeditately demanded. For peradventure the Pope's innocency being known unto them, they spoke by way of exaggeration: not therefore (will Gerson say) to the prejudice of general counsels, which represent the Church universal, and have universal authority. But see Reader the cunning of our author: Who saith that the first council of Rome under Pope Simachus, approved as their own decree that sentence of Ennodius, aliorum hominum causas etc. It shall never be found in that council, that that sentence was particularly approved, no nor yet so much as mentioned. It will be found indeed that the council said, let a little book be brought hither, which hath been written by Ennodius, against them which have murmured against our fourth Synod; and it being read, the council said, let the book be held of all men for most sound and for Sinodical, and let it be entered amongst the actions of our fourth and fift synods, 
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, be it done according to your will, and be it placed among the decrees Apostolical, and held for such.  
Here say the Parisians that it is to be understood, that by decrees synodal, or actions Synodal, or decrees Apostolical, is not meant a Canon, which can determine an article, as de fide, that is, to be held for matter of Faith. But all the Epistles of a Pope entered in the Register, are called the decrees of such a Pope: and he that shall peruse the book of councils, shall see this inscription upon every Pope, The decrees of Pope N. and then his election, his life, and afterward his Epistles if there be any. And likewise in the Counsels he shall see, that their actions contain many communications of interchanged speeches; yea not forethought on, & sometimes the epistles of sundry people: all which things are not de fide, neither doth any man receive them for such. No man can possibly say, that the Pope's epistles, especially before Siricius, nor all that which at this day is found contained in so many narrations of the Acts of the council of Ephesus, of Chalcedon, and other ensuing, is de fide. The determinations of Counsels are received, which in the ancient for the most part will not pass one or two sheets; whereas their actions will contain forty or fifty. And concerning the Papal decrees, their greater part containeth no other matter save such as doth not concern the Faith. Sometimes in a long epistle there shall be one only Article, as in that most famous and most holy epistle of Saint Leo to Flavian. Wherefore there is great odds to say, such a proposition of Ennodius was approved, which would intend that it were approved as an Article of faith, or Ennodius book was approved, which intends no more save that it is a good book, & made to good purpose, but not that whatsoever is in it, should be de fide: & to establish well this answer, it might be said to the author: This book is of many sheets printed in folio, it containeth above 200. Propositiones, among which that is one which the author produceth, It is demanded whether they will that they be all de fide: and it shall be showed him that there is some there that is not such, If he will not accept them all, as being de fide, what reason why he would have this to be de fide, and not the rest? He hath thought to escape this objection, by telling us that one only sentence of Ennodius, was approved. Let us speak frankly, the pamphlet was approved, wherein among many other, is this sentence; and therefore no more approved than the rest; so that this shall be no more de fide than all the book.  
Some also observe, that that fourth Council, called Palmare, was assembled to give an end to the imputations which were laid upon Pope Simachus, which were not of matters concerning his government, but of matters merely personal, of adulteries, etc. as the Lord Cardinal Baronius doth well deduce: It was therefore intended by Ennodius, that such like delights should be remitted to divine judgement, which thing also Gerson and he that followeth his opinion doth admit. And that this is true in those very Acts of the fift Council, where Ennodius book was approved, Pope Simachus thanking the fathers for their defending him, proceedeth on; that for the time to come he ordaineth, that the like course be observed, not only for the Bishop of the Sea apostolic, but also for all other Bishops of Christendom, for which without making new decrees, there are already the ancient, that the sheep cannot reprehend their Pastor, unless he be found in fault in matter of Faith, neither accuse him for any matter unless it be for his injustice. The sentence of Ennodius is too general, for by that it would seem, that the Pope were not subject to human judgement, no not in case of Heresy: for he saith absolutely, that in all causes, he is reserved to divine judgement, and therefore wisely Pope Simachus after he had said that he extended the self same to all Bishops, according to the ancient Canons, excluded the case of heresy and of injustice. And without all this discoursing, the book of Ennodius placed among the decrees Apostolical hath this title: In the name of the Father, of the Son & the holy Ghost, the preface of Ennodius etc. and afterward, It was composed against them, which had presumed to write against Synods; that neither against the Bishop of the Sea apostolic, nor any other Bishop any man presume such matters as were presumed against Pope Simachus. Wherefore the Parisians say, that this place serveth to prove the doctrine of Gerson, and doth in no wise cross it. It may well be thought, that the author, as being of eminent learning, perceived well the weakness 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 less out of the place alleged would draw any conclusion.  
As touching the eight Council, it had been better that the author, besides his telling us we read in the seventh action, had added also whose the words were which he hath read: for they are the words of Adrian Pope of Rome, spoken in a Synod of Rome and rehearsed together with many other things. Upon which not withstanding the Council determineth nothing. But we read in the Canons of the same eight council determined, by it these words. Besides if an Universal Synod shall be assembled, & any ambiguity and controversy shall arise also concerning the holy Church of the Romans; it is meet with venerable respect and convenient reverence to inquire of the question proposed, and to receive solution or to proceed and give order, So yet as not audaciously to give sentence against the high Bishops of the elder Rome. So that they allow of a sentence not being audacious.  
There followeth another proof out of the Council of Lateran, under 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 used very especial diligence, because if they commit error, there is no recourse after to be had to any superior, there being none on earth superior to the Pope. The Author hath handsomely added these words of his own, There being none on earth Superior to the Pope: which are too significant. That chapter of the Council saith nothing else but that recourse to a superior cannot be had. It sufficed to allege unto us the bare words of the council and not to add of his own, as a matter out of the Council just that which is in controversy. But this place maketh against our Author, having said so often before, that a doubtful Pope is subject to the council, much them more a Pope intruded. Where therefore it saith, if there be error in the election, there is no superior, whom to have recourse unto, it is not meant that the Council is not Superior: nay, rather as well by his own, as by the general opinion, so often as there is difficulty & doubt, in the election, the judgement belongeth always to the council. The meaning therefore of the said chapter Licet is this, that there is no superior actually in being, by reason that the council is not always assembled, whence we see that the author contrary to his own proper meaning, hath added here, there being on earth no Superior to the Pope. For whensoever there is error or doubt of error in the election, himself affirmeth that there is on earth a superior to the Pope, and that this is the council.  
To the council of Lateran the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine, in the second book, de auct. Concil. cap. 13. saith, that it hath most expressly defined this controversy, But because some doubt whether the council were general, therefore the question stands on foot still even among the Catholics. And in the 17. chapter (it appeareth not whether to contradict himself or to confirm the same) he saith it is a doubt, whether the said council have defined this thing as a decree of the Catholic Faith. It seems therefore superfluous to bring an authority against Gerson, which suffereth (by the doctrine of himself that bringeth it) so many perplexities: and doubt being also made of the authority of that council, and withal of the determination. But Dominicus Soto speaketh of it well and clearly, For lib. 6. de just; & iur: q. 1. a. 6. he disputes against, the Monti di picta which are very expressly approved in that council, with these words, Sacro approbant Concilio declaramus & definimus Montes p●etatis, etc. And it commands under pain 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 condemn them; makes answer that all the acts of that council are not received, nor put in practice. But the Parisians say moreover, that in that Council there were never present one hundred Bishops, and particularly in that second Session here alleged by the author, counting the Assistances in Coct, and the Titulars without diocese, 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 council, whatsoever is said incidentally in a decree, without the compass of the principal which is intended to define. ●ut in the B●ll whereof we speak, the intent is only to disannul the Pragmatic, and this is the substance of the decree. Now whereas in disannulling it, answer is made to him that maintained it by virtue of the council of Basill and it is said that the council itself was removed by Eugenius, and that therefore it is of no validity, seeing the Pope hath power to transfer the counsels, as he that hath authority above them; this doth not appertain to the substance of that Bull, but is an avoiding of a contrary reason, and is not therefore a determination. For which cause very well the Lord Cardinal Bellarmine▪ in the second place alleged, hath revoked that which he had said in the first: that is, that that council hath most expressly determined; and hath said that it is in doubt, whether that be a determination.  
The common judgement of all the divines is, that the reasons which are used in a determination, are not intended themselves also to be determined. And it should be a marvelous strange matter that framing a decree of a particular thing, such as is the revocation of the Pragmatic, which is no matter of Faith, an article of Faith should incidentally be determined, so that the principal should not be of Faith, and the accessary should of necessity be of Faith.  
The Parisians add farther, that to prove that the Bishop of Rome hath authority above the Council, there are brought in that place a number of histories, not so few as fifteen, and lastly the book of Aimarus de Synodis: whereupon we were to say, that all those histories were de fide. And the Parisians show plainly, that some of those histories, recited faithfully, do say the contrary. But it would be too long here to produce so many particulars. Some also make answer, that the Bull doth not say that the Pope hath authority above the Counsels, but it saith that it is to be averred out of the divine scriptures, and out of the sayings of the Fathers, and Bishops of Rome, and Canons & Counsels, that the Bishop of Rome hath authority above the general Counsels: so that it is not intended to be otherways true, then so far forth as that averment may be justified. Therefore first that proof must be produced, 
Quatenus inde constat.  and the sense of the scriptures and sayings of the Fathers must be seen: seeing the Council doth not affirm it as of itself, but with reference, that is, so far forth as the scripture and those other things alleged make proof thereof.  
another doctor proposeth another difficulty much greater, that in the beginning of the Bull of this Council, it is said, that Christ ordained Peter and his successors to be his vicar's, unto whom (as is testified in the book of Kings) obedience is so necessary, that he which doth not obey, is to die the death. Which if it be an article of faith, is a very severe one; that all disobedience to the Pope should be punished with death. And certainly the world hath not received it, neither happily ever will. The same Doctor adds farther, that he cannot conceive how so many years 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 never yet found there any such matter. But let us leave the authority of this Council, seeing the Doctors which follow Gerson do not receive it: And each of the eight answers made unto it, doth of itself dissolve the argument.  
