CHAP. I. The Design and Draught of this Work, and the Principle on which it moves.

TO maintain a State in peace and tranquillity, which makes Subjects happy, according to the scope that true Policie proposes [Page 2]to it self; The first thing that is to be done, is to beat off the enemy that hath taken up Arms for the ruine of it, and then to take care, that the quarrels and trouble­some contests, which sometimes a­rise amongst the chief members of the State, proceed not so far, as to occasion a Civil War.

All Christians agree, that the true Church of Jesus Christ, is that Spiri­tual Kingdom, which he came to establish in this world; and which nevertheless, as he himself hath said, is not of this world; because the whole end of it is to procure us eter­nal happiness, a thing, no ways to be attained to upon Earth. Here­ticks and Schismaticks have often ri­sen against the Lord and his Christ, that they might overturn that beau­tifull kingdom, and establish their particular Churches upon its ruines; every one pretending, that his is the Church of the Lord; though, in­deed, they be no more, all of them, but the Synagogue of Satan; and the Kingdom of him, who, in the [Page 3]Gospel, is called the Prince of this world. Besides, it falls out many times, that amongst Catholicks, who alone are members of the true Church, disputes and controversies arise, which may trouble the tran­quillity and peace that Jesus Christ hath left unto them, for securing their happiness in his Kingdom. It is necessary then, for the service of the Church, and for maintaining it always in the flourishing state where­in Jesus Christ hath established it, to fight and beat off the enemies that attack it, and to compose and calme the quarrels that arise amongst the children of the Church, about points that are disputed with heat, on all hands, and which might, in the end, disturb the repose and peace of the Kingdom of the Son of God.

As I have wholly devoted my self to the service of the Church, so have I endeavoured, as much as lay in my power, to acquit my self of the former of those two duties, in my Treatises of Controversie; and especially in that of The true Church. [Page 4]I think I have been pretty success­full in that engagement, and repel­led all the efforts of our Protestants, in making it appear, by evident and unanswerable Arguments, That there is no true Church but ours; which is enough, without more dispute, to put an end to all our Controversies, since they acknowledge, with us, that the true Doctrine is always that of the true Church of Jesus Christ. I discharge my self also, as well as I can, of that obligation, in one part of that Treatise, where I maintain against Hereticks, the declared ene­mies of the Holy See, the primacy, rights, power and authority of the visible head of the Church. At pre­sent then, that I may fulfill my du­ty in its full extent, I must labour to prevent the springing up of any dan­gerous division amongst Catholicks, by reason of some private opinions that divide them, as to that impor­tant subject of the Church, into which they are all equally incorporated.

Now that I may solidly carry on so laudable and necessary an under­taking, [Page 5]It is at first to be presuppo­sed, that according to Catholick doc­trine, the Universal Church, which ought allways to be visible, and to continue without Interruption, un­till the consummation of all things, is the Society of Christians dispersed all over the World, united together by the profession of the True Faith, the participation of the True Sacra­ments, by the bond of the same Law, and under one and the same Head; Because the Church,Joh. 10. v. 16. Ephes. 1. v. 22. August. Ep. 50. whose first and principal property is to be perfect­ly one, is the mystical body of Jesus Christ; and that the members of a living body may receive the in­fluences of life, they must be u­nited to the Head. Hence it is, that, according to Saint Austin, Epist. 48. p. 151. l. de un. Eccl. c. 4. though one may have all the rest, yet if he be separated from the Head, and, by consequent from the body which is united to him, he is, out of the Church Catholick by Schism; as Hereticks are cut off from it, because of the want of True Faith.

And as all the members of the bo­dy have not the same functions; but the parts that constitute it being sub­ordinate one to another in a lovely order, there are some which are for giving motion to the rest, by the spirits that they send over all; and some for distributing the nourish­ment which the rest receive for growth, and for perseverance in the perfection of their state: So amongst the multitudes of believers that make up the Church, and who cannot all be immediately governed, instructed and edified by one single man: for edification of the body of Jesus Christ, there must be, as the great Apostle speaks, a great diversity of Mini­sters, and many Pastours subordi­nate one to another in an holy Hie­rarchy, Act. 20. v. 28. to the end the people may have the Sacraments administred unto them, be instructed and go­verned.

And that's the reason that there are in the world so vast a number of particular Churches, which have their several Bishops, and which are [Page 7]all subordinate to a Principal Church, of which the Bishop is the head of all the rest. And these being assem­bled in name of their Churches, in an Oecumenical Council, represent the Universal Church, which we believe to be infallible, for absolutely deciding the points of Faith, when her Bishops, who are the Pastours and Teachers of Christians, being one and the same as well as she, say, in her name, to all her members in perfect unity, Visum est Spiritui Sancto, & vobis.

For as the Universal Church is a whole consisting of all believers, and of all particular Churches, which are one, by the Communion which they have with one Principal Church, that is the source, principle, root and centre of their Unity, as Saint Cyprian speaks: So, according to the doctrine of the same holy Father,Episcopatus unus est, multorum Episcoporum concordi numerositate diffusus. Cypr. l. de unit. Eccl. & Epist. 55. there is but one Episcopacy in the Church, whereof each Bishop fully possesses a part; and by consequent there is but one Chair, wherein all Bishops sit, by virtue of the Union [Page 8]which they have with him,Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in so­lidum pars tenetur. Cypr. Ep. 52. Ecclesia una & Ca­thedra una Domini vo­ce fundata. Cyp. Ep. 40. Ad Trimitatis in­star, cujus una est at­que individua pote­stas, unum esse per di­versos antistites sacer­dotium. Sym. Ep. ad Aeon. Arclat. whom they ought to acknowledge for their Head. This Pope Symmachus ex­plains, in a very sublime manner, by an excellent comparison taken from the Trinity. In the same man­ner, saith he, as there is but one Om­nipotence by the Unity of Essence and Nature, which so unites the three Persons, that they are but one God: So amongst the many Ortho­dox Churches throughout all Chri­stendom, there is but one onely Priest­hood, that is to say, but one Episco­pacy through the unity, not onely of Faith and Belief, but also of com­munion of all the Bishops with a Head, whence results that unity which is inseparable from the Church of Jesus Christ.

This being presupposed, in which all Catholicks do agree,Aug. on Ps. 101. it is certain that Jesus Christ himself hath esta­blished his Church, which he pur­chased by his own bloud, and unto which he hath given the Faith, Act. 20. v. 28. the Sacraments, the Law of Grace in his Gospel, and a visible Head to repre­sent [Page 9]him as his Vicar upon Earth. And as from a very small beginning it hath enlarged it self (according to the Prophecies) over the whole earth: So also the Apostles and their Successours, after the departure of Jesus Christ, have founded particular Churches, establishing them them­selves, or ordaining Bishops for go­verning the believers distributed in­to several Dioceses in all the quar­ters of the World.

Now seeing that particular Church, which within a few years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, was setled in the Capital City of the Empire, is without doubt, the most illustrious of all others; that on the one hand, Hereticks not being able to endure its splendour and greatness, have al­ways furiously risen up and conspi­red to destroy it; and that on the other, all Catholicks, who are sensi­ble of the real advantages that di­stinguish it from all others, are ne­vertheless divided about certain pre­rogatives which some attribute to it, and others dispute: I shall shew, [Page 10]without speaking of other Churches, what hath been the first establish­ment of that of Rome, what is the excelling dignity thereof, and what are the prerogatives, rights and pri­vileges of its Bishops.

And because a subject of this na­ture is not to be handled by Philo­sophical reasonings, but by matters of fact drawn from Scripture, inter­preted according to the Fathers, Councils, and ancient Traditions, which are the two principles of true Theology: therefore you are not to expect any speculation or Philoso­phy in this Treatise, which is purely Historical. I do in the very entry declare, that there is nothing of mine in this work. For I doe no more, but as a sincere and exact Histo­rian, barely alledge, by uncontrover­ted matters of fact, drawn from the one or other of those two sources, what venerable Antiquity belie­ved concerning that important mat­ter.

This method we usefully employ against our Protestants. We make [Page 11]it clearly out to them, that what we believe of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Invocati­on of Saints, prayer for the dead, and other controverted points, is the ancient Doctrine of the Church; and that so their belief contrary to ours being new, is false. We force them to acknowledge, that what they hold with us concerning Infant Baptism, the Baptism of Hereticks, and the change of the Sabbath into Sunday, of which Scripture makes no mention, they have it onely from Tradition, and the ancient Practice of the Church, and that therefore they reject the anabap­tists, because of the Novelty of their Doctrine.

And this is also the great Princi­ple that the ancient Fathers made use of against the Hereticks of their times.

Let us onely consult the order of time, Ex ipso ordine mani­festatur id esse domini­cum & verum, quod sit prius traditum: id autem extraneum & falsum, quod sit poste­rius immissum. Ter­tull. de praescr. c. 32. and we shall know that that which hath been first taught us, cometh from the Lord, and that it is truth; but that on the [Page 12]contrary, what new thing hath since been introduced, cometh of the Stran­ger and is false.

And in his fourth Book against Marcion: Quis inter nos de­terminabit, nifi tempo­ris ratio, ei praescri­bens autoritatem quod antiquius reperietur, & ei praejudicans viti­ationem quod posterius revincetur? l. 4. cont. Marci. c. 4. Who can put an end to our differences, unless it be the order and decision of time, which Authorizes the Antiquity of Doctrine, and de­clares that defective which comes, not till after that ancient Be­lief?

Upon the same ground St. Je­rome, who flourished about the end of the fourth Century, said to one of his Adversaries, who would have made a new Party in the Church: Why do you offer after four hundred years, Cur post quadrin­gentos annos docere nos niteris quod ante nescivimus? Hier. E­pist. ad Pammach. & Ocean. to teach us that which was not known before?

Pope Celestin I. Exhorting the Gallican Church to repress a sort of People that would have established new Doctrines, concludes with these very pithy words.Corripiantur hujus­modi: non sit illis li­berum habere pro vo­luntate sermonem. De­sinat incessere novitas vetustatem. Coelest. Ep. ad Episc. Gall. Let such men be corrected; let them not have the li­berty to say what they please; let not Novelty insult over Antiquity.

And Sixtus III. Animated by [Page 13]the same Spirit that his Predecessour was, and following his steps, speaks to John of Antioch with the same force, writing to him in these terms: Let no more be allowed to Novelty, Nihil ultra liceat Novitati, quia nihil addi convenit vetusta­ti. Six. III. Ep. ad Joan. Antioch. because nothing ought to be added to Antiquity.

Not but that the Church, which makes no new Articles of Faith, may declare after many Ages, being instructed by the Holy Ghost, which successively teaches her all truth, that certain matters that have not been before examined, whether or not they be Articles of Faith, are really such, as she hath done upon many occasions, obli­ging us to believe distinctly what was not as yet known to be matter of Faith. But that we ought so to stick to that which hath been belie­ved in Antiquity, in matter of Do­ctrine, and especially in the four or five first Ages, when, according to our Protestants themselves; there was as yet no corruption in Doctrine, that new Doctours may add nothing of their own invention, nor esta­blish [Page 14]any Novelty contrary to it. This solid Principle being equally received by Catholicks and Pro­testants, I hope to satisfie both, in declaring calmly and without dis­pute, by the bare relation of evi­dent matters of Fact, what the an­cient Church hath believed concer­ning the establishment of the Church of Rome, and the Prerogatives and rights of her Bishops. This then is the Method which I shall trace in this Treatise.

CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome.

ALL Catholicks who know that the Popes are the Successours of St. Peter, agree amongst them­selves as to that point, but not with all Hereticks. For there are some Modern who confidently deny that that Divine Apostle ever was at Rome, or that he fixed his Chair ei­ther there or in the City of Anti­och. Calvin. l. 4. Inst. c. 6. They ground so extraordina­ry and new an Opinion upon the silence of St. Luke and St. Paul, who having been at Rome, would not have failed to have spoken of St. Peter, and to have found Christi­ans, if he had already Preached the Gospel there; besides, they ground it upon a certain Chronology which they have made, as they thought fit, of the Acts of the Apostles, and which can no way agree with that History of St. Peter; and, in [Page 16]fine, upon the very Epistles of that Apostle, who gives us to know that his Mission was into Asia, and that he died at Babylon.

There is nothing that gives a clearer proof of the weakness and delusion of the wit of man, than when, by that Pride, which is so natural to him, he shakes off that Authority to which he is obliged to submit, and for that end, opposes it by his false reasonings, that serve for no other purpose but to discover his blindness and vanity. Though we had elsewhere no Intelligence of the Voyage to, and Chair of St. Peter at Rome; yet no man of sense would suffer himself to be persuaded by such in­conclusive arguments, so easie to be refuted. St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts of the Apostles: Hath he mentioned there any thing of St. Paul's Journey into Arabia, of his return to Damascus, and then three years after to Jerusalem, of his Travels into Galatia, his being ravished up into Heaven, his three Shipwrecks, his eight Scourgings, [Page 17]and of a thousand things else that he suffered? shall one conclude from that silence, that all is false? And though St. Paul had not written of these things himself, or if his Epi­stles to the Galatians and Corin­thians, Galat. 1. 2 Cor. 2. had never come to our hands, would that silence of St. Luke have been of any greater force, to prove that that is not true, seeing it is really so, and was true before St. Paul wrote any thing of it? That Evangelist, saith St. Jerome hath past over a great many things which St. Paul suffered, as likewise that St. Peter established his Chair first at Antioch, In Ep. ad Galat. c. 2. and then at Rome.

And as to the Chronology calcu­lated to refute the two Foundations of Antioch and Rome, we maintain that it is false; and it is easie to give another fixed by the ablest wri­ters of Ecclesiastical History and Chronologers, which perfectly a­grees with the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Peter and St. [Page 18] Paul: Take it thus then in a few words.

The year of our Lord thirty five; that Apostle was sent with St. John to Samaria, Anno 35. to lay hands upon those whom the Deacon St. Philip had newly converted there;Act. 8. v. 20. And having Preached the Gospel to the People of that Province, he re­turned to Jerusalem, where St. Paul, three years after his Conversion, went to visit him in the year thirty nine. Now seeing the Church at that time lived in a profound peace, St. Peter took so favourable a time to go visit,Anno 39. as St. Luke saith in ex­press terms,Galat. 1. v. 18. Act. 9. v. 31. 32. all the Believers that the Disciples dispersed through the Provinces, during the Persecution of the Jews, after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, Act. 11. v. 19. Euseb. in Chron. Chrysost. Hieron. Greg. M. & alii. had gained to Christ.

And then it was that being infor­med that many of these dispersed Disciples had by their Preaching wrought much fruit at Antioch, he went and setled his Patriarchal Chair [Page 19]in that great City the Capital of the East, as the Ancients assure us.

From thence; seeing he had the care of all the Churches, having given necessary orders for the go­vernment of that of Antioch, Anno 40, 41. Anno 42. he re­turned into Judaea; visits Lidda, Joppa, Caesarea; opens a door to the calling of the Gentiles, by the Con­version of Cornelius the Centurion; and returns to Jerusalem, Act. 11. v. 4. where ha­ving declared what God had revealed to him upon that Subject, he was in­formed by the relation of those that came from Antioch, that the num­ber of Believers increased there day­ly. And therefore St. Barnabas was sent thither,V. 22. who finding that there was a great Harvest there, went to fetch St. Paul from Tarsus to assist him in the work;V. 25. and both of them laboured in that holy employment for the space of a whole year, with so great success,Anno 43. that there the Be­lievers, who were wonderfully in­creased in number, professing pub­lickly their faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, were first [Page 20]called Christians. After that they carried to Jerusalem, where St. Pe­ter was,V. 30. and into all Judaea the Alms which they had collected from the fervent charity of these first Christi­ans of Antioch, for the relief of the Poor during that great Famine which the Prophet Agabus foretold,Act. 11. and which was universal all over the world,Anno 44. the second year of the Empire of Claudius, and the four and fourtieth of Jesus Christ. Dio. Cass. l. 60.

In the mean time Herod Agrippa whom that Emperour had the year before, sent home with freedom in­to his Kingdom of Judaea, caused the Apostle St. James Brother of St. John to be put to death before Easter; Act. 12. v. 1. and that he might still more gain the affections of the Jews, mor­tal Enemies to the Christians, he cast St. Peter into Prison, to be served in the same manner after the Feast. But an Angel delivered him out of his hands, and brought him forth out of Prison. After that, this Apostle past by Antioch into the lesser Asia, Petr. Epist. Metaph. ex Antiq. where he spent most part [Page 21]of that year, instructing the Belie­vers, and erecting Sees in Cappado­cia, Galatia, Pontus and Bithynia; And having from thence embarked for Rome, according to the orders he had received from the Holy Ghost, he arrived there about the end of that second year of Claudius, as all the most ancient Authours who have written of St. Peter do agree.

In that capital City of the world, after he had converted a sufficient number of Jews and Gentiles for founding a Church, he established the year following, which was the fourty fifth of Christ, his Pontifical Chair,Anno. 45. leaving that of Antioch to Evodius, and there he held it till the consummation of his Martyr­dom, that he suffered in the year threescore and nine, which was the thirteenth of the Empire of Nero. Anno 69. So that reckoning from the year thirty nine, to fourty five, we shall find that St. Peter's See con­tinued seven years at Antioch; and from fourty five to threescore and nine when he suffered Martyrdom, [Page 22]we have the twenty five years of his Episcopacy at Rome.

Not that he lived there constantly during all that time, no more than he did at Antioch, all the seven years that he was Bishop there. For seeing he was both an Apostle and a Bishop, he travelled often, accor­ding to the Vocation of his Apostle­ship, into divers Countries of Eu­rope and Asia, there to plant Chur­ches; and as Bishop he governed his own, either Personally, or by his Vicars during his absence: So that the quality of an Apostle is not at all inconsistent with that of a Bishop: And if all Bishops be not Apostles, all the Apostles were Bishops, and ordained Bishops; And for that reason it is that all these are the Successours of the Apostles. St. Peter however, since no man be­fore him had Preached the Gospel at Rome, Oros. l. 7. c. 6. lived there seven years, un­till the year fifty one, when he was forced to leave it because of the Edict of the Emperour Claudius, Sueton. in Claud. who banished thence the Jews. [Page 23]That obliged him to return into Asia; And it is certain that he was again at Antioch, where he had a great contest with St. Paul, either before,Act. 18. v. 2. Galat. 2. v. 11. or after the Council of the Apostles, where he was present, and which was held the same year at Jerusalem.

Now seeing after that Council St. Peter could not return to Rome during the life of the Emperour who had banished him thence, and that all the other Apostles almost, had had their Provinces in the Kingdoms of the East; he took that time to go Preach the Gospel to the Nations of the West, even those most remote: For some have written that he went as far as England. Metaph. ex Antiq. Orig. praef. in Epist. ad Rom. Theodor. & alii. So that when St. Paul wrote from Corinth, and not from Ragusa to the Romans, in the year fifty eight, and when next year after, he was carried Prisoner to Rome; where he con­tinued two years, untill the year sixty one, St. Peter was not as yet come back. So nothing can [Page 24]be concluded from the silence of St. Paul, who speaks not of St. Peter no more than St. Luke does, who was with St. Paul at Rome.

And it cannot be said that there were no Christians in that City, when that Apostle arrived there, seeing he had written to them the year before an excellent Epistle, wherein he says,Rom. 1. v. 8. that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, and that he longed to see them, that he might impart to them some Spiritual Gifts, to the end they might be established: which he adds, says Theodoret, and makes use of that word establish, because the great St. Peter had al­ready Preached unto them the Do­ctrine of the Gospel.Theod. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 1. Besides that, when St. Paul arrived first at Rome, the Brethren came to meet him, as St. Luke mentions,Act. 28. who in many places of the Acts calls the Chri­stians by that name; and the chief men amongst the Jews who came to wait upon him at his Lodging, asked him not what that Sect was, [Page 25]as if there had been no Christians at Rome, and that they had not learned from them what their be­lief was, but what he believed, because they saw that all who ow­ned that Profession were in all pla­ces opposed and contradicted. This is a Chronology exactly conform to the Scripture, and that very well agrees with the two Voyages of Antioch and Rome, which is the Question in hand.

And as to what is objected to us, that St. Peter wrote from Babylon, 1 Pet. c. 5. v. 13. where it is also affirmed that he died, there is nothing so pitifully weak. For it is so clear in that place that Babylon signifies the City of Rome, that that passage may even be used to prove by Scripture that St. Peter hath been at Rome. And indeed, it is by the very same that Eusebius makes it out that that Epistle was written at Rome; Euseb. Hist. l. c. 74. when he saith: St. Peter makes it appear that he wrote it at Rome, when he calls that City Babylon. Does not St. Jerome say the same,Hierom. de script. Eccl. in Marc. and [Page 26]after him all those who have writ­ten upon that Epistle before the Reformers? But who knoweth not, that Ancient Rome, which accor­ding to the observation of St. Austin, Aug. de civitat. l. 18. c. 22. Oros. l. 7. c. 2. Tertul. cont. Marc. l. 3. c. 13. was built at the same time when the Empire of the Babylonians was about to fall, is by the Ancients called Babylon, Revel. 17. and especially that St. John in the Revelation gives it no other name when he speaks of it at the time when it Persecuted the Christians, and so cruelly shed the bloud of so many thousand Martyrs? And what is most pleasant, the Prote­stants are pleased to give to Chri­stian Rome the name of Babylon; and are not satisfied that Pagan Rome should be so called by St. Peter.

That being presupposed, and all the weak batteries of our Adver­saries so easily overthrown, I had reason to say, that if we knew not by other means, that St. Pe­ter had been at Rome, yet all the reasons that are objected against [Page 27]it, would never persuade a Man of sense of the contrary. How must it be then at present, when we have an invincible Argument to convince us of that truth which we ought never to abandon, even though we could not disentangle our selves from the captious Argu­ments wherewith they assault us? For that can never proceed but from the weakness of our mind, and not the defect of the object, which, when it is once certainly known to be true, is necessarily so always.

What is that invincible Argu­ment then, which ought to con­vince us of this truth? It is that which, as I have said, I shall em­ploy throughout this whole Hista­rical Treatise, I mean Antiquity, according to that great Principle which at first I laid down; To wit, that that which is newly broach­ed, if it be contrary to what hath been believed in the Primitive Church, is false, because ancient belief, and that descends to us by [Page 28]Tradition, especially when we trace it back to the age of the Apostles, is always truth it self.

Now all Antiquity hath belie­ved,Blondel de la prim. en l'Eglise. Chap. 32. p. 823. that St. Peter was at Rome: That is so true, that Mr. David Blundel, the most knowing of all our Protestant Ministers, frankly confesses it. And he must needs doe so; for being a Man of such parts, and so well read in the An­cients, as appears in his Works, he cannot deny, but that almost all the Latin and Greek Fathers have asserted it;Apud Prudent. in pe­ris. toph. Amongst the Latins, Prosper, Orosius, St. Augustine, Saint Jerome, Prudentius, Optatus, Saint Ambrose, Lactantius, Arnobius, St. Cyprian, Hippolytus, Tertullian, and St. Irenoeus; and amongst the Greeks, Theodoret, St. Cyril of Alex­andria, Apud Euseb. l. 2. c. 24. Ibid. Ibid. c. 13. St. Chrysostom, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Athanasius, Peter of Alexandria, Eusebius, Ori­gene, Clemens Alexandrinus, Denis of Corinth, Cajus contemporary with Tertullian, and Papias a disciple and hearer of St. John. Nor shall [Page 29]we mention all the other Writers, who, in all succeeding ages, have constantly asserted the same thing; insomuch, that no Heretick nor Schismatick ever dreamt of calling it in question, before our Prote­stants, who are the Authours of that impudent and unjustifiable no­velty, which can never pass with a Man of sense, in opposition to all venerable Antiquity, and to the authority of so many great men, who have constantly, in all ages, given testimony to that truth, from our present times up to the age of the Apostles.

For to say, as some have done, That all the Fathers, and these Learned men have been deceived by an equivocal word, taking that part of the lesser Asia, Quas omnes (pro­vincias) aetas nostra Anatoliam vocat. Ʋn­de apud Barbaros pars illa in qua Asia, Bi­thynia, Galatia, & Cappadocia prima, Rom. id est Romania, sive Romaea appellatur. Pars vero quae ad austrum est, in qua Lycia, Pamphylia, & Cilicia sunt, Otto-Manidia, id est, Fa­miliae Ottomani, quibus illa successit, quondam dicebantur. Dominic. Marius Niger Venet. Asiae Pomment. 1. de Asia Minore. where St. Pe­ter Preached, for the City of Rome; and which, as the Geographer Ma­rius Niger writes, was called Rom. [Page 30]or Romania: it is a ridiculous ex­travagance, and no less shamefull ignorance. It is onely the Turks, who, since they became Masters of the Eastern Empire, have called the neighbouring Countrey to Constan­tinople, especially beyond the Bos­phorus, Romania, or Rom. or Ro­melia, as that Geographer says; for others give that name of Ro­mania, or Romelia, onely to Thrace. This being so, Can it be affirmed, without disgrace, that these holy Fathers, who flourished many A­ges, not onely before the Conquest of the Turks, but even before the founding of Constantinople, have been deceived, in imagining, that St. Peter was at Rome, because it hath been said, that he Preached in the Countrey of Rom.? See what extravagance they are capable of, who, to satisfie their passion, dare confront their ridiculous novelty with Antiquity, of which we may say with Pope Celestine I. Desinat in­cessere novitas vetustatem.

CHAP. III. That the Church of Rome hath been founded by St. Peter; that he was the first Bishop of it; and that the Popes are his Successours therein.

IT will not be difficult to confirm the truth of this by the same prin­ciple of Antiquity, to which I con­fine my self in this Treatise. For all the same Fathers almost,Cyprian. ad Corn. Ep. 55. & lib. de unit. Optat. Cont. Parm. l. 2. Ambros. de Sacr. l. 3. c. 1. Hierom. de Script. in Petr. & alibi. Hegesip. apud Hier. de Script. Ruffin. in­vect. Sulp. Sever. Hist. Sacr. l. 3. August. contra Petil. l. 2. c. 51. and ancient Authours, who assure us that Saint Peter was at Rome; say also, that he founded that particular Church. It is true, that many of them joyn St. Paul with him in that function, as it is done at present; and there is reason for so doing, because both of them Preached the Gospel there, in different times, and both at the same time Consecrated that illustrious Church by their Martyrdom. But when they speak, as they very often do, of the Episcopacy and Chair of Rome, they call it solely the Chair of St. Peter, without joining St. Paul [Page 32]with him. So that it is not to be doubted, but that all Antiquity hath acknowledged St. Peter, of all the Apostles, to have been the first Bishop of Rome, De la Primanté en l'Eglise. p. 44. as Mr. Blondel con­fesses.

So also when Optatus Melevitanus, St. Jerome, St. Austin, and the rest, give a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome, they place always St. Peter first, and bring them down to him that possessed the See in their time, to shew the uninterrupted Successi­on of Popes from St. Peter, whose lawfull Successours they are, and whose Chair they fill, as the holy Fathers and Councils frequently say.

I know there are some who have said,Hilar. in Frag. p. 23. Cypr. Ep. 43. Optat. contra Parm. l. 1. That Bishops, being the Suc­cessours of the Apostles, are in that quality all of them in St. Peter's Chair. We say the same also, and it must needs be granted, for the reason that I shall alledge, according to one of the Principles which I laid down at first, in the first Chapter of this Treatise.

As the Universal Church is one, and a body constituted of all parti­cular Churches, in union with one principal or chief Church, the prin­ciple and centre of their unity: So there is but one general Chair in the Church, and one Episcopacy,Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata. Cypr. Epist. 40. Optat. contra Par­men. l. 2. com­posed of all the Episcopal Chairs, by the communication which they have with the Head of that Church, and with that chief Chair whence their unity proceeds. So that, as all Be­lievers are members of the same Church, when they are united to its Head; so all Bishops, taken in gene­ral, and every one in particular, sit in the same Chair, by the communion which they have with him that sits in that principal Chair, from whence, by that union which they preserve with it, results the unity of the Chair and of Episcopacy in the Church.

But, besides that, every one of them hath his particular Chair, wherein none of the rest have any share, as they have all a share in that Chair which is but one in the Universal Church. And because [Page 34]Saint Peter is head of it, as we shall presently make it appear, not one­ly his particular Chair of Rome, but likewise that of the whole Church is by the holy Fathers often called the Chair of St. Peter. It is in that sense then, that all Bishops sit in St. Peter's Chair, as all the Doc­tours of the old Law sate in the Chair of Moses. But for all that, all Bishops sit not in St. Peter's par­ticular Chair, no more than his Suc­cessours in that Chair, sit in the Chairs of other Bishops, every one possessing entirely his own, as a part of the Universal Episcopacy. And thus also is to be understood what is said, that all Bishops are the Suc­cessours of St. Peter. Take it in this manner.