For a conclusion the author brings forth, as it were for an Achilles, a reason founded upon the word of God, saying.  
But let us see if the reason founded upon the word of God, 
Bellarmine.  do testify the self same verity. The holy Church is not like to the Commonwealth of Venice, or of Geneva, or of other Cities, which confer upon their Duke that power which themselves please; in regard whereof it may be said, that the Commonwealth is above the Prince: neither yet is it like to an earthly kingdom, in which the people transfer their own authority unto the Monarch, and in certain cases may free themselves from Royal dominion, and reduce themselves to the government of inferior Magistrates; as did the Romans, when they passed from dominion Royal to Consulare government. For the Church of Christ is a most perfect kingdom, and an absolute Monarchy, which hath no dependence upon the people, neither from them had his original; but dependeth only upon the divine will. And I (saith Christ in the second Psalm) am constituted a King by him, over Zion his holy mountain. And the holy Angel said to the virgin Luc. 1. Our Lord God shall give him the seat of David his Father, and he shall reign in the house of jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shallbe no end. And in a thousand other places the same is read, And that this kingdom doth not depend on men, Christ showeth when he saith, you chose not me, but I chose you. joan. 15. And we shall ackhowledge it, at what time we shall say, thou hast made us to our God a Kingdom. Apoc. 5. And this is the cause why this kingdom is in the Scriptures resembled to a family. Who is a faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord hath appointed over 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 general of Christ doth not depend of the Church, but only of Christ, from whom he hath his whole authority: as also we see in earthly kingdoms, that the Viceroy hath not his authority from the kingdom but from the King, neither can be judged or punished by the people, but only by his Lord & Master. Behold therefore how Gerson is deceived, and he also that doth follow him; and goeth contrary to the doctrine of the holy scriptures, of the sacred Counsels, and of manifest reason.  

●rier Paolo  Thou shalt see here Reader a marvelous piece of Art, wherewith the Author will lead thee, from Christ the eternal high Bishop, to an high Bishop Temporal: and when he shall have settled with thee the relation which the holy Church hath towards the divine majesty, he will afterward conclude of the relation towards the Pope. The Parisians do answer, that thus the doctrine of the Catholics doth hold; that God hath called the Church to the faith and his worship; and that he hath placed Christ over it for an head for ever: who first, himself mortal, did govern it on earth with corporal presence: but ascended into heaven, doth rule it with inward influence & assistance invisible unto the end of the world. This is meant by, I am constituted a King by him. This meaneth that, our Lord God shall give him the seat etc. and he shall reign for ever. This is that, you chose not me, but I chose you. This is the kingdom in the apocalypse, and thou hast made us to our God a kingdom. This Christ is the Father of the family, who is owner of it, and it his child and servant. Which for that it is composed of visible men, the Father himself would that it should be governed also by a man visible: and hath appointed the authority which he should have; 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 successor. Now with this doctrine, which I am assured the author will admit, yea rather will say that without it no man is Catholic, the reason is answered, that the Church is not a commonwealth, as Venice, or as Geneva, which give as much authority as themselves please to their Duke; nor a kingdom, which may change the manner of governing it, neither invisibly nor visibly, because that Christ hath prescribed the manner, much less is it such a kingdom as France, which hath a blood royal, where the Kings succeed by birth, neither as some other by testament: but as touching the inward government and merely spiritual, it is not like unto any, because it hath a perpetual and immortal King; In the visible government, it hath a Minister, as concerning his authority, instituted by Christ and undepending of the Church, as concerning the application of the authority to the person, elective and depending of it. Wherefore when he allegeth, and I am constituted a King by him: Our Lord God shall give him: you chose not me: Thou hast made us to our God a kingdom: All these places and such like others are meant of the invisible kingdom, the spiritual interior; where the Pope hath no government at all, but only the Saviour which knoweth the hearts, and can inflowe into them, and bestow on them the graces and gifts, whereby they are made Citizens of the heavenly jerusalem. Christ also is that Father of the family, which depends not of it. The high Bishop is a servant, ●et over the family by the Fathers thereof, in respect of the authority, but which the family itself hath placed over itself, 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 being settled, he concludeth that the Father doth not depend of the family, nor hath his authority from it: Therefore the Pope cannot be subject to the Church: and passeth from the father of the family, which is Christ; to the steward elected by the family itself, which is the Pope. Let him stand firm in the similitude, for he shall never find in the Gospel, that any other is called father of the family, but God the father, or else Christ his Son by nature. The minister is a servant, it is not fit to attribute the propriety of God to another: For which cause the example serves marvelously for Gerson, as also the example which the author brings of a Viceroy, 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 & should say to the kingdom, I leave you my cousin for Viceroy, with authority to administer justice, but not to make laws, not to assemble the states etc. and in case he happen to fail, 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 kingdom should choose, should be subject to the kingdom. This is that which Gerson teacheth throughout all his works, where it is seen that verily the force of the reason concludeth for him. Out of the things abovesaid, I will not conclude, that the opinion of Gerson in this point of the supreme power Ecclesiastical, either is true or is false, but only that the author's conclusion that Gerson is deceived, and that he is deceived that doth follow him, and goeth contrary to the doctrine of the holy scriptures, of the sacred Counsels, and of manifest reason, hath need of other proofs, than those abovesaid. The Author proceedeth.  

Bellarmine.  And if he should say, that which Gerson himself want to say, that it is written in Saint Matthew in the 18. chapter, tell the Church And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the Heathen and the Publican: I would answer, that in that place, by the Church is meant the Prelate, who is the head of the Church and so doth Saint john Chrysostom expound it, Homilia 61. in Matthew and Pope Innocent 3. cap. Novit, de judiciis, and so doth the practise of the universal Church of all the world, and of all times declare; that he who will denounce a sinner to the Church, and observe this precept, doth not assemble a Council, but hath recourse to the Bishop or to his vicar.  
It is not sufficient to the Author, to have disputed with Gerson, but he also gives solution to his reasons. But in this place, of many which Gerson bringeth and deduceth, 
Friar Paolo.  the author contenteth himself to produce one only, and to dissolve it: And this is taken from the authority of Saint Matthew: tell the Church, unto which he answereth the Church, that is the Prelate: and of this exposition he maketh Chrysostome the author: although the Parisians say that Chrysostom doth not say so; but it seems when a thing is accustomed to be alleged, every man allegeth it without once viewing it. Chrysostome expoundeth, tell the Church, namely the Bishops and Praefidents. This is that which Gerson saith, to the Church representatively: because it being not possible to assemble the whole, it be comes represented by the assembly of Bishops and Precedents. And therefore they add, that under the name of the Church, their cannot be meant one person: For in vain should that ensue, If two of you shall consent upon earth concerning every thing whatsoever they shall ask, it shall be done to them of my Father which is in heaven. For where there be 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 received the information against the incestuous, there is plainly heard fornication among you etc. It followeth, I indeed, absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged, as present, him that hath so done, in the name of our Lord jesus Christ, you being gathered together and my spirit, with the virtue of our Lord jesus, to deliver such an one to Satan, Where they note that Saint Paul, who was then in Philippi, did not write by his Brief, I excomunicate such an one: but wrote to the Church, that being gathered together with his spirit, they should do it. It is not therefore repugnant to Chrysostome, that to the Bishops and Precedents, may be also meant of a general council Above there was also proposed the doubt, that tell the Church, were as much as to say tell thyself. As touching the practice, which showeth that tell the Church doth mean the Prelate, because recourse is had to the bishop or his Vicar: of the ancient practice, I have spoken to him with the authority of Saint Paul; as touching the modern, it is true that at this day the bishop or his Vicar excommunicateth without the advise or participation of any; many times also the Register only; and (that which is more important,) by authority delegated, a Clerk of the first tonsure deputed commissary in some very light particular cause, doth excommunicate a Priest. Yea Leo the tenth in the council of Lateran, in the eleventh Session, by a perpetual constitution of his, hath granted faculty to a secular person to excommunicate the very Bishops: and that which doth more import, Navarre saith chap. 27. Num. 11. that if any man shall obtain an excommunication of some Prelate, if the obteiner shall not have an intent that the party be excommunicated, he shall not be excommunicated. Moreover the same author saith, cap, 23. Num. 104. that the excommunication pronounced by the law itself against him that payeth not a pension (for exaample sake) on the vigil of the nativity, is not incurred by him that payeth it not, no not in many months and years after, if the creditor thereof would not have it incurred. But if on the other side, after many months or years, he would have it incurred; it is reputed to have been incurred from the day of the debt, that is from the Vigil of the nativity; and so is the stile of the Court. These are the practices which are now in use: of which I say nothing else, but that they grow from the interpretation which the author doth approve.  

Gerson:  The ninth consideration is, that contempt of the keys is not incurred, when the Pope doth most enormously and most scandalously abuse his power. This consideration is true in itself, but withal is most injurious to the holiness of our Lord, and to the holy Sea apostolic; 
Bellarmine.  as though it did use to abuse in such sort the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Like to this are the arts of the modern Heretics; who to make the Papal power odious to the world, do spread abroad the most infamous slanders that the malignity of Satan their head can teach them. And the Venetians themselves ought to abhor and punish such defenders.  