I have clearly made it out in my Treatise of the true Church, even according to Calvin, and the ablest of our Protestants, that the true mark of the true Church, which di­stinguishes her from all others, is the perpetuity that will make her conti­nue, without ever failing, to the end [Page 35]of the World. And seeing she is that great Sheep-fold, wherein all believers, who are the sheep of Jesus Christ, are gathered together into one flock, she cannot subsist in that unity without there be Pastours and Sheep; some to teach, and others to receive the truths which they are to believe; guides, and people, to be guided; and unless these pastours and guides succeed one another, without interruption to the end, for governing and guiding believers.

Now that is not to be seen but in the Catholick Church, by the Uni­on that all these particular Churches and their Bishops have with him whom they own for their Head. For in what time soever these Chur­ches began to be planted, some soo­ner, some later, they may ascend, by virtue of that Union, through a per­petual Succession, from Pastours to Pastours, and from Bishops to Bi­shops, till they come to him whom Jesus Christ hath given them for Head. And because St. Peter is he, as we shall presently see; it is evi­dent, [Page 36]that it is by that that they are his Successours; since by the Union which they have with the Bishop of Rome their Head, who, in a streight line, succeeds to St. Peter, they mount up, without interruption, by a continuity and collateral Successi­on, even to that Apostle, as all the branches of a Tree are united to the root in oblique and indirect lines, by the union with the trunk and body of that Tree. But we must now consider the rights and prero­gatives of St. Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome.

CHAP. IV. Of the Primacy of St, Peter, and that he hath been established by Jesus Christ head of the Ʋniversal Church.

I Shall not enlarge in a long discus­sion of this point, which the great and large volumes that so many lear­ned men of the past and present age have composed for clearing of it, have drained, in alledging all that solidly can be said, as to this Article of our Faith, on which depends that perfect unity, which we avow to be essential to the Church. I shall onely say what all Catholicks agree in, that Jesus Christ chose St. Peter, amongst all his Apostles, to give him, not onely the Primacy of order, honour and rank, by assigning him the first place, as one chief in dignity amongst his e­quals; and in those gifts, talents and graces which are inseparable from the Apostleship and Episcopacy; but also the Primacy of Jurisdiction, [Page 38]Power and Authority over all belie­vers in the whole Church, of whom he appointed him head.

This they learn from the Gospel, in that famous passage of the six­teenth Chapter of St. Matthew, where St. Peter, having answered for all the Apostles to our Saviour, who had asked them, what they thought of him, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God: our heavenly Lord, commending his faith, said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and bloud hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee that thou art Cephas (that is to say, in the Syriack Tongue, a Stone) and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail a­gainst it. And I will give unto thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

Most of the holy Fathers, especi­ally those that were before the Coun­cil [Page 39]of Nice, interpret to the person of St. Peter, these words, and upon that rock I will build my Church, accor­ding to the reference that they must necessarily have to those which go before, I say unto thee that thou art Cephas; that is to say a Stone or Rock. Tertul. de praescr. c. 32. Origen. in Ep. 14. hom. 5. Cypr. Epist. 71. p. 73. ad Jabaium. Hilar. lib. 6. de Tri­nit. Greg. Nist. in opera de adv. Domini. Ambros. in cap. 2. Ep. ad Eph. Chrysost. in Matt. 15.83. & in cap. 1. Ep. ad Gal. Hier. in Matth. c. 6. August. in Joan. Tract. 124. There are others, particularly since the Council of Nice, who, to confute the impiety of the Arians, have un­derstood them of that illustrious con­fession of Faith that St. Peter made, when he said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; and some have referred them to Jesus Christ himself, who is the foundation and corner Stone, of which St. Paul saith, That no man can lay another than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

But besides, that the same Authours say elsewhere, that the Church is founded on St. Peter, it is easie to re­concile all these opinions together, which, without any difficulty, may be reduced to one, that results from all the three, by saying, that these words ought to be understood of the [Page 40]person of St. Peter, confessing Jesus Christ to be the Son of the living God. It is evident, that these three inter­pretations naturally resolve into this, which comprehends the Faith of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the confessi­on of that Faith, and the person who made that confession.

Now seeing the Church is the So­ciety of true Christians, and that the first object of the Faith of Christians, as Christians, Ephes. 2. is Jesus Christ; by the same it is, that Jesus Christ is the first foundation of the Church, and that no other than he can be laid, for grounding and establishing the Faith of Christianity.

Moreover, as it is not enough to be a true Christian, to believe in Jesus Christ, Rom. 11. and to preserve that Faith in the heart, if we do not also confess that we believe in him: therefore it is that the Church again is founded upon the confession of the Divinity of Christ.

In fine, besides Faith and the pub­lick profession of it, the Church also, which is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, [Page 41]must be well governed. For that purpose, he hath appointed in it A­postles, Ephes. 4. v. 11.12. Prophets, Evangelists, Pastours and Teachers, that they may labour in perfecting the Saints, according to the functions of their Ministery, for edifying of the body of Jesus Christ. And thence it is, that because of that illustrious confession of the Divinity of the Son of God, which St. Peter made in name of all the Apostles, he established him the foundation of the Ministery and Government of the Church, by giving him the over­sight and authority over all the rest, who are subordinate to him, in their functions and inferiour Ministeries, as to their Head. Wherefore Jesus Christ immediately after said to him, giving him that supream power and authority in his Church. I will give unto thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, shalt be loosed in heaven. And that promise, which could not fail of being accomplished, was then fulfil­led, [Page 42]when the Son of God, after his resurrection, said to him thrice, Feed my sheep. John 20.

I know, that according to the sen­timent of the Fathers, and principal­ly of St. Augustine, he spake these words unto him, as to one who was the Figure of the Church, with rela­tion to all the Apostles, and their Successours the Bishops, who are al­so the foundations and pillars of the Church, according to St. Paul, and to whom Jesus Christ hath said,Cypr. Ep. 27. de laps. Hier. l. 1. cont. Jo­vin. August. Con. 2. in Psal. 30. & in Psal. 86. that whatsoever they shall bind upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever they shall loose upon Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. But there is this difference betwixt Saint Peter and all the rest, that when he speaks to all in common, he gives them that which is common to all the Apostles, and wherein they are all equal, as the power of admini­string Sacraments, teaching all Nati­ons, baptizing, forgiving sins, and what belongs to the other Aposto­lical functions. And when he ap­plies himself particularly to Saint [Page 43] Peter, Cypr. lib. de unit. Eccles. Ep. 55. & 73. Hieronym. adv. Jo­vinian l. 2. Optat. cont. Parmen. l. 2. he gives him that which is proper to himself, speaking to him in the singular number, for setling in his Church, the unity whereof he makes him the principle and foundation, to which all the rest must have a reference, that they may be but one, by the union which they ought necessarily to have with their Head, without which they neither are, nor can doe any thing.

For as St. Peter was the first that publickly confessed the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which he had by reve­lation, and that the rest knew it not but by his means, and that they an­swered onely by his mouth, joyn­ing with him on that great occasion: So Jesus Christ, in consideration of that primacy of Confession, hath gi­ven him the primacy over all the rest, making him their head, and that one, that original, foundation and principle of unity, upon which he hath built the Church, in regard of its government. So that although all the rest received Imme­diately [Page 44]from Christ the power of binding and loosing, and of govern­ing their Churches, yet they cannot exercise it but by virtue of the uni­on which they have with St. Peter, without which they would continue no longer in unity, nor by conse­quent in the Church. And it is up­on that that the Primacy of Saint Peter is founded, and that he is next to Jesus Christ, and not as he is, by his own power and virtue, but by commission, the foundation and head of the Church.

The Protestants, who, by a deplo­rable Schism, not without Heresie, have gone out of the unity of the Church, by making separation from the Chair of St. Peter, which is the principle, original and centre there­of; have, in vain, disputed this Doc­trine, with all their force, untill this present. I shall not here undertake a refutation of their objections, whereby they pretend to overthrow it, and whereof the weakness hath been made appear, in a vast number of great and learned Answers that [Page 45]have been made to them. But to avoid disputing, which is unsepara­ble from the opposing of arguments to arguments, for refuting adversa­ries; and that I may onely make use of that great maxime, which a­lone I am to employ in this Treatise, I shall onely say in one word, that if we consult Antiquity, we shall find, by tracing it to the first Ages of the Church, that it hath ever con­stantly believed that Primacy of St. Peter.

This is easily proved by the testi­monies of almost all the holy Fa­thers,Hippolyt. Martyr. de consum. mundi. Tertul. de praes. c. 22. Iren. Origen in Ep. ad R. c. 6. Cypr. lib. de unti. Eccl. Epiph. in Anchor. Amb. in Luc. c. 10. Greg. Naz. or. 26. Hilar. in Matth. c. 16. Hier. adv. Jovin. l. 2. Optat. Melev. cont. Parmen. l. 2. Cyrill. Alex. in Jo­an. c. 12. August. in Joan. tr. 11.36. Ep. 161. who, in an infinite number of places in their Works, say, That he is the Rock and Foundation of the Church; that his Chair is the chief Chair, to which all the rest must unite; that he hath the Supreme power to take care of the flock of the Son of God; that he hath re­ceived the Primacy, to the end that the Church might be one; that he is the first, the chief and the head of the Apostles; that he is the in­spectour of all the Universe; he, to [Page 46]whom Jesus Christ hath committed the disposition of all things,Chrysost. hom. 13. in Matth. in Joan. hom. 87. de beat. Ignat. St. Leo, Serm. in Anniversar. su. As­sumpsit. to whom he hath given the rule over his brethren, who is preferred be­fore all the Apostles, and who go­verns all Pastours; with many other encomium's of that nature, all which magnificently express his Primacy; and which have been often repea­ted and approved in General Coun­cils.

And that supereminent dignity of St. Peter was so well known, even of the Pagans, in Antiquity, that Porphyrius, one of their greatest Phi­losophers, upbraided the Christians, as St. Jerome informs us, that their St. Paul was so rash, as to have da­red to reprove the Prince of the A­postles, and his Master.Hieron. Ep. 89. Since then all venerable Antiquity hath belie­ved the Primacy of St. Peter, which our Protestants contest by the no­velty of their Doctrine, we have reason, once more, to say to them, Desinat incessere novitas vetusta­tem.

After all, it is so evident, that Jesus Christ, who will have his Church to continue to the end of the World, hath given St. Peter the Primacy and Supreme dignity of vi­sible Head of the Church, for him­self and Successours, in that Princi­pal Chair which that great Apostle fixed at Rome, that it would be su­perfluous to attempt to prove it. For if it had been so confined to his Per­son, that it descended not to his Suc­cessours, it would follow, that after the death of St. Peter, the Church was fallen, that it had no longer that Principle of unity, which makes it one; that it was no more but a body without a head, and a ruinous building without a foundation. Be­sides, Is it not well known that it is an order naturally fixed in lawfull Successions, that Kings and other Princes, and their Officers, in the Civil State; Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates and Patriarchs, nay, and Ministers amongst our Protestants, succeed to the rights and powers of their Predecessours?

But though we had no such con­vincing reasons,Concil. Sardic. Ep. ad Jul. in frag. Hil. Con. Constant. ad Dam. Conc. Ephes. Conc. Calcedon ad Leon. Conc. 6. Act 18. Ep. ad Agath. Iren. l. 3. cont. Va­lent. Cyprian. ad Corn. Ep. 55. & l. de unitat. Optat. contra Parm. l. 2. Vincent. Lirin. lib. contra Haer. c. 3. Hier. ad Dam. August. de duab. Ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 1. & Ep. 92.162. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innoc. Prosper. de voc. gent. l. 8. c. 6. St. Leo. St. Gregor. Theodoret. Socrates. Sozom. & alii passim. yet it would be enough to say, that all the same evi­dences of Antiquity that have gi­ven testimony to the Primacy of St. Peter, and to his supreme power in the Universal Church, have also by common consent attributed it, upon the same words of Jesus Christ, to the Bishops of Rome, who are the Successours of the Prince of Apo­stles. There is nothing more ordi­nary in the Councils and Fathers, where the same things that are said of the Primacy of St. Peter, and of the Prerogatives of his Chair at Rome, are in formal terms most frequently found repeated to express the Pri­macy of the Popes, their super-in­tendance in the Universal Church, and the superiority of their Chair, and of the Church of Rome, to which they declare that all the rest ought to be united as Lines to their Centre, and as to the source of Sacerdotal Unity. And that's the reason why we call the Universal Church, the Roman-Catholick and Apostolick [Page 49]Church, because all particular Churches, of which that great body is constituted, must be uni­ted in communion with the Pope of Rome their Head, that so they may be Members of the true Church of Jesus Christ, which is no ways one, but by that union which maketh its per­fect unity.

I have, me thinks, made it hi­therto clear enough, according to all Antiquity opposite to the no­velty of our Protestants, what is the belief of Catholicks concer­ning St. Peter and of his Suc­cessours in his Bishoprick of Rome. We must now in order examine, sticking close to Antiquity against all Novelty, what Prerogatives and Rights that Primacy gives to Popes, what it is that all Ca­tholicks agree in, and wherein it is that they differ about that point; and prove by uncontro­verted matters of Fact, without disputation, what Antiquity, which [Page 50]ought to direct our belief, in spight of all the attempts of Novelty, hath believed concerning points of that importance.

CHAP. V. Concerning the rights and advantages that the Primacy gives to the Bishop of Rome over all other Bishops.

I Think that point cannot better be decided than by the Decree of the Council of Florence in the year 1439. when that famous re-union was made betwixt the Latin and Greek Churches, after many cele­brated conferences and great con­tests that happened there during the space of fifteen months, betwixt the learnedst men of both Churches about that Subject and other con­troverted points. This is the defi­nition of the Council. Item, we define that the Holy Apostolick See, and the Pope of Rome have the Pri­macy over all the world; that the Pope of Rome is the Successour of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles; that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ, and Head of all the Church, the Fa­ther [Page 52]and Teacher of all Christians; and that our Lord Jesus Christ hath given him, in the person of St. Peter, full power of feeding, ruling and go­verning the universal Church, in the manner specified in the Acts of Coun­cils, and holy Canons.