Here it is most easy to defend Gerson: seeing he that handles that which falleth out in a case possible, yea and such as hath happened; 
Friar Paolo.  doth not wrong them which do well, but notes them that do ill. This consideration therefore is not injurious to the holy Sea apostolic, which never doth ill; howsoever by humane fragility, some sitting in it have committed some fault whatsoever. They which writ the lives of the Popes, (and Platina in particular) do recount so many faults, that taking the time from 820. downward, it will be an hard matter to tell whether the number of the good or of the bad be the greater. It might be said by the author's reason, that the C. Si Papa of Boniface Martyr is greatly injurious to the person of Pope Gregory the second, and to the Sea apostolic; where he saith, if the Pope shallbe negligent of the salvation of his brethren, unprofitable, and remiss in his actions, silent of good, and lead innumerable people by heaps unto Hell, no man may reprove him: as though Boniface did therefore say, that the apostolic Sea were wont to commit such faults. It followeth not, neither is it true, that the Heretics alone reprehend their evil actions: but much more the Ecclesiastical writers, and the Historians catholic. I will not speak of Platina, who is all full of it: But all the Germane Historians, Regnius, E●ithprandus, Segebertus, Otho; of the French, Annonius, Addo, and so the Italians of all times. And not to go seeking the old, Frances Guic●arden is in every man's hands; though many things of that nature have been cut out; and you may see how he speaketh. There is difference between the manner of the Heretics speaking, and that of Gerson: they reprove the doctrine, Gerson speaks of abuses. Whosoever shall read Saint Bernard de consideratione ad Eugenium, will not find fault with four words in Gerson; and that considering his considerations are in a necessary cause. Every man may be in a marvel at such a great contradiction, that the consideration of Gerson is true in itself, and it most injurious to the Sea apostolic: as though the Sea apostolic received injury from the truth. He cannot receive injury from the truth, that doth not ground himself upon falsehood.  
And so likewise that it is true in itself, but like to the arts of the modern heretics, as though Gerson now an hundredth and fifty years since could have learned of the modern heretics. This is like to the prohibiting of the use of the divine scripture, because the heretics serve their turns with it. That the consideration is true in itself, 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 maintenance of the liberty and power which God hath given them. Now the last part where the author saith, that they ought to punish such defenders, is not well understood. 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 ever professed the Catholic truth. It may be well said to him whom a necessary truth displeaseth, Every one that doth ill hateth the light, And he should not say amiss, that should say that the doctrine of the author were most injurious to all the Clergy, and to all the Church because he will not have him reproved, that would ravin the treasures of the church, usurp upon the possessions, or reduce the Clergy with their goods into abject servitude, or causelessly spoil them of their rights. For these are the words of Gerson which it had been well that the author had here produced.  

Gerson.  The tenth consideration is that they do not incur contempt of the keys, who procure defence for themselves, against such pretenced judgements, by means of the secular power: seeing the law of nature teacheth, to resist force by force. This is a pernicious doctrine, and from which infinite Scandals may ensue. For although that sentence is true. 
Bellarmine.  Vim vi repellere licet, that is, it is lawful to resist violence with violence: yet hath it many limitations: For the force must be unjust, and such as hath no redress but by force: the resistance must be immediate; and other things, as Silvester showeth Verb. Bellum 2. and the other Doctors which handle this matter. And therefore if it be not applied to certain particulars with great discretion, it is cause of exceeding great disorders. When the Sergeants arrest a man, and bind his hands; no question they offer him violence: and yet it is not lawful for him to use violence against the Sergeants, under pretext that violence may with violence be resisted. Semblably when the Galleyslaves are tied to the bench of the Galley, and with many a sharp stroke are constrained to row; who doubts but that great violence is used towards them: & yet notwithstanding no man of judgement will say that it is lawful for them under the same pretence to offer violence to the Comito. Likewise, when one is forced by his superior, either Ecclesiastical or Secular, to make restitution to another, of his goods, or of his good name, or to keep faith & his promises it cannot be said that he who so is forced may resist with force, & turn himself against his superior: and to pass over infinite other examples, when sometimes the Magistrates or Princes impose burdens upon the people, and constrain them to pay them. I trow they would not be pleased, that any should teach the people to raise rebellion under colour that vim vi repellere licet. And what great confusion would there be in houses, and in cities and in kingdoms, if to every force, force might be opposed, with saying that it is lawful, by natural reason to make resistance with violence to violence? But if we speak of the force which Prelates do use, when by the censures they constrain their subjects to obey, certain it is that it is not lawful, to make resistance with force. For if he who will not hear the church, aught to be unto us, according to the commandment of the Lord, as a Gentile and Publican: certainly he who with force will resist the church, aught to be unto us worse than Gentile & Publican. And as for recourse to secular Princes in matter of excommunication, the sacred council of Trent hath already provided expressly, Ses. 25. cap, 3. forbidding Secular Princes, that they hinder not Prelates so that they may not excommunicate, neither command that the excommunicationes already gone forth be revoked, considering that this is no part of their office. Lastly if we come to the business 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 useth to the common wealth of Venice, is a fatherly and just force, conforming to the scriptures and sacred canons, & used in all times by the Prelates of holy church, and the remedy is plain and ready, without recourse to force or to help of Princes; namely Obedience and Humility, without which all other remedy is vain.  
In the tenth consideration, 
Friar Paolo.  if to say that to the force of pretended sentences, resistance may by law of nature be made by force, be a doctrine pernicious, then hath Cardinal Bellarmine taught a pernicious doctrine, in his book of the Bishop of Rome, which we have before alleged, where with most clear words he doth establish this sentence. And of the self-same perniciousnes are the Cardinals Turrceremata and Castane authors, alleged by him, and Domimcus Soco, and Franciscus Victorius, and other modern writers innumerable, who following one another confirm 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 Tyranny be brought into the church, which as a public fault is more pernicious. Even as no more true is it that by this doctrine there would grow confusions in houses and cities because every one might defend himself from the Sergeants, from the Comito in Galleys, and from the Prince which causeth them to pay impositions. For two which strive together cannot both have right on their sides: but needs must it be that if he which useth force, do it lawfully, the defence be unlawful; and where the defence is lawful, the force must needs be unlawful.  
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 unjustly used. And therefore the universal is not true which he draweth, when he saith if to every force, force might be opposed: neither the law nor Gerson, nor any man else having said that all force may be by force resisted. The consequence therefore of the Sergeants, and of the Cometo, and of the Prince who levyeth just 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 lawful forces. The consequence which he deduceth of the force which the Ecclesiastical useth, is well to the purpose, when he intermeddleth in causing to make restitution of goods, good name, or performing of promises; which are things appertaining to the Seculare, in which the Ecclesiastical hath not to intrude himself, save only in foro paenitentiae in auricular confession. But whenas the author saith, that if we speak of the force which Prelates do use, when by the Censures they constrain their subjects to obey; certain it is that it is not lawful to make resistance with force: For if he who will not obey the Church, aught to be as a Gentile and Publican: so much worse he that will make resistance with force: here he speaketh either universally of all censures, comprising also those which are not of validity; or else only of those which have validity. If he speak of all, and it be the Author's meaning, that to make resistance to Censures which are nul, be worse than to be a Gentile; it is a doctrine absurd, false, erroneous, and contrary to the law of nature, and to the doctrine of the foresaid Cardinals, and of Bellarmine himself: but if he mean of them only which have validity, it is exceeding good doctrine, and not contrary to Gerson yea rather confirmed by him. For Gerson in the consideration speaketh of pretenced censures, which are not juridical, 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 hear it, is a good Christian: & so teach the Canons which are cited by Gratian. 11. Quest. 3. Of the Church of God which cannot err it is always true, that he is to be reckoned for a Gentile that doth not hear it, and he worse that shall resist it: because the defence will be unjust against so just a precept; considering that it never delivers other words than the word of Christ. But if by the Church be meant a power subject to errors, especially, if not by reason only it appear ●o b● 〈◊〉, but ther● be seen also daily errors in it when it shall 〈◊〉 in the commandings, he that shall d●f●●d himself, shall then use force lawfully, and shall not offend God, because he g●eth not against the Church, but against humane error, which transporteth 〈◊〉 of the doctrine of the Church. But the author having proposed to us a true proposition in censures that have validity, under the covert of an universal, hath applied it to those that have no validifi● piece of skill at length known, and usual in all these discourses. The proposition therefore remains sure and 〈◊〉▪ when the assailant useth unlawful force. Yea and the author himself doth grant no less. For minding to limit the proposition, he setteth three limitations, one is, that the force be unjust; another; that there be no other remedy; the third, that it be immediate. About which we must ha●e yet one word, to the end we rest not deceived with the ambiguity of the word, according to custom. For immediately doth not signify a thing indivisible: but it is meant according as the matter which is spoken of, doth require. For if a Prince have a fort surprised; he shall recover it immediately, although he have need of a year to set an army in order: yea he shall do it immediately, if he shall have need to make his leagues and other agreements, wherein he shall spend many years.  