For it is precisely so in the Greek, [...], and in the Latin, Juxta eum modum qui & in Actis Conciliorum & in Sacris Cano­nibus continetur: As it is to be read in Blondus Secretary to Pope Eugenius, Decad. 3. l. 10. who presided in that Council. In Ekius his Treatise of the Primacy of the Pope,Lib. 1. in the Bishop of Rochester's five and twentieth Article against Luther, Cap. Ʋlt. and in Albertus Pighius his fourth Book of the Hierarchy. That is to say in English, To govern the Church in the manner which is found expressed in the Acts of the Coun­cils, and in the Holy Canons; not as Abraham of Candie hath very ill rendered it, quemadmodum etiam, which gives it a quite contrary sense [Page 53]to the intention and words of the Council, as will manifestly appear in another place of this Treatise.

At present it is enough that we know, according to that Council, that the Primacy of the Pope enti­tles him to the inspection of all that concerns the government and wel­fare of the Church in general, which is more than any Bishop of what dignity soever he may be can challenge. For the power that other Bishops have by Divine Right to govern the Church, rea­ches not beyond their Dioceses: but that of the Pope, as Head of the Church Universal, extends every where, when the good of all Believers in general is concer­ned; of whom he is to take the care; And that supreme dignity gives him a great many rights, which none but he alone can en­joy.

To him application is made to have resolutions in difficulties that may arise in matters concerning Faith, Hieron. ad Age­ruch. Ep. 2. Innoc. 1. apud Aug. Epist. 93. August. Epist. 106. Jul. apud Athan. Apol. 1. manners, or general Customs. [Page 54]Of this we have evident proofs in the Holy Fathers, and an illustri­ous instance of it hath been seen in our days, in that famous letter which the Bishops of France wrote to Pope Innocent X.

He alone hath the right of cal­ling Councils for Spiritual Affairs, and to preside in them personally, or by his Legates, I say he hath that right, without speaking of matter of Fact, which is under debate in respect of some Councils, and can­not prejudice his Primacy. For though he hath not presided in the first Council of Constantinople, which perhaps neither did he call, and that it be most certain that he did not call the fifth, nor presided in it, though he was at Constanti­nople, where that Council was held: yet it is not to be doubted but he might have done both the one and the other, if he had pleased, seeing that in the Letter which the Patriarch Entychius wrote to him for obtaining of that Council,Concil. 5. Act. 1. he prayed him to preside in it, and [Page 55]that he onely presided therein upon his refusal. For thus it is in the Original, praesidente nobis vestrâ beatitudine, and not residente nobis­cum, as the Minister Junius hath corrupted it, by a correction made of his own head, against the clear sense of the following words.

Besides, is it not past all contro­versie that the Pope presided by his Legates in the Council of Chalce­don, as he hath done in almost all the others which have been held since? For I speak not here of the great Council of Nice, nor of that of Ephesus, because, as I conceive, I have elsewhere proved by invin­cible Arguments, not onely against our Protestants, but also against the sentiments of some Catholick Doctours, that the Popes by their Legates presided in them, nay, and that they called them, as to what relates to the Spiritual Au­thority which they have over the Bishops; as the Emperours, to whose rights Kings and Christian Princes have succeeded, may call [Page 56]Councils in regard of Temporals, by that sovereign power which they have received from God over their Subjects, in virtue whereof they may oblige their Bishops to assem­ble in a certain place, either within or without their Territories, there to treat of matters purely spiritual, wherein they meddle not, but as protectours of the Church, in cau­sing the Decrees and Canons of these Councils which strike not at the Rights of their Crown, to be put in execution. It is certain then that the Popes, as Heads of the Church, have right to call general Councils, and to preside in them.

Moreover, seeing the Pope in that quality,Concil. Sardic. Can. 3.4.7. Gelas. Epist. ad E­pis. Dardan. Innoc. Epist. ad Victric. St. Leo. Ep. 82. Cap. Car. Mag. lib. c. 187. Hincmar. ad Nicol. 1. Flodo. Hist. Eccl. Rom. l. 3. Gerson de Prote­stant. Eccl. Cons. 8. is without dispute, above every Bishop of what Digni­ty soever he may be, and above all particular Churches and Synods: Appeals may be made from all these Bishops and Synods to his Tribunal. It belongs to him to judge of greater Causes, such as those which concern the Faith, and that are doubtfull, universal [Page 57]Customs, the deposing of Bishops, and some others which I have observed elsewhere, the decision whereof belongs and ought to be referred to him. In that manner the Inferiour Judges appointed by Moses according to the advice of Jethro, Exod. 18. judged of causes of less importance, and the greater were reserved to that great leader of the People of God.

Hence it is also that the Pope hath right to judge, yet always according to the disposition of the Canons, of the causes of Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates and Pa­triarchs. This appears clearly by the judgment in the case of St. A­thanasius, Athan. Apol. 2. Theodoret. l. 2. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Sozom. l. 3. c. 81. Paul. Patriarch of Con­stantinople, Marcellus Primate of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and Lucius Bishop of Adrianople: whom Pope Julius restored to their Sees, from which they had been illegally Deposed; and by the case of Denis Patriarch of Alexandria, who being accused,Athan. de sent. Dio­nys. defended himself in writing before [Page 58]the Pope; in a word, by an infi­nite number of other instances in all ages of the Church, which may be seen in my Treatise of the judgment of the causes of Bishops. I shall onely mention one which wonder­fully sets off that supreme Authority of the Pope.

After the death of Epiphanins, Liberat. c. 10. Patriarch of Constantinople, the Em­press Theodora, one of the wickedst Women that ever was, and above all a great Eutychian in her heart, and a great enemy to the Council of Chalcedon, prevailed so far, by the great power that she had got over the mind of the Emperour Justini­an her Husband, who could not re­sist her Artifices, that Anthimius was made Patriarch, though he was Bishop of Trebizonde, by that means possessing at the same time two Episcopal Chairs, against the manifest constitution of the holy Canons, without any Precedent, and without lawfull dispensation.

Besides, that naughty man was both a frank Heretick, and great Cheat. For though he was not one­ly Eutychian, but also the head of those Hereticks,Justin. Nov. 42. Niceph. l. 17. c. 9. yet he always pro­fessed, that he might deceive the Emperour, who at that time was a good Catholick, that he received the Doctrine of the four Councils, but without ever condemning Eu­lyches, who had been condemned by the holy Council of Chalcedon. That occalioned a great deal of scandal and trouble in the East, and seeing, when matters were in this state;Concil. Constant. sub Men. Act. 1. St. Agapetus the Pope was come from Rome to Constantinople, whither Theodatus King of the Goths had obliged him to go, that he might endeavour to obtain of Justinian the peace which the Goths demanded; The Monks of Syria, and many other zealous Catholicks presented him Petitions against that Intruder and Heretick.

This without doubt is one of the most illustrious marks, and one of the strongest proofs of the Autho­rity [Page 60]of the Holy See, and of the Primacy of the Pope, that ever was seen in the Church. The Empe­rour who loved Anthimius, and thought himself obliged in honour to protect him, as being his Crea­ture, solicited on his behalf; and by his earnestness in the Affair, made it apparent that he intended to maintain him. Theodora who was more concerned still than the Em­perour in the preservation of her Patriarch, employed all her Artifi­ces, and spared neither offers, pray­ers nor threats, to shake the con­stancy of a Pope whom she saw re­solved to make use of the power which he had received from Jesus Christ for the good of the Church.

The Empire was then in a most flourishing state; the Emperour shining in glory. After the defeat of the Vandals in Africa; Constan­tinople in great splendour; Anthi­mius most powerfull through the favour of his Prince, and the Gran­deur and Majesty of the Patriarchal See of the Imperial City, where [Page 61]he thought himself too well fixed, to fear that he could be turned out. Rome on the contrary being no more the Seat of the Empire, since it was fallen under the Dominion of the Herules and Goths; retained now nothing that was great, be­sides its own ruines and name. The Church of Rome Tyrannically op­prest by these Barbarians, was, if I dare say so, in the chains of the Ostrogoths, who used it like a slave. The Pope forced to comply under the haughty commands of Theoda­tus, who sent him to negotiate his affairs in the East, so little esteemed by that Barbarian, and so poor, that he was obliged to sell the Plate of his Church, to raise money for this Voyage, was almost all alone at Constantinople, without a Court, without Cardinals, without Train, without Equipage, without sup­port, and onely upheld by his spiritual power, which was not backed by any of those glorious marks, that at present renders the Pontifical Majesty so venerable to all the world.

Nevertheless in that condition he pronounces two thundering senten­ces against the Patriarch Anthimi­us: Con. sub Men. Act. 4. Marcell. in Chron. Liber in Brev. c. 2. Vict. Tun. in Chron. one upon the spot, whereby by reason of his manifest intrusion, he deposes him from his Patriarchship, and puts the Priest Mennas in his place, whom he himself consecra­ted Bishop and Patriarch of Con­stantinople; and the other shortly after, for the Crime of Heresie, of which he was strongly suspected guilty, ordaining that if he cleared himself not of it, by obeying the holy Canons, he should also be de­posed from his Bishoprick of Tra­bizonde.

And seeing the holy Pope died the same year, that sentence was the year following put in execution, in a Council held by Mennas at Con­stantinople, Anno 537. where because Anthimi­us would never condemn Eutyches, Concil. sub Men. Act. 4. he was deprived of the Bishoprick of Trabizonde, and of all sacerdotal Dignity, according to the sentence of the Pope.

And which is still more wonder­full, Justinian acknowledging that Supreme Authority of the Pope, to which he submitted and joyning thereto his own, as Protectour of the Canons, for causing that to be put in execution, made against Anthi­mius that famous constitution, which is to be seen in his two and fourtieth Novel, in the tenth colla­tion of his Authenticks, wherein he positively says that he hath been justly Deposed by the Pope, as well because he had intruded,Neque ipse abdicare auctores impiorum dog­matum, qui prius à Sanctis Synodis per­cussi fuerant. Inst. Nov. 42. contrary to the Holy Canons, into the Chair of Constantinople, as that he would not condemn those who had been Condemned by Coun­cils. Was there ever a more ad­mirable effect of the Spiritual Pow­er and Authority of the Vicar of Jesus Christ?

But before I conclude, I must, upon occasion of this Council of Constantinople under Mennas, shew the Prodigious ignorance of Cal­vin, in relation to the History of the Ancient Church. I have said [Page 64]in the History of Calvinism, and I say it again that that man having ne­ver entered the Schools of Divini­ty, understood nothing at all in that Sacred Science; which is a Key absolutely necessary for un­locking the sentiments and senten­ces of the Holy Fathers, that con­tain the Principles of true Theolo­gy; as they are to be found in a lovely order in the Master of Sen­tences. But it is to be confessed that his ignorance appears incom­parably more pitifull, when he un­dertakes to prove his new Opini­ons by Church History, in which he was never versed. Take this as an evident proof of it.

This Innovatour, who strikes chiefly at the Primacy of the Pope, says in that place, for overthrowing it,Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 7. that Mennas pre­sided in the fifth Council, and that the Pope being called to it, did not contest with him about the place of Honour, but without difficulty [Page 65]suffered the Patriarch of Constantino­ple to preside therein. Ridiculous mistake! Mennas was dead long be­fore the fifth Council was called, which was held in the Seven and twentieth year of the Empire of Ju­stinian, as Calvin, Consil. 6. Act. 3 [...] had he ever read the Councils, might have learned from the sixth Ecumenick Council, third Action. How then could that dead man have presided in that Council, which was not held till five or six years after his death, un­der his Successour Eutychius?

Now if it be alledged, for excuse of that mistake, that Calvin, by that Council, means the other which was held by Mennas, yet that makes him but still ridiculous. For, be­sides, that that particular Council is very different from that which is called the Fifth, and which holds that rank amongst the General Councils: the onely Pope that was at Constantinople, in the time of Mennas, to wit, St. Agapetus was dead before that Council, wherein [Page 66] Mennas calls him,Act. 4. his Father of holy and blessed memory.

And had that Pope been still a­live, How durst Mennas have pre­tended to the first place in his pre­sence, he, whom that Pope had made Patriarch, who protests in the same Council, that he is subject to the Holy See, and who knows the thoughts of the Emperour Justinian, [...]. Cod. l. 7. that declares publickly, That the Pope is the Head of all the holy Pre­lates of God, and who will have his Patriarch of New Rome to have the next place to the holy Aposto­lick See of Old Rome? Novel. 131. So that to what side soever Calvin turn, he shall always find his Man dead in stead of alive. And as it is very well known, that God favour'd him not with the gift of working Mira­cles, he can never raise him again, to place him there where nothing but his extreme ignorance could put him.

By the same defect of knowledge, accompanied with a ridiculous bold­ness, that he may strip the Pope of [Page 67]his Primacy, he takes Nice in Thra­cia, for Nicoea in Bithynia; Pope Ju­lius for Silvester; the first place for the last, in citing Sozomene, who, be­ginning by this Man,L. 1. c. 16. in the enume­ration of the Patriarchs, ascends, in order, to the first, where he puts the Legats of the Pope, speaking of the first Council, wherein, by the gros­sest ignorance that can be in Histo­ry, and which none but Calvin could be capable of, he makes Saint Athanasius preside, who was then but a simple Deacon, waiting upon Alexander his Patriarch at that Council,Athan. Apol. 2.

Such was the ignorance of the head of our Protestants in Ecclesia­stical History. I do not at all won­der at it; for that was none of his study. But I am astonished to see, that men of wit and learning dance to his Pipe, in that they implicite­ly assent to his ignorance in Anti­quity, when in the systeme of his heresie, he rejects matters that are manifestly authorised by Tradition and History, which is the Court of [Page 68]Record of it; nay, even when he traces it back to the Primitive A­ges of the Church, wherein they are forced to confess, that it was in its purity.

There are evident proofs of this in the History of the Fathers and Councils, where, setting aside some frivolous superstitions of weak peo­ple, which we condemn, it may be seen, that the ancient Church belie­ved and did, what Catholicks believe and practise concerning the Eu­charist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the seven Sacraments, the Consist­ency of Grace with Free-will, the Authority of Tradition, the Invoca­tion of Saints, Churches dedicated and consecrated to God in memory of them, the Veneration of their Relicks and Images, Prayer for the dead, the Fasts of Lent and of the Ember weeks, the distinction of Ho­ly days and working days, that of the Habits of Lay-men and Church­men, the single life of the Clergy, Vows, Sacred Ceremonies in the ad­ministration and use of the Sacra­ments, [Page 69]and in publick Worship, Di­vine Worship in Greek all over the East, and in the Latine Tongue in the West, though in most Provinces this was not understood but by the Learned; in a word, concerning all that distinguishes us from Prote­stants, but especially Calvinists.