We must also take heed of the ambiguity of the second limitation; that there be no other remedy. For it by other remedy he mean a lawful remedy, ●ee admit it, and so his limitation is in the self same proposition. For every man that saith, vim vir●pellere licet, doth add or understand, cum moderamine inculpataetu●elae, that is, with moderation of defence unblamable. But if by remedy, the Author mean a remedy prejudicial to the part grieved; then all forces unjust have 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 sin in using it, namely when the remedy were not only prejudicial to himself, but also to an other▪ See Reader how with an artificial ambiguity he endeavoured 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, he saith the Commonwealth of Venice hath a remedy at hand, without recourse unto force, or to the aid of other Princes, and that is obedience. Very well. This is a remedy, but prejudicial, and not only to the liberty which GOD hath given them, but also to the life, goods and honour of their subjects. Therefore they are not bound to use it: and by reason of prejudicing another, they should sin if they should use it. Whether then all other remedy be vain, as the Author telleth us, it belongeth only to God to dispose thereof, and to the event to make it manifest. The Author shallbe besought not to deliver his judgement before the time, lest it be said to him. To me it is a thing of least account to be judged of you or of man's clay. That the force which the Pope useth is just and fatherly, according to the first limitation; this is the point in controversy, and which should have been handled, but the Author passeth it over with a bare affirmation. We cannot see to what scripture the Author saith it is conforming. It is not according to the 13. Chapter to the Romans nor to the 3. of the Epistle to Timothy, nor to the second of the first of S. Peter, nor to the 22. of S. Matthew, nor to the twelve Canons which treat of this matter. 11. Quest. 3. That it hath been used in the Church at all times, we see not before the year of Grace one thousand. True it is that after that it hath been sometimes put in practice by the Bishops of Rome: but always due resistance hath been made them, whensoever they have abused their lawful power. We 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 judgements doth sometimes permit, that the just cause seemeth the weaker in the opinion of men. But the resistance which Philip the fair made to Boniface the 8. and Lewis the twelfth to julius the second, like to that which this commonwealth doth use at this present, is well commended by Lodovike Ricbehome Provincial of the Jesuits, in his Apologetical in the 25. Chapter, and proposed for an example to be imitated. Yea in the 24 chapter he showeth, that whensoever any Bishop of Rome should offend the King of France, as those Kings were offended by those Bishops; the Jesuits in such occasion would do that which the Frenchmen did in those times, who united themselves with their king to the defence of his majesty. I know not with what form of speech to answer the last parcel where he saith that there is another remedy for this commonwealth besides resistance. For reading such words he had put me in great hope that all this so great tumult should suddenly cease. But when he cometh to explicate his meaning, I could not▪ but meravaile at it: because this is a remedy in like sort for him that shall be assaulted with force of arms to take from him that he hath, namely to yield and to give him whatsoever he list to have. Obedience is one of those words which we termed ambiguous: and here with his comeliness and fair show it doth deceive us. Obedience seemeth an holy thing, and so is it when it is yielded to a just and honest commandment, but when it is referred to a tirannicail and abusive precept▪ it is not good; but natural defence doth then succeed in his place. God hath bestowed liberty on the Commonwealth of Venice; and commanded them to preserve it, and to protect their subjects, and not suffer them to be harmed. If one command them to revoke the laws needful for this effect, and not to defend the life, goods, and honour of their subjects, but only against such as it pleaseth him to allow: if the common wealth should yield to this, it would be an obedience in name, but in deeds an extreme disobedience towards God. This commonwealth hath always obeyed the Ecclesiastical power in just things, it hath always reverenced, assisted and increased it: and we trust in God that it will so continue he giving them grace to do the same for ever: and that he will cause by his omnipotent virtue, that the present tempest shall end in fair weather, with great satisfaction of the holy sea apostolic, and of this Common wealth no less. We are not also to omit here an interpretation which the Author doth give of a decree of the holy Counsel Sess. 25. cap 3. very different from the true meaning. The Council ordaineth that the Secular magistrates shall not forbid the Ecclesiastical to excommunicate any, nor cause them to revoke their excommunication already thundered under pretext not to have the things contained in that decree observed. And the Author saith the sacred Council of Trent hath provided expressly, forbidding Secular Princes that they hinder not the Prelates, so that they may not excommunicate, nor command that the excommunications already gone forth be revoked. Now this is not the meaning of the Council. For first he concealeth the condition which followeth that is, under pretext not to have the present decree observed: which as we have showed before, doth not forbid that it may be done for some other cause. Then because the Council saith, whatsoever Secular Magistrate; and our Author altereth it, saying secular Princes. But every lawyer will tell him, that in odious matter, the name of magistrate comprehendeth not the Prince. Next because the Council speaketh of a prohibition and command judicial: and our Author bringeth it against resistance natural, which he himself in the place alleged, lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 29. hath denied to be an Act of jurisdiction. So that to allege that place of the Council to the matter now in hand; is threefoldly to falsify the meaning of it.  

Gerson.  The eleventh consideration is, that contempt of the keys is not incurred, when some Lawyer or Divine in his conscience doth say, that such kind of sentences are not to be feared: especially if due information be observed with wariness that no scandal thereon ensue to the weak; who repute the Pope for a God, who hath all power in Heaven and in earth etc. This consideration, to speak modestly of it, 
Bellarmine.  is very little considerate. For Gerson should have said at least, that an ignorant person, in doubtful matters, might rely himself upon the judgement of a Divine or a Lawyer that carried a name of great learning and honesty. But that he may rely himself upon what Divine or Lawyer so ever, especially in matter of obedience to the High Bishop, is an exceeding great rashness. For it is not doubtful, but most certain, that in doubtful things a man is to obey his superior. And then only he is not to obey, when it is clear and certain that the superior commandeth things contrary to the commandment of God. And besides, how many Divines and Lawyers may a man find, that through ignorance or malice may be deceived? And if one teach thee one way, and an other the contrary; on whom wilt thou rely? Secular Princes would in no wise suffer, that when they have passed a sentence, the party condemned might excuse himself from obeying it, because a Lawyer or a Divine hath told him that in his conscience that sentence were not to be performed. How much less than ought this to be suffered in case of obedience to the Vicar of Christ; to whom all Christians by the law of God are bound to be subject and obedient?  

Friar Paolo  In this eleventh consideration, the Author modestly maketh an invective against Gerson; wishing that at least wise he had said, that an ignorant person, in doubtful matters, might rely himself upon the judgement of a Divine or a Lawyer that carried a name of great learning and honesty: as though any man ever went to a Counsellor for a matter certain. Be a man as ignorant as it is possible to be, he will never ask counsel nor enter into consultation, about that which he holdeth for certain and out of all question. The Author afterward doth not contain himself within those bounds of modesty, which he promised in the beginning: and saith, that it is exceeding great rashness to say, that he may rely himself upon what Divine or Lawyer soever: as though it were said in the translation upon whomsoever, or in the Latin cuilibet. But Gerson saith aliquis in the Latin, and the translation saith Some. That whomsoever, seemeth to signify be he who he list be, either learned or ignorant, a man of conscience or consciencelesse: which is not to be so understood. For he that sendeth a man to one as to a Counsellor, intendeth to address him always to such an one, as hath knowledge sufficient of that which is to be advised on And Gerson doth expressly so deliver, when he saith some Lawyer or Divine in his conscience. Conscience (especially with Gerson) includeth knowledge and honesty; whereof there is a tract of his extant to be seen. Therefore when Gerson saith, that he may rely upon the conscience of a Lawyer or a Divine; he meaneth of one held to be of sufficient honesty and knowledge. And this ought not displease the author, because the new writers also, such as are counted the best learned do maintain the very same opinion. And here it shall suffice me to allege unto him Navarre; who upon 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 Divine duties with the foresaid E. upon that reason, that he who doth any thing following the authority of a Doctor famous for his learning and godliness of mind, is excused, though perhaps that fall not to be right done, and though other should hold the contrary. He allegeth many Doctors upon this point; and proceedeth, which also they acknowledge sufficiently, to be particularly of force to excuse from violating of Censures. And for this point also he allegeth many other. I will not forbear to add here also, that those words, when some Divine or Lawyer etc. aught to be taken, either singularly, or collectively, according to the weightiness of the matter: so that in some case the counsel of one will suffice; and in an other case is to be sought the counsel of two, and three and four; and in some perhaps an hundred men's counsel shall be requisite. In this present controversy, (though for the matter it be easy and clear,) this Commonwealth hath taken the counsel of many, both within Italy & without: so that he needeth not to insist upon that word Some. But the author would show, that in matter of obedience to the Pope, no recourse at all aught to be had to counsellors: because in things doubtful, we are to obey our superior. Which reason doth prove, that we may never in any case have recourse to a counsellor: because in a case doubtful, we must choose the secure part; and who so maketh that choice, shallbe free from fault and error: and therefore we must never take counsel at all. Here we may not suffer ourselves to be deceived by ambiguity of the word doubtful. But we must say, as we have before showed, that doubtful, is taken in two sorts; either doubtful before counsel; or so that after all diligent advise it still remain doubtful. In the first case I say, that it is a sin to obey our superior; because it is a casting of ourselves into hazard to go against the law of God: but in the second case I agree, that where doubt is, the superior must be obeyed: a thing which doth not take away counsel, but presupposeth it rather. And the reasons ensuing, wherewith the Author proveth the same, have the self same fault. As when he saith, how many Lawyers may one find, that through ignorance or malice may be deceived? This falleth not out only in cases of obedience to the High Bishop, but generally in all doubts: so that a man should at no time take any advise. He proceedeth, and if one teach thee one way, and another the contrary; on whom wilt thou rely? It may happen out in all matters, that one may advise one way, and another man another way. On whom shall a man rely then? All reasons which conclude more than is proposed, are fallacies. The Divines which writ of cases of conscience, make answer, that if a man shall be in the wrong, having used all diligence that he possible can, he shall be excused; seeing his ignorance is invincible. It may be that a Lawyer or Divine whom I consult with, by ignorance or malice may deceive me. If I upon sufficient probable grounds shall have believed 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 rely upon him whom I conceive to be more excellently qualified; or else I will proceed on to take further advise, till such time as I shall be thoroughly cleared, and my conscience shall be ascertained.  
I see not now how the author's reason doth avail when he saith that secular Princes would not suffer that the party condemned might excuse himself from obeying any of their sentences, because a Lawyer or a Divine, hath told him in his conscience, that that sentence is not to be performed: How much less ought this to be tolerated in matter of obedience to the vicar of Christ. Here first of all every man must observe, that Gerson saith not generally, that a Christian doth not incur contempt of the keys; whensoever a Divine or Canonist in his conscience doth say, that the sentence ought not be performed: but this is meant only then, when the case is doubtful, and in such sort doubtful, that the party cannot by himself be resolved of it. For if that which the Prelate commandeth be of things clear in themselves, or wherein a man may be cleared, without difficulty; there were no need of any advise. As if the Prelate should command to avoid blasphemy or adultery, it were not to move doubt whether obedience were due. As also when a state is interdicted for a cause notorious to all men to be unjust (as now we presuppose, and elsewhere have proved, that that is for which at this present they will that the state of Venice stand interdicted) there needs not any counsel, the case being clear that no man ought obey. But speaking only of cases doubtful, I say that the author's argument from the sentences of secular Princes to those of the ecclesiastical Prelate, proceedeth neither from the place a pari, nor a minori. For the divine Scripture, which hath spoken both of the one and of the other hath not said the same thing of both: but of obedience to Prelates, it hath said to the Hebrues: obey your overseers, for they watch for your souls to render an account of them: But of obedience due to Princes, it saith to the Romans, it is necessary to be subject not only for wrath but for conscience. My Prelate is not to command me, save only those things, which pertain to my soul's health, for this is that which he watcheth for. Howbeit though one watch for my soul, yet am not I therefore to sleep, but watch to my utmost power. For Christ so commandeth me: and it is fit for me to take heed that the Prelate watch over no other thing save over the soul, nor that he sleep, or think that he watcheth when he dreameth And if my own watchfulness be insufficient, I will desire my neighbour whom I think not to be drowsy, to help me and watch with me, so that when I shall be doubtful, whether my Prelate watch or sleep I will run to counsel. But the Prince watcheth to exercise justice, as the minister of God, so that he will not meddle with matters that belong to the soul, 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 me something in matters pertaining to my soul's health, as if he commanded me to believe or not believe some article, I would think upon it, and examine it according to the law of God, and if I doubted lest it were prejudicial to my soul, I would to the Divines for counsel, and the Prince ought to allow me so to do: and if he will not I will say, we must obey God rather than men. But if he shall command me, that I bring into the City or not carry out some kind of ware or merchandise, or that I pay a contribution or custom; or that I ward the walls of the City; and in sum, when he shall command me that, which may serve to maintain the tranquillity, quiet and security of the state, which may impeach the raising of tumults and other novelties, which might bring with them scandal or disquiet, (things which are committed to public care, where a private man ought not to interpose his judgement, but follow the judgement of his Prince:) because in those things the menagement is not of my soul, but of things temporal, I ought not to trouble my thoughts about them, but will obey him both for wrath and for conscience sake. The care of the public tranquillity, belongeth all to the Prince; the private man hath no part at all therein, except the execution: therefore I am not to trouble my thoughts about it. The care of every man's soul, belongeth not solely to the Prelate, the subject hath herein the most principal part, to him therefore doth it principally appertain to think upon it. And by this may one most clearly discern the difference between the commandments of Prelates and Princes. For these must be obeyed, though one see not the reason, touching the other you must be well advised what you do. When the Prince commandeth, he appoints a thing which belongeth to him, and to him hath God wholly committed it, and not to me otherwise then passively. When the Prelate commandeth, he dealeth with a matter which belongeth more to me then to him, and therefore am I more bound to advise upon it then he. But to the Prince I stand bound to yield absolute obedience, when he dealeth with temporal things, without considering whether it hurt my private temporal profit, because the public good, must needs be preferred above any private. But now for the Prelate, I ought not to obey him; if it fall out to be prejudicial to the profit of my soul, though it would prove exceeding greatly behoveful to those ends which were aimed at by my Prelate. The whole error stands in this, that we give power to the Prelate over matters temporal, and transform the ecclesiastical ministry into a secular Court judicial. For to the secular power, hath God committed the care of public tranquillity, and given them authority to impose temporal punishments, for fear of which it is requisite that we be subject to them, which is meant by for wrath: besides the commandment of God, which enjoineth us to obey them, which makes up the other branch for conscience sake. But to the Ecclesiastical, ministry hath God committed the care of souls, which is not to meddle directly with temporal punishments: and therefore hath he not commanded to obey them for wrath. Of the temporal power, Saint Paul saith, For he beareth not the sword without cause; but of the ministry ecclesiastical, 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 Vicar of Christ all Christians are by the law of God obliged to be subject & obedient, is to be meant in things spiritual and appertaining to the salvation of souls, and in the court of God, and when he commandeth according to his divine law. But in temporal things absolute Princes are not s biect to any other then to God himself, from whom their power is immediately derived.  
And if the weak hold the Pope to be a God, and that he hath all power in heaven & in earth: more pleasing to almighty God is this their weakness; then their strength who seeming to be wise, endeavour to abase the authority of the vicar of Christ; as at this day all Heretics do. It is not so great a matter that the Pope should be reputed a God upon earth, seeing in the psalm he saith of all Princes, I have said ye are Gods. Neither is it inconvenient that one should say that the Pope hath all power in heaven and in earth, seeing Christ hath said, whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth it shallbe bound also in the heavens. Which yet is expounded, and meant sound by true and learned Catholics. And in sum I think it may be said with all truth, that the power of the high Bishop is so great, that few men arrive to comprehend it. For he is able to do all that which is necessary to the conducing of souls to Paradise, and can take away all the impediments, which the world or the Devil, with all 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 over all the Church; so Christ gave to S. Peter and to his successors all plenitude of power over all the Church.  

Friar Paolo.  Because Gerson saith, that they of weak and scrupulous conscience must be instructed, who repute the Pope for a God, & to have all power in heaven and in earth: The Author makes answer, that this their weakness is more pleasing to God, than the strength of Heretics, who esteem themselves wise in despising the authority of the vicar of Christ. As if we would contradict him that condemned avarice, 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 mean, which is liberality. The right manner of speech were, it less displeaseth God, to be niggardly, then to be prodigal in riot: but both displease him. The sin is most grievous to deny the true authority granted by Christ to his vicar: yet his ignorance that giveth him more authority than is convenient, is not praisable. Truth is acceptable to God: ignorance when it is invincible, is not good, but excusable: it implieth great contradiction, to say that any false thing pleaseth God. The Author be●ing accustomed to speak properly, might have said, this weakness of theirs is less displeasing to God, than the strength of Heretics and we would have commended him. For so should the truth have been unfolded, that neither the one nor the other of the foresaid extremes do please at all. And let not the Author think it inconvenient, if one should say that it is good to instruct the simple people not to give more authority to the Pope then that which is right & lawful, for so saith S. Gregory. 2. Quest. 7. and yields 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 parsonage more plainly confirm 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. Gregory's words are, that subjects must be admonished that they make not themselves more subject than is convenient; but that which is more of importance gives the reason of it; because they are enforced to flatter them in their vices whose subjects they make themselves more than they should be. Then can you not ere if you add hereunto, that man's custom is to imitate the things he reverenceth; 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 have the stile of Gods hath no inconvenience in it, so as we be not overtaken 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 deity which Gerson doth not allow. The Author thinks it no inconvenience to say, that the Pope hath all power in heaven and in earth, because it is said quodcunque ligaveris superterram erit ligatum & in coelis, and yet may it appear to any that this conclusion is not well drawn from this place, because power belongs to the active property, and quodcunque, appertains 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 ligaveris super terram erit ligatum & i● coelis therefore quocunque modo ligaveris follows not. And this is it which Gerson doth not approve; and thus do I think would the Author himself understand it when he saith that thus it is declared, and truly understood by true and learned Catholics, because that this proposition (The Pope hath all power in heaven and in earth) being taken absolutely is false: or being tied to the true construction, there is much more power both in heaven and in earth which the Pope hath not, then that he hath, and therefore that proposition which by one instance only doth prove untrue, having more instances against it then examples for it, is most false. The Author saith, he thinks he may most truly say that the Pope's authority is so great, that few can comprehend it. And I believe it too, because truth is one and the same thing, and falsehood infinite. Many ascribe to him less than is requisite and many more, so as the residue is but small which give him just that which is his due. The Cardinal Bellarmine in his work de Romano Pontifice makes a long discourse prescribing limits to the Pope's authority, and touching many things which the Pope himself cannot do: now, were this discourse very impertinent if his authority could not exceed. And for that he saith the Pope can do all things which are necessary to conduct a soul into paradise & can take away all impediments which the world or the Devil can lay in the way with all their strength and subtlety, This proposition is fair in show but false in deed. To conduct the soul of an infant into paradise, which is yet in the mother's belly and cannot be brought forth alive, 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 grant that the child should be cut out of the mother's belly: and therefore can not the Pope do any thing necessary to conduct this soul into Paradise. A man being actually in some mortal sin and in this case deprived of his wits cannot: be saved unless he recover his sense again, and repent himself, can the Pope restore him to his wits again? I believe he cannot: and yet is this necessary for this man's salvation. Nothing is more necessary to salvation then the internal motions of the mind, over which S. Thomas denieth that the Pope hath any power. Infinite are the things which are necessary for the conducting a soul into paradise, which I can show not to be subject to the Pope's authority. Yet, if it were Gods will, I wish he could (as the Author saith) remove all impediments which the world and the Devil can lay in the way with all their subtlety, for than should we have neither Turks nor Heretics. The impediments are likewise infinite which are daily cast in the way by the enemies of the kingdom of Christ, for which the Pope must content himself without further remedy then only to pray & nonos inducas in tentationem etc. God hath not only not given authority to the Pope to remove all impediments, which are laid in the way by the world and the Devil, but hath thought it for the good of the Church to permit many of them. The Reader may well perceive with how good reason Gerson doth give admonishment that the simple people be well instructed, because that here are four propositions pronounced with one breath by a great man of great learning which are manifestly false, & all to enlarge that power which God hath given beyond the bounds, within which his divine majesty hath restrained it.  