This the famous Cardinal Perron made out by unquestionable testi­monies, in his Reply to the King of Great Britain, where he shews, the conformity of the Ancient Catho­lick Church with ours, in the Eigh­teenth Chapter of the first Book, and throughout the whole Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books of that Learn­ed Work. And to which also Da­vid Blondel, a Man incomparably more able than Calvin, especially in the knowledge of Antiquity, thought it not fit to make an Answer in that overgrown Volume which he wrote against the Reply, and wherein he thought it convenient to begin his pretended refutation onely at the Three and twentieth Chapter of the [Page 70]first Book; and to end it with the Four and thirtieth of the same Book.

But to pass by the Protestants, against whom I pretend not to Dis­pute; It is enough to me, that hi­therto, without any disputation, I have proved by Antiquity alone, the Primacy of St. Peter, and of the Popes his successours in the Chair of Rome, and the Prerogatives and Rights which are inseparable from that Primacy, wherein all Catho­licks agree. However, it is very well known, that at present, they are not all of the same mind, as to certain other Prerogatives, which some grant, and others will not al­low to him; and especially these four, which are, Infallibility, Su­periority over a General Council, the Absolute Power of Governing the Church independantly of the Canons, and the Direct or Indirect Power over Temporals. And there­fore I must now, without deviating from my Principle drawn from An­tiquity, make appear, without dis­puting [Page 71]and reasoning, but as a bare Relater of the sentiments of the Councils and Fathers, nay and of the Popes themselves, what venerable Antiquity hath always believed con­cerning these points.

CHAP. VI. The Question stated concerning the Infallibility of the Pope.

THE Question here is not to know, whether the Pope, as a private Doctour, and onely giving his opinion and thought of a point of Doctrine, concerning Faith and Manners, may be deceived: for it was never doubted, but that in that quality he speaks onely as another Man, and that by consequent through the weakness and infirmity which is incident to all Men, he is subject to Errour, according to the saying of the Psalmist, Omnis homo mendax.

Nor is it the question, neither to enquire, whether he be infallible when he pronounces from the Chair of the Universal Church, jointly, with the Members that are subject to him as to their head, whether it be in a General Council where he presides in person, or by his Legats, or with the consent of the greatest [Page 73]part of Catholick Churches and Bishops. For as we all allow, that Jesus Christ hath given the gift of In­fallibility to his Church, and to a Council which represents it, for de­termining Sovereignly, by the Word of God, the differences that might arise amongst Catholicks concerning these points of Doctrine: so we do confess, that when the Pope speaks and decides in that manner, accor­ding to which he may say, Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis; his words and decisions are Oracles, and he can in no ways be deceived. As to this there is no disagreement amongst Catholicks.

The question then that may be debated, is to know, whether when he speaks from his Chair of Rome, as the Master and Teacher of all Be­lievers, and having well examined the point in hand, in several Con­gregations, his Consistory, or his Sy­nod of his Suffragans, of his Cardi­nals and Doctours, nay, and having consulted Universities, and by most publick and solemn Prayers begg'd [Page 74]the assistance of the Holy Ghost; he teaches all Christians, defines, proposes to the whole Church, by a Bull or Constitution, what Christi­ans are to believe; whether, I say, when he pronounces in this manner, he be Infallible or not, and whether his Judgment given and declared in that manner, may not be correc­ted by an Universal Council. And this, methinks, is all that can be said, in clear and formal terms, as to the state of this formal questi­on.

And it is the very same, about which all Catholick Doctours do not agree. For most part of the Doctours on t'other side of the Alpes, especially the famous Car­dinals Cajetan, Baronius and Bellar­mine, and all the Authours who have followed them, will have the Pope in that case, when he declares so­lemnly to all Believers, by his Con­stitutions, what they are to believe, as to any controverted point, to be no ways liable to a mistake.

On the contrary, an infinite num­ber of the most noted Doctours of their time, as Gerson, Major, Alma­nus, the Faculty of Theologie of Pa­ris so often and so publickly prai­sed by the Popes, and all France, as it is even acknowledged by the Doc­tours Navarr, Victoria and John Celaia Spaniards; Denis the Carthu­sian, Tostatus Bishop of Avila in his Commentaries upon St. Matthew, and in the second part of his Defen­sorium, Thomas Illyrius a Cordelier, in his Buckler against Luther, which he dedicated to Pope Adrian VI. The Cardinals of Cusa, of Cambray, and of Florence, the Bishops of France in their Assembly representing the Gallican Church, Aeneas Sylvius be­fore he was Pope, Pope Adrian VI. when he was Professour at Louvain, in his Commentary upon the Fourth of the Sentences, which he caused to be reprinted at Rome when he was Pope, without any alterations, and a thousand other most Catholick Doc­tours of the Universities of France, Germany, Poland, and of the Low [Page 76]Countries, who have all very well defended the Primacy of the Pope; all these, I say, maintain, that he is not Infallible, if he do not pronounce in a General Council, or with the consent of the Church.

The diversity of Sentiments a­mongst Catholicks about that Sub­ject, is then a matter of fact not to be question'd. But what part are we best to take in this dispute, as the most rational and best grounded? that's a question which I ought not to answer, according to the design I have taken, and the method that I have proposed to my self in this Treatise. I shall onely then barely relate what hath been believed as to that in An­tiquity, and I shall do it without touching at the matter of Right, but onely faithfully producing un­controverted matters of fact, which make appear what the belief of the Ancient Church was concerning that Point.

CHAP. VII. What Antiquity hath concluded from St. Peter's being reprehended by St. Paul.

THAT Action which was of great importance, and which notwithstanding is not mentioned by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apo­stles, is related by St. Paul himself, in a very few, but very significant words. But when Peter, says he,Galat. c. 2. in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians, was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew, and separa­ted himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, insomuch that Barnabas also was car­ried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly, according to the truth of [Page 78]the Gospel, I said unto Peter, if thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews.

It is evident, that St. Paul in that place rebukes St. Peter, and that sharply too, and that he not onely relates what he said unto him upon that occasion, but also assures us, that St. Peter was to be blamed, and con­sequently had erred. Now, where­in had he erred according to Saint Paul? It was not that he had lived with Jews according to the Law of Moses, August. Epist. ult. ad Hieronym. concerning the distinction of meats: for before the Synagogue was honourably interr'd, the legal Ceremonies might still be observed; when it was thought convenient, as Saint Paul himself,Act. 16.18.21. oftner than once, observed them. But it was, in that he withdrew himself from the con­verted Gentiles, and that living no longer with them, for fear of offend­ing these Jews that were come from Jerusalem, he gave occasion to the other Jews and converted Gentiles, [Page 79]to think, that they were still obliged to observe the Law of Moses.

The truth is, some of these new Christians amongst the Jews, Act. 15. who were lately come to Antioch, had caused a great deal of trouble in that Church, because they main­tained, that all who had embraced the Faith of Jesus Christ, were obli­ged to be Circumcised, if they were not so before, and to observe the Law of Moses, without which they could not be saved. St. Paul and St. Barnabas, who at that time still Preached the Gospel at Antioch, with all their might withstood those false Apostles, and taught the contrary. But when those poor Christians of Gentilism saw that the Prince of the Apostles, who had far greater autho­rity than St. Paul had, wholly chan­ged his conduct after the arrival of these Jews; that he ate no more of meats prohibited by the Law; and that those of Antioch, who were con­verted from Judaism, and even Bar­nabas, who was before for the liber­ty of the Gospel, did the same as [Page 80]Saint Peter did, and separated from them, they thought that they onely did so, because it was in reality found that these legal observations were ne­cessary to Salvation, and that they were obliged to keep them as well as the Jews.

And that made St. Paul tell Saint Peter, that he compelled the con­verted Gentiles to Judaise, because, by his example, which is a stronger and far more persuasive argument than words are, he gave them to know, that for all they were Christians, yet they were still obliged to observe the Law of Moses, which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whose yoke is easie, and who by the New Law of Grace hath put us in the per­fect liberty of the Sons of God. And therefore Saint Paul on that occasion said, That St. Peter, and those who adhered to him in that conduct which made the converted Gentiles to err, walked not upright­ly according to the truth of the Gos­pel.

Quod hoc ei coram omnibus dixit, necessi­tas coegit. Non enim erat utile errorem qui palam noceret, in pub­lico non emendare. Aug. lib. de Expos. Epist. ad Galat. Si verum scripfit Paulus, verum est quod Petrus tunc non in­grediebatur ad verita­tem Evangelit, id er­go faciebat quod facere non debebat. Epist. 19. ad Hier. c. 2. Petro dicenti quod fieri non debebat. l. 6. contra Donat. c. 2.Take the words of St. Austine concerning that action of St. Pe­ter, in three or four passages of his works, where he plainly calls it an errour. St. Paul, saith he, was obliged publickly to reprove Saint Peter, that he might cure all the rest by that remedy; for an errour that did hurt to the publick, was not to be rebuked privately. If St. Paul said true, says he in another place. Saint Peter walked not then according to the truth of the Gospel, and did what he ought not to have done.

It maketh nothing to the pur­pose, to say, as St. Jerome hath done, that all that was but a design laid betwixt St Peter and St. Paul, to bring the Jews to their duty, by let­ting them see, that their Protectour St. Peter submitted to that repri­mand of St. Paul. Besides, that that way of proceeding suiteth very ill with the temper of St. Paul, and a­grees not at all with his words; that dissimulation no ways justifies Saint Peter, and makes St. Paul an Ac­complice in his fault. For it is not [Page 82]at all lawfull to dissemble in such a manner, as that the dissimulation becomes the cause of a great scan­dal and stumbling-block,Hieron. Ep. 86. & seq. August. Ep. 8. & seq. Consilium veritatis admisit, & rationi le­gitimae, quam Paulus vindicabat, facile con­censu. Cypr. ad Quint. Ep. 71. which makes people fall into errour, by compelling them to Judaize.

St. Austine then who valiantly op­pugns that opinion which so little favours those two great Apostles, and who alledges for himself St. Ambrose and St. Cyprian, is so persuaded that St. Peter on that occasion erred, that he makes use of that Instance to ex­cuse the errour of St. Cyprian con­cerning the Baptism of Hereticks, which he reckoned to be invalid. If St. Peter,Si potuit Petrus contra veritatis regu­lam quam postea Ec­clesia tenuit, cogere Gentes Judaizare: cur non potuit Cypri­anus, contra veritatis regulam quam postea tota Ecclesia tenuit, cogere haereticos & schismaticos Re-bapti­zari. Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. contra Donatist. c. 1. Peter, saith he, could compell the Gentiles to Judaize, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church hath since followed, Why might not St. Cyprian compell Hereticks and Schismaticks to be Re-baptized, con­trary to the rule of truth, which the whole Church hath observed since? And elsewhere he makes use of the same instance, to condemn that er­rour [Page 83]of St. Cyprian: I admit not, says he, that Doctrine of Cyprian,Hoc Cypriani non accipio, quamvis in­comparabiliter inferi­or Cypriano, sicut il­lud Apostoli Petri, quod Gentes Judaiza­re cogebat, nec accipio, nec facio, quamvis in­ferior incomparabiliter Petro. l. 2. contra Crae­scon. c. 32. though I be incomparably inferiour to that great Man; as though I be incompa­rably less than St. Peter, yet I ad­mit not, neither doe what he did, in compelling the Gentiles to Judaize.

An infinite number of great Men have in that followed St. Augustine, as the Master and chief of the Doc­tours: but at present I shall onely produce one, whose authority far surpasses that of all the rest. And that is Pope Pelagius II. who, fol­lowing the example of St. Austine, in relation to St. Cyprian, acknow­ledges, and, at the same time, ex­cuses the errour of Pope Vigilius, by that of St. Peter. It is a very re­markable matter of fact. Take it thus.

After that wicked Nestorius had been condemned in the Council of Ephesus, some of his party published certain Writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Liberat. in Brevi­ar. c. 10. where­in, under other terms than those [Page 84]which that Heresiarch had used, he said almost the same thing, making it apparent enough, that by the two natures which he admitted to be in Jesus Christ, he understood two distinct Persons. But seeing that errour was not expressed in such formal termes, that all men might discover it, and that besides, this same Theodore had, in his life­time, been held in great veneration: that, as it commonly happens, oc­casioned great debates; some, as John Patriarch of Antioch, saying that there was nothing to be found fault with in his Book: Others, who were headed by Rabula Bishop of Edessa, maintaining, that it con­tained pure Nestorianism a little disguised.

This dispute growing hotter after the death of Rabula, Ibas, who suc­ceeded him in the Bishoprick of E­dessa, taking a course quite contra­ry to his Predecessour, wrote a long Letter to Maris Persan a Nestorian Heretick, wherein he thought it [Page 85]not enough to give great praises to Theodore, but inveighs also sharply against St. Cyrill of Alexandria, the scourge of Nestorianism, though at the same time he condemns the Doc­trine of Nestorius; whether he spake sincerely, or that he would thereby caution himself against the process that might have been brought against him, for that he had so openly de­clared for Theodore.

The truth is, sometime after he was accused in the famous Council of Chalcedon, where that Letter was produc'd against him,Ann. 451. Concil. Chalced. Act. 16. and read in full Council. But seeing there was nothing to be found in it but prai­ses of Theodore, whose Book had not been examined, and invectives against the person and conduct of St. Cyril; and besides, that Ibas in that Council pronounced Anathema against Nestorius, and condemned his Doctrine, more severely than he had even done in his Letter: He was Absolved, as well as Theodoret, who did the same, though he had [Page 86]Written against St. Cyrill, more bit­terly than Ibas had done. But the Council took no notice of that Trea­tise.

Nevertheless, seeing these three Writings, which are very well known by the famous name of the Three Chapters, so much talked of, favou­red Nestorianism, and that that He­resie is directly opposite to that of Eutyches, which admits indeed but one person, but also, but one nature in Jesus Christ. The Emperour Ju­stinian was easily persuaded, that if these Three Chapters were condem­ned, the Catholicks might be recon­ciled with the Acephali, who were a remnant of Eutychians. Ann. 546. This Prince, who at that time desired nothing more than the Peace of the Church, zealously undertook that affair. He made an Edict against these Three Chapters, Petav. 1. p. Rati­on. l. 7. c. 7. which was signed by Men­nas and the other Patriarchs of the East; and to render that condemna­tion still more authentick, seeing he was at that time Master of Italy, [Page 87]having driven the Goths out of it, he made Pope Vigilius come to Con­stantinople, that he might oblige him to sign it as the other Patriarchs of the East had done.