We will soon rid our hands of the 12. consideration because the objection is but short.  
The 12. consideration is, 
Gerson  that those do nourish the contempt of the keys, who when they should resist the abuse of them are divided within themselves, and hinder each other. The truth is that all favourable and humble endeavours must be used with the Pope when upon ill information he pronounceth an unjust sentence. But if this humble diligence will not prevail, then is hold to be laid of a stout and manlike liberty. 
Bellarmine  This consideration was to good purpose in Gersons time, because there being then a schism of three Popes which did thunder out excommunications each upon others adherents; it was fit at that time that the faithful should unite themselves to extinguish this schism and make small account of those excommunications, since it stood in doubt which of them was the Vicar of Christ, and notwithstanding the said excommunications might still intend the business of the union of the Church. But now that by God's grace we have but one only Pope and he undoubted and certain; this consideration is nothing to the purpose, nor serves for any thing, but to make a new schism of the members against their own head.  
If the Author conceive that Gerson wrote this doctrine in a time of schism let him but look back to the eight consideration and he shall plainly perceive this treatise was written after the council of Constance, 
Friar Paolo  and at such time as there was but one only undoubted Pope, But if the Author have some more subtle meaning by himself, it is hard to be guest at, though it may well be suspected, because there is no likelihood that he should not observe 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 plainly appear that it can have no reference to a time of schism which happily Gerson might misdoubt would follow, because there is nothing said of the union of the Church, but only of the means how to take away the abuses. And further, as long as the Pope is certain and undoubted, that reverend respect which Gerson doth advise, under the stile of favourable and humble endeavours, is not due unto him, but doth only belong to the true undoubted bishop of Rome. And to dispute no longer of this matter the Reader reading Gerson and that which the author objecteth, & considering whether there may not be abuse of the keys, even when there is no schism, and how those which should make resistance are divided amongst themselves and out of simplicity or baseness hinder each other, some giving countenance to the abuses which others would willingly take away, may see what it is that is here truly and precisely spoken of, and whether the objection may go for currant. But that which he saith in the conclusion, that this consideration serves for nothing but to raise new schism, can not be said but by him that will likewise affirm that Saint Gregory's doctrine in the chapter [Admonendi] which we have before alleged is false, and that it serves to raise schism, when he saith, that subjects must be admonished that they make not themselves more subject than is convenient, lest they should be enforced to flatter them in their vices to whom they have made themselves more subject than they should be. But this 12. consideration doth fitly serve to take away abuses in the Church of God, which the faithful for many ages past, have earnestly desired: It serves to keep the holy Church in peace and tranquillity: Nay rather it serves to prevent schism and division, because that in these latter times many countries and kingdoms have fallen from the Church of Rome upon no other occasion, but because the Pope would ever be enterprising upon their temporal estates. We may firmly believe that Paulus Quintus had a good intention to reform the abuses which have been brought in till this present. But so great is their violence that it is no marvel if men of never so good minds be transported and carried away, contrary to their own inclinations to that very point which they minded to avoid.   

AN Answer to Gersons second book, entitled An examination of this assertion, 
Bellarmine.  Sententia Pastoris etiam iniusta est timenda.  
IN the second book the same john Gerson makes relation, that a certain Commissary of the Popes in some public proceeding of his makes this assertion followlowing, Our sentences, though they be unjust, must both be feared and obeyed. 
Gerson.  Upon which assertion he passeth a censure divided into many Propositions, which are these that follow. First this assertion is false. Secondly this assertion is impossible. Thirdly this assertion is erroneous in point of manners. Fourthly this assertion is suspected of heresy. Fiftly this assertion brings the author of it in suspicion for his faith, and must therefore be called in question till he either explain his sentence or revoke it: and if he persist in his opinion, then is he to be turned over to the secular power. 
Bellarmine.   
This in brief is the judgement of Gerson, which how it is too strict and severe, will appear in the discourse that follows. This Commissary (whether he were true or feigned) not content only to say (according to the saying of Saint Gregory) that his sentences, though they were unjust were to be feared, adds further, that they were likewise to be obeyed. And though he might have forborn the adding of these words, yet do they not deserve so hard a censure as this of Gersons who hath taken that in ill sense, which might have been well enough taken. Gerson doth reprehend two things in this Commissary, of both which we will briefly discourse.  
First he reprehends him for speaking positively without distinction, that his sentences, though they were unjust, were to be feared: for it seems by this he would say that all unjust sentences are to be feared, though we are to understand that not all unjust sentences are to be feared, but such only, as though they be unjust 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 spoke in like sense as S. Gregory and the holy Canons: for as S. Gregory saith that a sentence of the pastor how just or unjust soever it be, is to be feared though he speak without distinction, yet can it not be gathered thereby that every sentence of the pastor is to be feared, but that only which, though it be unjust, 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 only as though they be unjust are not yet manifestly of no validity. To conclude the same scandal that is laid to the words of the Commissary may in like manner be laid to those of S. Gregory.  

Friar Paolo.  In the answer to the second book of Gerson, (wherein are many things which do plainly demonstrate the justice 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, falls a disputing with Gerson, and showing, that the assertion pronounced by a Commissary of the Popes in these words, Our sentences, though they be unjust, must be both feared and obeyed, hath some good sense in which it may be understood, and that therefore Gerson is somewhat too severe a Censor in making an ill construction of that which may be well taken: not remembering how in his answer to the first work he hath not only taken the words of Gerson continually in the worse sense, but farther when Gerson himself would declare his own meaning, omitting the declaration, opposeth himself to the wrong part of the sense which he before had distinguished, and secluded, and where he is forced to confess that the doctrine of Gerson is absolutely true, he hath either found it to be some way injurious, as appears in the ninth consideration, or by a voluntary mistaking of times, will seem to believe that Gersons work was written before the Council of Constance which surely was written since, as this second book was likewise written since that time, because that herein he doth name the foresaid Council: and more doth give the title of Regent to the son of Charles the sixth who took it not to him till the year 1418. which I thought fit to touch by the way, to show that both these books were made in the Popedom of Martinus Quintus, who was a single and undoubted Pope. By which means the common refuge of the Author (who will needs have it that Gersons doctrine was written in a time of schism) helps nothing for all he saith, to avoid the force of his arguments. Gerson doth not deny but that the assertion of the Commissary may have some good sense in it, because he saith the Commissary must be enforced either to express himself or revoke his sentence. But Gerson denies that the assertion in the formal sense it hath, can be true, and true it is that he which examineth an assertion when it is in Thesis, that is universal, without applying it to the particular occasion, doth examine it in the formal sense of the words. But coming to the Hypothesis he takes it in that sense which the particular occasion doth minister. Our Author therefore doth well in examining it both ways, and first taking it in Thesis saith that it follows not of this that all unjust sentences are to be feared, (as Gerson affirms) but this should be gathered only of those, as though they be unjust are not yet to be accounted nullities, since you may conclude as much out of S. Gregory's saying, that the sentence of the pastor, be it just or unjust is to be feared, seeing that this is spoken without distinction, yet nevertheless is to be understood by all men of that which is unjust and yet of validity, and concludes in brief that the scandal which is given to the words of the Commissary may as well be given to the words of Saint Gregory. It had been enough to have said interpretation because this word scandal and S. Gregory agree not in my opinion so well together. But when the Author saith that the saying of S. Gregory is subject to the same interpretation, this is to be understood, either as it is set down in S. Gregory himself, or as it is in Gratianus, or else as it is absolutely separate by itself, and in any man's mouth that will abuse it. As it is in S. Gregory I say it is not subject to this sense: for he speaks in this place of the pastors unjust sentence taken indifferently either with validity or without it, either with or without nullity: but Timenda signifies non per contemptum spernenda, and all men affirm that omnis sententia etiam iniusta, etiam nulla as sententia pastoris non est contemnenda. S. Gregory's words are, Is autem qui sub manu pastoris est, ligari timeat, vel injust nec pastoris sui judicium temere reprehendat, ne si injust ligatus est, ex ipsa tumidae repraehensionis superbia, culpa quae non erat, fiat. And after adds Sed quia haec breviter per excessum diximus, ad dispositionem ordinis redeamus. Then doth S. Gregory oppose timere to temeré tumidé, & superb reprehendere, after which sort omnis sententia etiam iniusta & nulla timenda. But in this sense obeyed, could not be put in steed of feared as the Commissary useth it; because the sentence of a superior which commands sin (being as S. Gregory delivers it) should be feared, but in no manner obeyed. And the Author might well have marked this declaration in Gerson, where he saith a little after, that the saying of S. Gregory might have good sense in it but not the Commissaries, who comes in with his observare.  
Now if the Author will speak of this saying, as it stands in the Decretals, let him hear if he please after what sort the Compilator speaks in the chapter Si Episcopus, § Praemissis auctoritatibus Gregorius non dicit sententiam injust latam esse seruandam, sed timendam, sicut & Vrbanus, timenda est ergo, id est non ex superbia contemnenda. If Gratianus the Monk were living at this present and would take upon him the defence of Gerson, he could not speak more to the purpose then that he said 400. years since. But if the Author will take S. Gregory's saying so apart it cannot be compared to that of the Commissary, because this word timere doth admit constructions which observare doth not, and then no man of learning will allege a saying without looking back to the very spring and taking it in the true understanding, out of which none who writes with sincerity will seek 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 tyrannical words of the Commissary. But let us pass to the second part.  