There is nothing in History more extraordinary, than the fortune of that Pope. His ambition at first made him Anti-Pope, having got himself to be chosen by the interest of the Empress Theodora, who put him in the place of Sylverius the law­full Pope,Liber. c. 28. that she caused to be deposed and banished, and to whom that Intruder promised to condemn the Three Chapters, Victor. Tunon. in Chron. and to approve the faith of Anthimius, as he did. And therefore Sylverius, for all he was banished,Sylver Epist. &c. Excommunicated him as an Anti-pope. This holy Prelate dying shortly after that Condemna­tion, the Clergy of Rome, for avoid­ing a Schism, elected of new Vigili­us Canonically, who by that means became true Pope; and then chang­ing his conduct, that he might over­turn all that he had done in favour [Page 88]of Theodora: he condemned Anthi­mius as an Eutychian, Greg. l. 2. c. 36. Paul. diacon. l. 17. and recalled the Condemnation of the Three Chapters, which indeed were con­trary to the Eutychians, but also bor­dering upon the other extreme, mightily favoured the Nestori­ans.

In this condition was he then when the Emperour called him to Constantinople to approve the Con­demnation of the Three Chapters. He had much adoe to resolve upon it,Forundus Hermi­anen. because he thought, as many Oc­cidentals did, that that was to em­peach the Council of Chalcedon, which had received Ibas and Theodoret, the defenders of Theodore of Mopsuestia. But it was represented to him, that the Council had not received them untill they had condemned the Ne­storians, and that it had not exami­ned neither the Book of Theodore, nor that of Theodoret; and that, seeing now they were sufficiently convin­ced and persuaded, that the Doctrine of Nestorius, condemned in the Coun­cil [Page 89]of Ephesus, was contained in these Writings, he ought to condemn them, thereby to take all advantage from the Nestorians.

Vigilius, at length,Ann. 547. Judicatum. acquiesced to these Remonstrances, and the year following made his Decree, where­by he condemns the Three Chap­ters, but with this reserve, Saving the respect and submission which is due to the Council of Chalcedon. Justini­an not satisfied with that, would have the Pope, seeing the question concerned not that Council, which had not examined these Books, to condemn them absolutely, and without that modification, lest the Nestorians might make use of it for eluding a like condemnation. But Vigilius, who was always loth to offend that Council, would not con­descend to it, how badly soever they treated him to oblige him to doe so.

In fine, after many debates about the subject, Justinian, who resolved [Page 90]to put an end to that affair, for re­storing peace to the Church, caused the Fifth Council to be held at Con­stantinople in spight of Vigilius, Ann. 553. V. Syn. 5. Tom. 3. Concil. Constitutum. who was so far from granting the Em­perour what he desired, that he made a new Constitution, wherein he a­gain takes upon him the protection of the Three Chapters, and forbids to condemn them. But notwith­standing all his efforts, that Coun­cil, where he would not assist, ab­solutely condemned them; and be­cause Vigilius would not consent to that condemnation, he was banished by Justinian, who some time after gave him his liberty, and sent him home to his See, because once more changing his conduct and opini­ons, he condemned in Writing the Three Chapters, Evagr. l. 4. c. 37. Phot. de septom Synodis. according to the Decree of the Council; and that was the fourth and last time that he had changed; for as he was up­on his return to Rome, Appen. Marcell. he died in Sicily the year following.

However, this last change did not cure the Schism that was for­med [Page 91]in the Church about that point. For though the Successours of this Pope had admitted the Decrees of that Council,Greg. Pap. 1. Ep. 24. & alib. saepe. which holds the fifth place amongst the Ecumenical Coun­cils, yet many Bishops, and amongst others, those of Africa and Istria, Vict. Tun. Farund. Herm. taking no notice in the least of that last change of Vigilius, stuck ob­stinately to his former constitution, whereby he had publickly declared for the Three Chapters, forbidding all Believers to condemn them; and though Pelagius II. who held the Holy See Two or three and twen­ty years after Vigilius, did all he could to persuade and bring them to their duty, and to undeceive them of their errour, he could never suc­ceed in it.

For they always alledged,Pelag. 11. Ep. 7. quae est tertia ad E­pisc. Istriae. Dicentes quod in causae princi­pio, & sedes Apostolica per Vigilium Papam, & omnes Latinarum Pro­vinciarum principes, damnationi trium capitulorum fortiter restiterunt. ibid. Errorem tarde cognoverunt & tanto eis celerius credi debuit, quan­to eorum constantia, quousque verum cognoscerent à certamine non quievit. ibid. that the Roman Church had formerly [Page 92]Taught them the contrary of what they would have them at present confess; and that the Holy See, by Pope Vigilius and the other Bishops of the West, when that cause began to be debated, had vigorously op­posed the condemnation of these Three Chapters. Whereupon that wise Pope told them, ingenuously and convincingly, That for that very reason they ought to condemn them, because that vigorous resist­ance was an evident sign, that the Romans, and other Occidentals yield­ed not, till at length they came to the knowledge of the truth, which they had not known before, and clearly saw that they had been mis­taken, in approving and maintain­ing Writings which ought to be con­demned; and he adds, that it is a very laudable change, to turn from errour to truth.

He moreover confirms that Ar­gument by the examples of St. Peter and St. Paul. St. Paul,Quia diu veritati restitit, unde ad con­firmanda corda cre­dentium, in ejusdem praedicatione veritatis adjutorium sumpsit. said he, long resisted the truth of the Gospel, and [Page 93]was the most zealous asserter of Ju­daisme against the Christians, whom he persecuted. By that he proves to the Jews and Gentiles, that they ought to embrace Christianity, because after so great resistance he would not have yielded to Jesus Christ, if he had not clearly known the truth, and that he had been in an errour before. St. Peter, continues he,Diu quidem resti­tit, ne ad fidem Gentes sine Circumcisione, &c. diu se à conversaram Gentium communione subtraxit, &c. Ab eodem Paulo pestmodum ratione sus­cepta cum vidisset quos­dam, &c. dixit: cur tentatis Deum imponen­tes jugum, &c. held long for the necessity of the legal observations, compelling the Gentiles to Judaize. He yielded afterward to reason and truth by the reproof that St. Paul gave him, telling him, that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel. After that, changing his con­duct, he powerfully withstood those, who, in the Council of Jerusalem, would have subjected Christians to the yoke of the Ancient Law.

Would they have had reason then to have said to him, Haec quae dicis au­dire non possumus, quia aliud ante prae­dicasti. when they saw him Teach the quite contrary to what he had Preached before, We will not hear what you tell us at present, because you formerly Preached to us quite ano­ther thing? Not at all, because these [Page 94]two Apostles having long resisted the truth of the Gospel, each in his way, and at length followed that truth, changed from evil to good. So, goes on that Pope, making a right appli­cation of these two instances, to the point of the Three Chapters, The Holy See ought not to be upbraided with a change, Si igitur in trium capitulorum negotio, a­lind cum veritas quae­reretur, aliud autem inventâ veritate dic­tum est; cur mutatio sententiae huic sedi in crimen objicitur, &c. since after it hath found out the truth which it search­ed into, it now condemns the Three Chapters, which it approved before it found the truth.

It is, in my Judgment, very clear, that Pope Pelagius in that place says plainly, and without biass, that as St. Peter and St. Paul had erred be­fore their change, to which they ought to adhere, so Vigilius was mis­taken in his constitution, whereby he obliges Believers to maintain the Doctrine of the Three Chapters, and that they must imitate the Ho­ly See in its change,Quid obstat, si igno­rantiam suam dese­rens verba permutet? when having approved them with Vigilius, it condemns them, after he had dis­covered the truth which he knew not before. These are the words of Pelagius II.

I know very well, that Cardinal Baronius says, and labours to prove in his Annals, that St. Peter, upon that occasion, erred not at all, and committed not the least fault. I shall not undertake to refute and o­verthrow his Arguments,Baron. ad Ann. 51. n. 39. as some think they have done with very lit­tle difficulty. I dispute not at all in this Treatise, where I am onely to relate matters of Fact. It is e­nough then that I say; It's true that that great Cardinal is of that Judgment, because he believed Saint Peter to be infallible; In the mean time St. Austine, so far from belie­ving it, thought he erred five times, when he was in fear of being drown­ed, and our Saviour told him,Et cum in mari ti­tubasset, & cum do­minum carnaliter à passione revocasset, & cum aurem servi gla­dio praecidisset & cum ipsum dominum ter ne­gasset, & cum in si, mulationem postea su­perstitiosam lapsus es­set. August. de agone Christiano. c. 30. O thou of little faith wherefore didst thou doubt? when he would have diver­ted him from suffering for us, and was rebuked by these piercing words, Get thee behind me Satan; When he cut off Malchus his Ear, and three times denied his Master; and last of all, when he fell into that fai­ling for which St. Paul reproved [Page 96]him. St. Austine then, St. Ambrose, St. Cyprian, Pope Pelagius, and even St. Paul, speak positively to the con­trary of what Baronius says, as I have just now demonstrated.

This has made learned men argue from St. Austine, who they think cannot be answered: Either Saint Paul spoke truth, when he said St. Peter was to be blamed, that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, and com­pelled the converted Gentiles to Ju­daize; or what he said was false. If he spoke truth, it is then true, that St. Peter was not Infallible, since he ac­tually erred in that particular. If he did not speak truth, it must then be con­cluded, that the Epistle to the Galati­ans, which makes a part of H. Scrip­ture, is not the Word of God; which is a manifest errour in matter of Faith.

Again, when St. Paul spake in that manner, either he thought as he spoke, or did not. If he believed what he said to be true, it was his opini­on then, that St. Peter was not Infalli­ble. If he believed it not, then must [Page 97]he in the same Epistle to the Gala­tians, wherein he protests before God that he lied not, have told a lie; which is not to be said with­out Blasphemy, since what he writes in that Epistle is the Word of God who cannot lie. And thus it is made out, that according to St. Paul, those great Saints, and that wise Pope, who understood himself very well, St. Peter was guilty of a notable mistake at that time, when he in­sinuated to the Jews and Gentiles that they were obliged to keep the Law of Moses: which the Church immediately after condemned in the Council of the Apostles held at Je­rusalem.

For it is to be observed, which a great many have not minded, that, as that Pope whose words I have ci­ted, does expresly say, it was be­fore that Council of the Apostles that St. Peter did that action which rendred him blame-worthy. And who does not see that he had been incomparably more worthy of blame and reproof, if, as Cardinal Baro­nius [Page 98]will have it, he had done it immediately after the Decree of the Council, which had just then defi­ned, he himself having subscribed to the Decree, that Christians were no more obliged to observe those legal Rites, excepting in one small point, and that for a certain time; and that after he had spoken so well on that subject, to free Christi­ans from that Yoke, he should have again endeavoured to subject them to it, by obliging them to Judaize? That would have been so strange a thing, and so unbeseeming an Apostle, and the Prince of Apo­stles, that I make no doubt but that for the honour that is due to him, it is far better to fol­low in that the judgment of that ancient Pope, than the Opinion of this Cardinal who lived but in the last age. It follows then from these matters of Fact which I have now most faithfully related, that a great Pope, and those Holy Fa­thers, the most venerable and lear­ned of Antiquity, have not belie­ved, [Page 99]even according to St. Paul, that St. Peter was infallible, nor by con­sequent that the Popes who have no greater privilege and prerogative than St. Peter had, have received that gift of Infallibility.

Inter omnes Aposto­los hujus Ecclesiae Ca­tholicae personam susti­net Petrus: huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt, & cum ei dicitur, ad om­nes dicitur, amas me, pasce oves meas. Au­gust. de Agon. Christ. lib. 30. Ita Ambrose l. de dign. Sacerd. c. 2. Chrys. hom. 79. in Matth. 24. Cypr. de unit. Eccles. Hier. con­tra Jovin. lib. 1. Ʋt Petrus, quando ei dictum est, tibi da­bo claves, in figura personam gestabat Ec­clesiae: & quando dic­tum est, pasce oves me­as, Ecclesiae quoque personam in figura ge­stabat. August, in Psal. 108. Tract. 1.118.129. in Joan. Ser. de 4. quaest. apud poss. c. 5. & 6. Serm. 13. sup. Matth. c. 2.As to the objections that are drawn from the words of Jesus Christ spoken to St. Peter, Ʋpon that Rock will I build my Church; I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; feed my sheep: It is easie to answer them by saying that, according to the common interpretation of the Fa­thers, and especially of St. Austine, they were spoken to St. Peter as re­presenting the Church by the union of its Pastours with him as with their Head, and who, by virtue of that union, make with him but one universal Episcopacy. And the bet­ter to express that unity, he applies himself and speaks to one onely, that is, to the head, to whom he gave the Primacy over the rest. So that when in that union, or rather that [Page 100]unity, he pronounces and defines jointly with them in a Council, or with consent of the Church by her Bishops; he cannot err, the founda­tion stands always sure, and the sheep are always well governed and well fed.

But because Cardinal Bellarmine, and those who follow him, will have these words, I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, to be applied absolutely to the Person of St. Peter, and without relation to the Church which he represents by virtue of his Primacy, we must grant them what they pretend. For, the truth is, they may be understood also in that sense: but then they have a very natural and literal mea­ning, which is that of almost all the ancient Fathers and Interpreters of Holy Scripture, who say that in this place our Saviour onely spake of the time of his Passion, when the Apostles were to be terribly tempted, as he himself foretold them. Then addressing himself to St. Peter, told him that he had [Page 101]prayed for him, not that he might not commit any sin of Infidelity, for he committed a fearfull one a­gainst the confession of Faith, by denying his Master thrice: but that being recovered from his fall, he might not lose the Faith for ever, that by the example of his Repentance, he might confirm therein his Bre­thren, who were much startled and shaken; and that afterwards he might persevere unto the end.

Non dixit, non nega­bis; sed ut non defici­at fides tua, curâ enim illias factum est ne om­nino Petri fides eva­nesceret. Ne deficiaet fides tua, hoc est ne in fine pereas, & huma­nam arguens naturam, cum ex se nihil sit. Chrys. hom. 63. Quid enim rogavit, nisi perseverantiam usque in finem: Aug. de Cor. & Ge. c. 6. Ʋt non periret fina­liter. Hug. in c. 22. Luc. Non ut Petrus non caderet, sed ut non defi­ceret, quia quamvis reciderit, resurrexerit. Bonav. in Luc. Ne penitus extirpetur, aut finaliter deficiat. Dion. Carth. in Luc. Ʋt non finaliter deficiat fides tua. Albert. Mag. in hunc locum.This is the common interpretati­on of the Holy Fathers, and parti­cularly of St. Chrysostome, and Saint Austine, who often make use of that passage to prove the necessity of praying, and of obtaining grace from God, without which we can­not persevere. And this is also the sense that Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius, Cardinal Hugo, Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaven­ture, Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, [Page 102]and all the rest of the most famous Interpreters and Divines, have fol­lowed as being the true literal sense. It is evident that that onely agrees with the time of the Passion, and the Person of St. Peter alone, where­in his Successours can have no part. And though they should pretend they had, yet that would not hin­der but that they might fail and fall as St. Peter did, by publishing a falshood contrary to the true faith; which is more against the duty of a Pope, than to believe an Errour without publishing it.

CHAP. VIII. What follows Naturally from the great debate that Pope Victor had with the Bishops of Asia.

THere had been for a long time very different Customs in the Church about the Celebrati­on of the Festival of Easter, and the observation of the Fast which ought to go before that holy day. For all over the West, according to the practice observed from the begin­ning in the Church of Rome, that Festival was kept on Sunday, which is the day of our Saviour's Resurre­ction. But the Churches of Asia founded by the Apostle St. John, Euseh. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron. de script. c. 44. Exod. 12. Hieron. de script. in Polychr. some of their Neighbours, and ma­ny other Churches of the East, kept it always the fourteenth of the Moon of March, as the Passover is appointed to be kept in Exodus, and according to the Tradition which they had received from St. John.

As to the Fast that is to be ob­served before Easter, there was still a greater diversity in the Customs established in several places.Irenae. ap. Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 24. For some fasted but one day before that Feast, as we do on the Vigile of Christmas and of Whitsunday; others fasted two days; some who were numerous fasted longer, and many observed punctually the Fourty days fast of Lent. Omnes Ecclesiae tum eorum qui decimo quar­to die diem festum pa­chat is observabant, tum eorum qui secus, tran­quillâ pace inter ipsas fruebantur. Euseb. Ibid. However these diffe­rent customs that were amongst Christians of the second, nay and of the first age of the Church, concern­ing Lent and Easter, made no breach at all of the peace, and every one ob­served peaceably the custom of their Church, which they thought to be good, without condemning the prac­tices of others.

This is so true, that St. Polycarp Bishop of Smirna being come to Rome, under the Pontificat of Saint Anicetus, these two great Saints, in a long conference which they had about the celebration of the Feast of Easter, did what they could mutu­ally, to draw one another over to [Page 105]their party; and seeing both remain­ed stedfast in their opinions, St. Po­lycarp, saying always, that he had from St. John his Master the custom that was observed in his Church, and St. Anicetus affirming, that that which was followed at Rome, and in the Western Churches, was derived from St. Peter, they could never a­gree upon the matter. Yet that hindred not but that they still lived together in great amity, and in the same communion, insomuch that the Pope, to doe honour to St. Polycarp, Ibid. prayed him to officiate publickly in his Church.

That good intelligence continued always betwixt the Popes and Asia­tick Bishops,Ann. 193. Euseb. l. 5. c. 22. untill Victor I. who having held several Councils at Rome about that subject, amongst the Gauls and elsewhere, where the practice of the Roman Church was observed,Euseb. c. 24. would needs compell the Asiaticks to conform to it, by cele­brating Easter on Sunday. And be­cause these who thought not them­selves obliged to obey him contrary [Page 106]to the tradition which their Chur­ches had from St. John, Omnes fratres eam incolentes regionem prorsus à communione secludendos edicit. Ibid. would by no means comply: He threatened them with Excommunication, and pub­lished against them that which now adays is called a Monitory.

Polycrates, who was at that time Bishop of Ephesus, held also a Coun­cil with his brethren about the same subject, and answering in name of all by a Synodal Letter, to Pope Victor, and his Bishops, he says, That what the Asiaticks did, had been re­ligiously observed by the Apostles St. Philip and St. John, Hieron. de Script. in Polychr. by another St. John a Bishop and Martyr, whose body rested at Ephesus, by St. Poly­carp Bishop of Smirna, by the Mar­tyr St. Thraseas, and by many other holy Bishops, who had always cele­brated that Holy day the fourteenth of the Moon, according to that Tra­dition; that for himself, who was sixty five years of age, having con­sulted many able Men of all Nati­ons, and carefully read all Writings for informing himself in that con­trovertedPeragratâ omni scri­pturâ non formidabo eos qui nobis minantur. &c. [Page 107]point, he did not fear those that threatned him, because it hath been said by his Predecessours, that it is better to obey God than Man.

And seeing Victor still persisted in his threats, and that he would by all means Excommunicate the Asiaticks if they obeyed not:Verum ista caeteris omnibus parum place-bant Episcopis ....... quorum verba utpote Victorem acrius & a­cerbius coarguentium, scriptis prodita adhuc extant. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Ibid. several Bishops of other Countries, who blamed his proceeding, wrote sharply to him, to divert him from his enterprise. A­mongst others St. Irenaeus the great Archbishop of Lyons sent him a long Letter in name of all the Gallican Church, whom he had assembled for that effect, wherein he represents to him, with as much force at least, but with far greater moderation than the rest, that he ought not, for a dif­ference of that nature, cut off from the Universal Church so many par­ticular Churches, so many Bishops, and so many Believers, who acted according to an ancient Tradition, upon which they founded themselves. He adds, that he would doe far bet­ter to follow the example of so ma­ny holy Popes his Predecessours, [Page 108] Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus and Sixtus, who, though they, as well as he, had observed a quite dif­ferent custome from that of the Bi­shops of Asia, yet never treated them as Hereticks for that, nor forbore to communicate with them in a perfect union.

Multos Asiae & o­rientis Episcopos ..... damnandos crediderat. Hieron. de script. Eccles. c. 24.But notwithstanding all these Re­monstrances, Victor was still of the mind that they ought to be Con­demned. Nay, there are some who affirm, that he did actually condemn and thunder an Anathema against them. However it be, it is certain that they would not submit to his Ordinances, that the custome of their Churches, concerning the Feast of Easter was allowed them, and that they who observed it were not repu­ted Hereticks,Victori non dederunt manus. Hieron. Ibid. cut off from the com­munion of Catholicks. It was about an hundred and eight years after that the great Council of Nice abolished that custome, in respect that Saint John had onely allowed it for a time, in these Provinces of Asia that bor­dered upon the Jews, to give an [Page 109]honourable Funeral to the Synagogue, and that the other practice was ta­ken universally as transmitted from the Apostles; after which, there lay an obligation upon Christians to sub­mit to that Decree, and they who headstrongly refused to obey it, were declared Hereticks under the name of Quartodecumans.

This being so, it is evident to all Men, that neither these Bishops of Asia and of the East, nor St. Irenae­us and the Gallican Church, nor the Bishops of other Countries, who wrote so smartly to Pope Victor in favour of these Eastern Churches, did believe the Pope to be Infallible. For had they believed it, it is certain on the one hand, that these Asiaticks would have submitted to the Decree of the Pope, as they afterwards sub­mitted to that of a Council, because they believed, as all other Catholicks doe, that a Council is Infallible; and on the other hand, it is very clear, that St. Irenaeus, and so many other Bishops would not have written, as they did to Pope Victor, and found [Page 110]fault with his conduct: For they never questioned but that those who refused to obey an Infallible Tribu­nal, ought to be condemned and pu­nished. It was not then believed in the Church, that the Pope had the gift of Infallibility, though he might make a Decree for the instruction of all believers.

CHAP. IX. What inference is to be made from that famous contest that happened betwixt the Pope, St. Stephen, and St. Cyprian, concerning the Bap­tism of Hereticks.

THis famous question that hath made so much noise in the Church, was fourty years before St. Cyprian, solemnly examined in a Council held in Africa by Agrippi­nus Bishop of Carthage; Ann. 217. and there it was determined, that the Baptism of Hereticks being null, there was a ne­cessity of Re-baptizing all those, who, having abjured their Heresie, should return to the bosome of the Church.Cypr. Epist. 71. ad Quin. & Epist. ad Jubaian. Commonit. 6.9. Vincentius Lirinensis hath Written, that that same Agrippinus was the first, who, contrary to the custome of the Universal Church, and the determination of his Brethren, thought that Hereticks ought to be Re-baptised. But saving the honour and respect that is due to so great a [Page 112]Man, it is evident he was mistaken. For besides that the Bishops of Afri­ca and Numidia, Cypr. loc. citat. with common con­sent, and in conjunction with Agrip­pinus, decided the same thing: Ter­tullian, Ann. 203. Cap. 12. who Wrote his excellent Book of Prescriptions against Here­ticks, fourteen years before the Coun­cil of Agrippinus, says therein very plainly, that their Baptism is not valid:Cap. 15. Which in his Book of Bap­tism he also asserts in most express terms; a Book Written by him be­fore he fell into the Heresie of the Montanists. Ann. 200. Strommat. 1. Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the same time, al­so rejects the Baptism of Hereticks: which shews, that it was the doctrine and custome of the Church of Alex­andria, the chief and most illustrious Church, next to that of Rome. So that Agrippinus, and the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, whom he as­sembled in a Council to determine that Question, are not the first who established that Custome and Disi­pline, which appoints all Hereticks, [Page 113]who return into the bosome of the Church to be Re-baptized.

Probably it may be objected by some, that what these ancient Au­thours say, ought onely to be under­stood of the Hereticks of their times, who, all of them, blaspheming a­gainst the most Holy Trinity, Bap­tized not in the Name of the Fa­ther, Son and Holy Ghost, and that therefore their Baptism was null; which is most true. But the rea­son whereupon they ground the nul­lity of the Baptism of Hereticks, to wit, that they are strangers, without the Pale of the Church,Ad quos vetamur accedere, quis servus cibaria ab extraneo, ne dicam ab inimico do­mini sui petat? &c. Tertull. de praescrip. Quos extraneos uti (que) testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Id. de Baptis. Trajicies aquam ali­enam? &c. Clem. A­lex. and that we are forbidden to have any com­merce with them, proves manifestly, that what they said ought to be un­derstood of all sorts of Hereticks, both present and to come, because they are all out of the Pale of the Church.

Now seeing some considerable time after the Council of Agrippi­nus, Novation, who was the first An­ti-pope. caused Catholicks who fol­lowed the party of the true Pope [Page 114] Cornelius to be Re-baptized, the Que­stion concerning the Baptism of He­reticks was argued afresh in Africa, where it was put, Whether or not the Novatian Schismaticks, who re­turned to the Church, ought to be Re-baptized.Litt. Synod. ad Epis. ad Episc. humid. ap Cypr. Epist. 90. Numid. ap Cypr. Epist. 70. Whereupon St. Cypri­an having assembled a Provincial Council at Carthage, it was there de­clared, that since no body can be lawfully Baptized out of the Church, there was a necessity of Re-bapti­zing Hereticks and Schismaticks, those excepted, who, having been Baptized in the Catholick Church,Cypr. Epist. 74. ad Pomp. had afterward separated from it; because Baptism, once rightly admi­nistred, could never again be reitera­ted.

The Bishops of Numidia who had received the Decree of the Council of Agrippinus, Litt. Synod. ad E­pise. Numid. having consulted Saint Cyprian upon that new emergent, re­ceived also the Decree of the Coun­cil of Carthage; and that it might be rendered more Authentick, Saint Cyprian assembled them together, with the Bishops of his Province, in [Page 115]a second Synod, where the decisi­on of the former was confirmed. And thereupon a Synodal Letter was written to the Pope St. Stephen, Cypr. Epist. 73. ad Jubai. informing him of what had been de­cided in those two Councils, to wit, that all those, who being out of the Church,Eos qui sunt foris extra Ecclesiam tincti, & apud haereticos & schismaticos profanae a­quae labe maculaeti, quando ab nos vene­rint Baptisare oportere, eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere. E­pist. 70. Apud Cypr. & ap. August. l. 6. & 7. de Bapt. had been polluted by the profane Baptism of Hereticks and Schismaticks, ought to be Re-bap­tised: which was also confirmed in a third Council, wherein were pre­sent the Bishops of Mauritania, with those of Africa and Numidia.

Pope Stephen, though his Prede­cessours had not opposed the Coun­cil of Agrippinus, but left the Afri­cans in the possession of their cu­stome, thought that he ought to condemn it as contrary to Apostoli­cal Tradition. And thereupon,Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 5. in two Letters which he Wrote to the Africans, he made a Decree quite contrary to that of St. Cyprian, and of those three Councils. These are the proper terms of the Decree of the Pope, which we have in the [Page 116] Epistles of St. Cyprian, for the Let­ters of St. Stephen have not come to our hands.Si quis à quâcun­que Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur, ni­si, quod traditum est, ut manus ei imponan­tur ad poenitentiam. Ap. Cyprian. Epist. 79 ad Pompeian. If any one return to us from what Heresie soever it be, let nothing be innovated, and let nothing be done but what Tradition authori­ses; that is to say, that hands be one­ly laid upon him, to reconcile him by repentance.

There is nothing more opposite than those two Decrees,Qui ex quâcunque haeresi ad Ecclesiam convertantur, unico & legitimo Baptismate Baptizentur. Cypr. E­pist. ad Jubaian. if you take them literally. That of Saint Cyprian will have all Hereticks to be Re-baptized, from what Heresie soe­ver they return, and all that are out of the Church; and that it is not enough to lay hands upon them; but the Pope by his,Eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere. Stephanus Baptis­mum Christi in nul­lo iterandum esse cen­sebat, & hoc facienti­bus graviter succense­bat. August. l. de u­nic. Baptis. c. 14. declares, that it is sufficient, and forbids any Heretick to be Re-baptised. This St. Austine confirms, when he expresly assures us, that Stephen would have no He­retick to be Re-baptized, and that he was extreamly offended against all those that did it.

The truth is, Eusebius in his Hi­story remarks, that the true state of that great Question, that was then in agitation, was to know, Whether those who returned from any Here­sie whatsoever, ought to be Re-bap­tized.