Bellarmine.  Secondly Gerson doth find fault that the commissary should say his sentences, though they were unjust, were to be feared and obeyed, because obeyed is one thing and feared, another. The injustice of a tyrant may be feared, but not obeyed, and he that saith injustice is to be obeyed, speaks an untruth & rests in an error.  
To this I answer that the Commissary (as may be imagined) spoke not of commanding any unjust matter, but spoke of a sentence of excommunication as it is a penalty which deprives a man of receiving the sacraments and conversing in society with the faithful: and in this sense it may very well be said that an unjust sentence of excommunication ought to be both feared and obeyed: because that to fear an excommunication, and obey an excommunication have no great difference; For he that fears it abstains from receiving the Sacraments and conversing with the faithful and so obeys it; and he that doth not obey it, but doth converse with the faithful and receive the Sacraments doth not fear it. So as Gerson hath equivocated betwixt a sentence which commands an action and a sentence which commands forbearance from doing any thing; and having grounded his discourse upon an equivocation, no marvel though he have built it in the air.  
For defence of the Commissaries assertion in Hipothesis applied to the occasion he first allegeth that the Commissary (as may be imagined) spoke not of commanding any unjust matter, 
Friar Paolo.  but of the sentence of excommunication as it is a penalty; and making difference betwixt these two, concludes [that] Gerson having equivocated betwixt a sentence that commands an action, and a sentence which enjoins forbearance from doing any thing, and grounded his discourse upon an equivocation, no marvel though he have built it in the air. The Reader may see how our Author not knowing of what sentence the Commissary spoke, falls to guessing, and said that it may be imagined he spoke not of commanding any unjust matter but of a sentence of excommunication as it is a penalty, and then concludes affirmatively that Gerson hath equivocated. Gerson hath not equivocated but as the occasion doth require; as I will show you. He knew the speech was of commanding an unjust matter; and hath therein expressed himself further in this little treatise. But the Author is the man that builds in the air, who presupposing a matter and saying [as may be imagined] doth thereupon resolutely condemn Gerson of equivocation, as if that his [as may be imagined] and [thus certainly it is] had the same signification. But the Author partly aware of his o●ne error helps it with saying.  

Bellarmine.  Put case the Commissary spoke of a sentence which should command any matter upon pain of excommunication he hath not spoken ill though it were so. For such a kind of sentence, either it commands a matter which is apparently good; as to make restitution of an other man's goods; or a matter evidently bad, as to rob or blaspheme; or a matter which is in question whether it be good or bad: as to assist in a war which is not known whether it be just or unjust; if it command a matter which is apparently good, it must be both obeyed and feared; that is to say, it must be obeyed by doing that which is commanded for fear of falling into excommunication, and so it may fall out that such a sentence may be unjust. If there have not been three precedent admonitions; yet may it be of validity, because that which it commands is good; It is thundered out by one that had authority for it, and one admonition at least hath preceded. If the sentence be doubtful whether it command that which is ill or not ill yet is it to be obeyed and feared, because that in a case of doubt the subject must submit himself to the judgement of his superior, and not stand upon his own opinion, as is said before, and is the common doctrine of the holy fathers. If a sentence should command a matter which is evidently a sin, then is it neither to be obeyed nor feared. And whosoever saith it should be obeyed, is in an error: and upon an assertion of this kind Gersons five propositions may be true. For there is no question but thi● is false that a sentence which binds a man to sin should be obeyed; & it is unpossible that the same sentence should both command sin, and likewise tie a man to obedience. And more, that sentence is erroneous in point of manners, because it teacheth to do ill; and likewise in matter of faith, because he that saith it is lawful to do ill is an Heretic; and if he repent not himself he must be put into the hands of the secular power that he may be punished according to his deserts, and a sentence of this nature must not only not be obeyed, but also not so much as feared, because our saviour saith nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus and a man should sooner choose to die then obey such a law. Whereby there can be no discovery made of this fourth part which Gerson produceth, which is that some sentences either aught or may be feared, yet not obeyed, speaking of that fear which is an inducement to obedience: though there may be a natural fear of a tyrant which commands wickedness. But neither in this hath the Commissary erred, because he always spoke of such a sentence as though it were unjust, was yet of validity, as this can not be which commands sin; and may be plainly condemned of a nullity. See then how the whole discourse of Gerson is built in the air; And he which translated it & brought it to light to teach the Venetians to despise the Pope's sentences, being just and of validity, shows himself to be more fraught with malice then judgement.  
For the better expressing the meaning of Gerson, 
Friar Paolo.  and declaring the truth, it is very necessary (over and above tha● which we have said before that it is no hard matter to find sentences which are to be feared yet not obeyed) to proceed with the same distinction the author useth, that a sentence must either command a thing which is manifestly good, or plainly bad, or that which is doubtful. And as for the first part when the thing which is commanded is manifestly good and equitable, we hold with the Author that it is to be obeyed. For the third part which imports a doubtfulness, for fear of his equivocations we must distinguish this word doubt, as we have done before, into that which goeth before an orderly admonition, and that which follows after. The first doth not tie us to obedience but to take counsel only, and then if upon consultation the doubt can not be overcome, we agree with him that the subject is then bound to follow the opinion of his superior and not his own.  
And I would crave pardon of the Reader in that I so often repeat this doctrine, because the author comes out so often with his equivocations to make Christians run blindly forward in being led by other men's passions. In the second case when a bad matter is commanded upon pain of excommunication, and a time set down for the fact, or else the excommunication to take effect, this sentence hath two parts: the one which commands obedience to the injunction within the time prescribed, and the other which commands forbearance from the Communion: if it be not obeyed before the said time be expired. As for the first part, I say it is sin to fear it as the author requires, and he that fears it in that sort doth commit sin: and here that which he allegeth is properly verified, nolite timere eos qui occidunt corpus: but for the second part, which is forbearing the Communion, it is more than the subject is bound to; but if he will do it of himself (because he will not transgress the other injunction) he doth not offend. And thus saith Gerson in these words, which the author must needs have read, because in some cases they may be feared by timorous consciences, yet notwithstanding they are not to be obeyed: for there is great difference in saying they are to be obeyed, and they are to be feared: to obey a sentence of excommunication, is understood by Gerson to execute the injunction, either by that means not to incur the sentence of excommunication, or if it be incurred yet to be absolved. But to fear an excommunication, Gerson takes that to be, to forbear the Communion. A sentence of excommunication joined to an injunction which commands an unjust act, he which obeys it doth sin, whereas he that fears it only sins not, though he be not bound to fear it. Wherefore there is great difference in saying, Our sentences, though they be unjust, aught to be feared, because this signifies a forbearing of the Communion, for the reverence is had of them, and the Commissary speaking in this sort had failed no otherwise then in saying aught, in steed of may: but when he said they ought to be obeyed, he committed a greater fault, because they not only not aught, but further, not so much as can be obeyed without sinning, yet may they be feared, though that be more than needs. And this is the fourth part expressly 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 seems, not well assured before of what the Commissary spoke, yet here as if he spoke upon better ground, saith neither in this yet hath the Commissary erred, because he ever spoke of an unjust sentence, yet such a one as was of validity, as this is not which commands sin: which enforceth me to make a little digression to declare the fact which is the subject of this book.  
Before the council of Constance, and about the year 1399. Henry the sixth king of France, called an assembly of the Clergy & Schoolmen of his kingdom, where amongst other things, it was concluded: that the Romish Bulls of reservations and papal provisions, should not be admitted, but that elective 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 observed was many times renewed within the twenty years following, as well by other decrees, made by Churchmen of that kingdom, as by acts of Parliament, which were often renewed and revived notwithstanding all lets and impediments, which were laid in the way by Briefs and Commissions from the court of Rome against the obeying of them. Now it plainly appears in the second proposition, that Gerson spoke of a Commissary which went into France upon some such occasion, and that the time in which Gerson wrote, was in the Popedom of Martinus Quintus may be seen in the same Proposition, where it is said that for 20. years space, the king held a council of Prelates, which council (as Guagninus reports) was first assembled in the foresaid year 1399. And in the third proposition when Gerson spoke of the Son of Charles the sixth he used these words, To his lawful son now Regent. who as Francis Belforest doth testify, tookel to him this title in the year 1418. So as by all these circumstances, it is to be gathered, that this work of Gersons was written after the year 1418. and before 1422. when Charles the sixth died. If then Martinus Quintus was elected in 1417. it is plain the book was written in his Popedom: beside that Gerson himself in the fourth proposition doth nominate the council of Constance as then past. Then must it needs be that the Commissary commanded the execution of some Papal provision, contrary to the orders set down by the foresaid convocation: which according to Gerson was to command an unjust thing, and did therefore contain intolerable errors against public justice, and in his opinion did tend directly to an undue usurpation. All which if it had been observed by our author he had surely forborn to say that the Commissary spoke of unjust sentences, but such as were of validity, seeing plainly in the fourth proposition that this Commissaries sentence is a protestation made against the foresaid acts and decrees, and for this reason Gerson held it of no validity. This Commissary if he had been a man of conscience could not have held his own sentences unjust: but like one that how ever the world went would be obeyed, to ease himself of trouble in justifying his mandates writ in a common process, that his sentences, whether they were just or unjust, were to be obeyed. If unjust sentences might suffer a distinction, of such as were of validity and such as were not of validity, he had not freed himself of all difficulties, because he might yet be encountered with the question of validity: and therefore the Commissary endeavoured in one ambiguous word to include the general, that necessary it was to obey all his sentences, and by this means thought to purchase obedience to that which he particularly intended: not much unlike to this present occasion, wherein many distrusting their own abilities in showing the justice of the Pope's mandates to the common wealth of Venice, say that the Pope is to be obeyed, though he command unjust things. Surely I cannot but much wonder how the author treating of a question which is grounded upon a thing in fact, should conclude contrary to the truth of the story. See than I pray you how all Gersons discourse is built in the air. And now as if in the eight propositions following Gerson had swerved from his purpose, and treated of another matter, the author saith.  

Bellarmine.  To this discourse Gerson doth add certain propositions to show that which the most Christian king was both able and aught 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 upon this principle that the authority of a council is above the Pope's authority: for upon no other reason will Gerson have it that the Pope cannot change the ancient Cannons, upon which the French Church did then ground their liberty, but because he did believe that those Canons which were made by the council, could not be subject to the Pope's will and authority. Now that this principal is declared to be false let us not believe that the Venetians can hold it for true. Secondly because that since Gersons time; In the council of Lateran, under Leo the tenth that pragmatical act was abrogated, which the French churches defended, & agreement was made betwixt Pope Leo and the most Christian king; so as now there is no more talk of the liberty of the French church in prejudice of the Pope. But the most Christian king and all the Bishops of France are at peace and unity with their mother which is the church of Rome, and likewise with their Father, which is the Pope Christ's vicar, & Saint Peter's successor. Thirdly, because this liberty of the French church which Gerson writes of, hath no sympathy with that liberty which is now pretended by the state of Venice; because that was founded upon ancient Canons, and this is contrary as well to the ancient Canons as the modern. 
●rier Pa●●o.   
Gerson having intention to demonstrate in eight propositions that which the most Christian King was to do in defence of the liberty of the french Church, defending it from Bulls of reservations, and Papal provisions, and other abuses of the court of Rome used in those times sets down eight propositions which the Author doth wisely observe to be better dissembled and passed over then handled, seeing plainly that to endeavour to confute them were to confirm them, and to establish that which before he contradicted; That Princes both aught and might oppose themselves to such commandments of Prelates as were exorbitant and unlawful: and therefore excuseth himself from treating of these eight propositions for three causes. First because they are grounded upon this principle, that the authority of a Council is above the Pope's authority; and this he saith he hath declared before to be false. But he might have added, that notwithstanding his declaration it is both held and maintained by the Universities of France, of which Navarra and others give sufficient testimony. Secondly, because that in the Council of Lateran under Pope Leo that pragmatical Act was abrogated; so as at this day there is no more talk of the liberty of the French Church. The Author takes us 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 speaks was one thing, and the pragmatical decree another. The one being before Gersons time; but the decree was made by Charles the 7. about the year 1440. long after this book was written, in which his father Charles the 6. was mentioned as then living. But why, saith he, not here as well, that upon the annulling of this pragmatical decree by Leo, the University of Paris made an appeal to the next council? He presupposeth further that we do not so much as know what is a pragmatical decree, and what a particular order, and whether this latter doth abrogate the former in the whole or in certain parts only. But the most bold and wilful part of all is to believe that we are locked up in a prison, and know not so much as the present occurrences of the world, and are ignorant whether in France there be daily appeals from ecclesiastical 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 men of this sort, and that we knew no more of the world then what stood with the benefit of Churchmen only, and blinded in extreme ignorance we should hold them in admiration just like Gods and Oracles. The third cause which he allegeth for not touching the eight propositions of Gerson, is because the liberty of the French Church which Gerson writes of, was grounded upon ancient Canons, and this of the Venetians is contrary both to the ancient Canons and those of latter time. What truth there is in this last saying of his I will not speak. France is not the country of japan from whence we must expect advertisements but once a year to know how that kingdom is governed. All the French writers make mention of the liberty of their Church, and they are all collected into one volume printed at Paris 1594. out of which I will gather somewhat to this purpose, and leave it to be judged of by the Reader. And thus beside many more particulars it is plainly set down in that book.  
The Popes can neither command nor give order in any thing either in general or particular which concerns temporal matters in the countries and territories under the sovereignty and obedience of the most Christian King; and if so be they command or determine any thing, the kings subjects, yea though they be Churchmen, are not in this respect bound to obey them.  
Although the Pope's supremacy be acknowledged in spiritual causes yet notwithstanding is there no way given in France by any manner of means to an absolute and infinite power, but it is restrained and limited by Conon's and rules of ancient councils of the Church which are received in this kingdom. & in hoc maxime consistit libertas Ecclesiae Gallicanae.  
The most Christian Kings have at all times according to occasions and affairs of their country, assembled or caused to be assembled Synods or provincial and national counsels, in which amongst other thi●●es which did import the conservation of their states they did in ●●ke manner handle affairs concerning the Ecclesiastical rule and discipline of their countries: and in these counsel the Kings themselves have caused prescriptions, chapters, laws, ordinances and pragmatical sanctions to be made under their names and authorities: and at this day there are many to be read in the collection of decrees which are received by the universal Church, and some of them approved by the general councils.  
The Pope can by no means send into France his Legates a latere with commission to reform, adjudge, bestow, dispense or such like matters, which are usually specified in the Bulls 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 upon promise made to the King in writing, and a solemn oath taken by his holy orders, not to exercise the said commission in any kingdom, country, land or Lordship under his subjection but for such time only as shall stand with the King's liking; and as soon as the Legate shallbe advertised of the kings pleasure to the contrary, he shall presentiy desist and stay. In like manner he shall not use any part of his commission, but such as may be with the King's liking, & conformable to his will, without attempting or doing any thing in prejudice of the holy decrees, general counsels immunities, liberties, and privileges of the French Church, and the Universities, and public Colleges of this kingdom. And to this end are the Commissions of the Legates presented to the court of Parliament, where they are seen, examined, approved, published, and registered with such provisoes as shall seem expedient to the Court for the good of the kingdom. With which provisoes, further, are all differences and contentions adjudged which do rise upon occasion of the Legates actions, and no otherwise.  
The Prelates of the French church, though they be sent for by the Pope upon what occasion soever, yet are they not to go out of the kingdom, without commandment, licence, or passport from the king.  
The clauses inserted in the Bull, in Coena Domini, and those in particular in the time of Pope julius the second and others after him, have no admittance in France, in as much as concerns the liberties and privileges of the French church, and the rights of the King and his kingdom.  
The Pope can neither take upon himself nor commit to others the trial of rights, pre-eminences and privileges of the crown of France and the appurtenances, neither doth the king plead or debate his right and pretensions but in his own court.  
The French Church hath ever held, that although by ecclesiastical rules, or (as Saint Cyrill saith writing to Pope Celestine) by ancient custom of all churches, general counsels are not to be assembled or solemnized without the Pope (clave non errant) 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 notwithstanding is it not to be thought or imagined that he should be above the universal counsels, but it is rather held that he is bound to submit himself to the decrees and resolutions of this universal council, as to the commandments of the church, which is spouse to our Lord jesus Christ, and is chief represented by this congregation.  
The Bulls or apostolic letters of citation, be they of present execution, or thundered out for admonition, or of any other sort, are not to be executed in France without a Pareatis from the king or from his officers, and such execution as may be done under permission is done by the ordinary judge appointed by the king, & with the king's authority, not auctoritate Apostolica, to avoid confusion which would grow by the mixture of jurisdictions.  
The Pope can impose no pensions upon benefices of this kingdom which have cures of souls, nor upon others, except it be by consent of the incumbents, & conformable to the holy decrees of counsels and canonical constitutions, or else for the profit of such as do resign upon such express conditions, or to let peace betwixt parties which are at strife and in suit about a litigious benefice.  
The liberties of the French Church are preserved by diligent observing that all Bulls and dispatches which come from the Court of Rome be seen and visited, to know whether there bed any thing in them which might be in any sort prejudicial to the rights and liberties of the French Church, and the authority of the King, of which there is yet to be seen an express ordinance made by Lewis the eleventh, and imitated by the predecessors of the Emperor Charles the 5. which were then vassals of the crown of France, and likewise by himself in an Edict made at Madril in the year 1543. which was put in practice in Spain & other countries of his obedience with more rigour, and less respect than in this kingdom.  
They are likewise preserved by appeals which are interposed to the future council, of which many precedents (even of latter times are to be seen, as of appeals made by the University of Paris from Pope Boniface the 8. Benedict, the 11. Pius the 2. Leo. the 10. and others.  
Were I not restrained by the brevity which in reason I must use in this apology, I might here recite the arrests and acts of Parliament in matter of judgements in criminal causes, where it is decided that in France the Clergy men of whatsoever order they be, may not only be apprehended by the secular magistrate and referred to the Ecclesiastical judge for common trespasses, but adjudged by the laity for heinous offences; and such for which they claim privilege. And further, when for an ordinary fault a man is twice put over to the Ecclesiastical power, the third time he is held incorrigible & is adjudged 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 appear to all men that that which the Author saith is most true, that the liberty of the French Church is grounded upon ancient Canons though it be not therefore true that they are grounded upon them only; but further upon the law of nature, & upon all equity & reason. It may further be seen, that that which the Author saith is not true, that at this present there is no more speech of the liberty of the French church: but rather that most flourishing & mighty kingdom doth employ as much care & study for conserving itself at this present as it hath done in times past. And comparing this liberty with that which the state of Venice doth acknowledge to hold of God, and intent to preserve with all their power, it may appear 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 use of all the natural liberties (which it might freely do) and only to show the greater reverence and respect of the holy sea. By which every man may directly discover how far the last conclusion which the Author 〈◊〉 makes doth differ from truth that the liberty which the state of Venice takes to itself is contrary as well to the old Canons as the new.   

Ephes. 3.  
Ei autem qui potens est omnia facere superabundanter quàm petimus aut intelligimus secundùm virtutem quae operatur in nobis, ipsi gloria in Ecclesia & in Christo jesu in omnes generationes saculi saeculorum. Amen.  
FINIS.