Indeed, if one would stick, with­out admitting any explication, to the natural sense of these words of Eu­sebius, A quocunque Haeresis genere; Erat id tempor is non exigua quaestio & controversia excitata, utrum oporteret eos qui se à quocunque hae­resis, genere revocassent, lavacro Baptisma­tis, repurgare. Euseb. l. 7. c. 2. and of those of the Decree of Saint Stephen, Si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur, nisi ut manus ei imponatur in poenitenti­am; It will seem, at first sight, that as St. Cyprian was, for having all ge­nerally, who had been Baptized by Hereticks, to be Re-baptized; so that Holy Pope, on the contrary, forbad the Re-baptizing of any who had been Baptized by Hereticks. And that is also the errour that some have attributed unto him upon these words, Si quis à quacunque Haeresi, which they have taken according to the strictness of the Letter. But it is to be confessed ingenuously, that [Page 118]as Tradition hath always rejected the Monstrous Baptisms of some Hereticks, which may be seen in E­piphanius, who Baptized in a quite different manner from what Jesus Christ prescribes, when he command­ed his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; So that Holy Pope, who, with St. Cyprian, rejec­ted all these false Baptisms, would onely, that the Baptism administred in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by any Hereticks what­soever, should not be reiterated.

And certainly, without necessity of alledging any other proof, that, in my opinion, appears evidently, by that testimony of St. Augustine, which I have just now cited: Stephanus Bap­tismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat: Pope Stephen thought, that the Baptism of Jesus Christ was to be reiterated in no Heretick. The Que­stion was onely then about the Bap­tism of Jesus Christ, which ordains Baptism to be administred in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, [Page 119]and of the Holy Ghost. The Romans would have that to stand good by what Heretick soever it had been conferred; and the Africans main­tained that it was null, if it was con­ferred by Hereticks out of the Church, or by Schismaticks. And this is the precise state of that great Controversie, betwixt the Pope Saint Stephen and St. Cyprian, though the Decree of that Pope be not altoge­ther so clearly worded as that of St. Cyprian. Aug. l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donat.

Now this Decree which the Pope grounded wholly upon the ancient custome of the Church,Cypr. Ep. 74. & al. and the Tra­dition of the Apostles, having been brought into Africa, St. Cyprian, and all those of his party, which was very considerable, opposed it with all their might. For besides, the Afri­can Bishops assembled in three Coun­cils, after that of Agrippinus, Firmil. Epist. ap. Cypr. Epist. 75. Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. l. 7. hist. c. 4. & 6. Firmi­lian Bishop of Cesanea in Cappadocia, and most of the Bishops of Asia ad­hered unto him, and had, as well as those of Africa, decided against the [Page 120]Baptism of Hereticks, in the Coun­cils of Iconium and Synnada, and of many other Cities of Asia, where the Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, Phrygia, and other Provin­ces, assembled for examining that Question, which had been the cause of so great a difference.

Denis Patriarch of Alexandria, a Man of extraordinary merit, singu­lar learning, and great authority,Ibid. made it also evident enough by his Writings, that they should not offer to condemn that Doctrine which his Bishops of Africa and of Asia main­tained to be exactly conform to ho­ly Scripture, affirming, that as there is but one Faith,Cypr. Epist. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 & 76. one Church, and one Baptism, this cannot be administred out of the Church; And as Here­ticks can neither absolve from sins, nor give the Holy Ghost by the Im­position of hands, so neither can they Baptise. And as to the custome that was objected to them, they absolute­ly denied it to have been the practice of the Primitive Church, nor a Tra­dition [Page 121]derived from the Apostles; but on the contrary, said, that theirs was Apostolical, and that their prac­tice, being the more ancient, had been observed time out of mind in the Church.

Notwithstanding all these reasons, the Pope continued stedfast in the resolution he had taken, of causing his Decree to be observed, in so far,Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. Firmil. ap. Cypr. Epist. 75. that he cut off from his communion all the Bishops of Asia, who would not submit to it. And this he did, although Denis of Alexandria had written earnestly to him to dissuade him from it, representing to him, that he might appease him, that Pope Cornelius, and the Anti-pope Novatian having written to these Bi­shops, to engage them severally unto their party, they had, in fine, all of them, condemned Novatian and his Heresie, which consisted in this, that he maintained, that the Church had not power to reconcile those, who, in time of persecution, had fallen off to Idolatry.

Cardinal Baronius concludes from these words of the Holy Patriarch, that the Asiaticks had quitted their opinion concerning the nullity of the Baptism of Hereticks. But without doubt that is an evident A­nachronism, and manifest contra­diction, which that great Cardinal had not leisure to mind. For the Patriarch Denis speaks onely here of what these Bishops had done under the Pontificate of Pope Cornelius; and he prays Stephen, the Successour of that Pope, not to use them harsh­ly for the Judgment they are of, that the Baptism of Hereticks is null: Them, says he, who under his Predecessour condemned the Heresie of Novatian. Is there any thing clear­er, than that Baronius, without minding it, hath taken the Counter-sense? and besides, Denis of Alexan­dria would have had care not to call an opinion, which he believed to be true, an Heresie.

Firmilian then, and the Asiaticks, persisted still in their opinion, as well [Page 123]as St. Cyprian, the Africans and their successours, till the decision of a Ge­neral Council, as may be clearly seen in an hundred passages of the Books of St. Austine, which he Wrote con­cerning Baptism against the Dona­tists. I know that St. Jerome says, in the Dialogue against the Luciferi­ans, that the Bishops of Africa re­turned to the ancient custome, say­ing, What do we doe? and that a­bandoning St. Cyprian, they made a new Decree conform to that of Saint Stephen. But all the Learned agree, that that holy Doctour, who Wrote that Dialogue before the most part of his other Works, had taken that out of some Apocryphal Writings, such as that which bears for Title, The Repentance of St. Cyprian; and was declared false and supposititious, in a Synod held at Rome Threescore and fourteen years before the death of St. Jerome. For, to be short, the quite contrary is to be seen in the Books of St. Austine that I have just now alledged, in the Letter of Saint Basil to Amphilochius, and in the [Page 124]Eighth Canon of the first Council of Arles.

Now, if during the life of Saint Stephen, there were so many Bishops who refused to obey his Decree, there were as many that opposed it after his death. For the Patriarch Denis of Alexandria Wrote in a high strain to Pope Sixtus the Successour of St. Stephen, Euseb. l. 7. hist. c. 4. exhorting him to fol­low a conduct contrary to that of his Predecessour, and not to break, as he had done, with so many Bishops for a constitution contrary to his own; since it had been approved in several Councils;Hic in Cypriani & Africanae Synodi dog­ma consentiens de Haereticis Re-baptizandis, ad diversos plurimas mifit epistolas quae us (que) hodie extant. Hieron. de script. Ecclesias. in Dionys. and St. Jerome him­self, in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, which he made long after his Dialogue against the Luciferians, assures us, that that great Man decla­red openly for the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and African Bishops, and that he thereupon Wrote many Let­ters which were still extant in his time. That was the cause that the Successours of Sixtus entertained Peace with the African and Asiatick [Page 125]Bishops, every one freely following their custome and opinion as to that Point, without being blamed for it, untill that a General Council had pronounced Supremely in the mat­ter.

This we learn from St. Austine, in his Books of Baptism against the Donatists. These,August. l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donatis. c. 7. who began their Schism against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage, in the year Three hundred and two, alledged continually the example of St. Cyprian, and of his fellow Bishops, to justifie the conduct which they held, as well as those in Re-baptizing all Hereticks. It is most evident, that they durst not have made use of that instance, if St. Cyprian and those Bishops had retracted: For St. Austine would have confounded these Schismaticks upon the spot, by saying, that all these Bishops had condemned their former opinion. Yet he ne­ver did so. On the contrary, he confesses, that they always believed that Hereticks must be Re-baptized: [Page 126]but he adds, that it was lawfull for them to believe it, and for all who have succeeded them to doubt of that point, which was then in con­troversie, and to dispute about it. As, indeed, there were many confe­rences, great disputes and debates on Church decided that difference, and all submitted to that Sovereign Au­thority;Cui & ipse cederet, si jam eo tempore quae­stionis hujus veritas e­liquata & declarata per plenarium concili­um solidaretur. Ibid. c. 4.89. as St. Cyprian would have done without doubt, saith St. Au­stine, if the whole Church, in a full and general Council had in his time pronounced concerning that point. And because the Donatists would not submit to the Decree of that Coun­cil, in that they added Heresie to their Schism.

Now before we come to shew what that General Council decided as to that point, we must make a se­rious and solid reflexion upon what we have now said, which will suf­fise, to make it clearly out to us what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Infallibility of the Pope.

Here then, we have a Pope of fa­mous memory in the Church, who makes a Decree, whereby he in­structs all Believers, concerning a point of highest importance, where the question is about the validity or nullity of Baptism, without which one cannot be saved; and by that Decree he pretends to oblige the whole Church to believe, that Hereticks, who are converted, ought not to be Re-baptized, and does so pretend it, that he cuts off from his communion great Bishops, who would not submit to his Decree. And nevertheless St. Cyprian, all the Bishops of Africa, Mauritania and Numidia, those of Cappadocia, Ci­licia, Galatia and Phrygia, Denis Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Bishops of his Patriarchate, will not receive that so solemn a Decree of Stephen Pope of Rome.

Besides, St. Austine, and all the African Catholicks, united with that great Doctour of the Church against the Donatists, say, that be­fore [Page 128]the decision of the Council, that came not till long after that Decree of the Pope, it might freely, with­out making a separation from the Church, be held, what St. Cyprian had believed concerning the Bap­tism of Hereticks. In fine, St. A­thanasius, St. Optatus Melevitanus, Athanas. Or. 3. con­tra Arian. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Optat. l. 4. Cont. Parmen. St. Basil, and some others,Cyril. Hieros. praef. in Catech. who have Written as well as they after that General Council,Basil. Epist. 3. Con. 47. whereof St. Austine speaks, and before that of Constantinople have believed, that all Hereticks, who have not the true Faith of the Trinity, ought to be Re-baptized, who, in those first Ages of the Church, were incomparably more numerous than the other Hereticks, who be­lieved that great Mystery.

These are not bare conjectures that may be doubted of: but un­controverted matters of fact. A Man needs no more but eyes in his head, to prove them, by Read­ing the testimonies alledged. It must necessarily then follow, see­ing [Page 129]they submitted to a Council, because they knew it to be Infalli­ble, which was not done in regard to the Pope St. Stephen, that St. Cy­prian, Firmilian of Caesarea, Denis of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, Saint Optatus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Basil, St. Austine, and most Catho­lick Bishops of Aegypt, Asia and A­frica, not to mention those, who, in the interval of almost Threescore years, that was betwixt Pope Ste­phen and the Council, had liberty to follow the party of St. Cyprian, be­lieved not in the Third, Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church, that the Pope was Infallible. What can be answered to that?

Let us now consult the Council in Question, or rather the Councils which have pronounced Sovereign­ly concerning that point of the Bap­tism of Hereticks. You have three of them. First, the full Council, which is the first Council of Arles, to which the Pope St. Sylvester sent four Legats in the year 314. makes [Page 130]this Decree, in the Eighth Canon, upon occasion of the Africans, De Afris quod pro­priâ lege utantur, ut Re-baptisent, placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam a­liquis de Haeresi vene­rit, interrogent eum sym­bolum, & si pervi­derint eum in patre, & filio, & Spiritu Sancto Baptizatum, manus ei tantum im­ponatur & sic accipi­at Spiritum Sanctum. Quod si interroga­tus, non responderit hanc Trinitatem Re­baptisetur. who Rebaptized all Hereticks: If any Heretick return to the Church, let him be asked the Question; and if it appear that he hath been Baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that hands be onely laid upon him, to the end he may receive the Holy Ghost: but if he answer, not according to the Mystery of the Trinity, let him be Re-baptized.

Moreover, the great Council of Nice, Twelve years after, ordains, in the Canon 19. that the Paula­nists who return to the Church should be Re-baptized,De Paulanistis ad Ecclesiam Catholicam confugientibus defini­tio prolata est ut ite­rum Baptisentur omni­modis. Aug. de haer. ad quod vult Haeres. 44. because, as St. Austine says, these Hereticks, the Disciples of Paulus Samosatanus, who believed not the Trinity, nor the In­carnation of the Word, Can. 1. observed not the form of Baptism, in Baptizing in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity. But as to the Novati­ans who Baptized in the Name of the Trinity, as Catholicks did, the [Page 131]Council declares, that it is sufficient to lay hands upon them.

In fine,Can. 7. the first Council of Con­stantinople, which is the second Ge­neral, ordains also the Montanists, Sabellians, and such other Hereticks, who Baptized not in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity, against which they blasphemed, should be Re-baptized; but not the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, nor yet the Arians and Macedonians, be­cause although these had not the true belief which ought to be had of that great Mystery, yet they Bapti­zed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: which St. Austine, who hath Writ­ten after that Council of Constanti­nople, assures to be sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament, though the Faith of him who Baptizes be not pure. So that, saith he,Manifestum est fie­ri posse ut fide non in­tegrā integrum in quo­quam maneat Baptismi Sacramentum....... Quamo [...]rem nisi Evangelicis verbis, in nomine Patris, & Filii, & Spiritus Sancti Marcion Baptismum consecrabat, integrum erat Sacramentum, quam­vis ejus fides sub iisdem verbis aliud opinantis quam Catholica veritas docet, non esset integra. Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. cont. Donatist. c. 14, 15. if Mar­cion Baptized, using the words of the Gospel, in the Name of the Father, [Page 132] and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, his Baptism was good, though that Heretick, under these words, believed a thing quite different from what the Catholick Church teaches.

That being so, there is no more to be done, but to compare these Decrees of Councils with those of the Pope St. Stephen, and of Saint Cyprian. Si quis à quacun (que) Haeres. &c. manus ei tantum imponatur. This Pope Decrees, that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever, he shall have onely hands laid upon him, without be­ing Re-baptized: Si quis à quacun­que Haeresi, Qui ex quacunque Haeresi, &c. Baptisen­tur. &c. St. Cyprian says on the contrary, that if any one re­turn from any Heresie whatsoever, he ought to be Re-baptized. These are two extreams, directly opposite one to another. The Three Coun­cils take the middle course, explain­ing the one, and condemning the other. They are not for Re-bapti­zing the Novatians and other Here­ticks who Baptize in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity, and they hold their Baptism to be [Page 133]lawfull and good, according to the true Apostolical Tradition; but they are also absolutely for Re-bapti­zing the Paulanists, and all such who Baptize not in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; thereby clearly defi­ning that their Baptism is null. And therein they explain and rectifie the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen, ad­ding but in formal terms an excep­tion, which is onely understood therein. They plainly then declare on the one hand, how the Decree of St. Stephen is to be understood; and on the other, that St. Cyprian, Nondum veritas e­liquata & declarata per plenarium conci­lium. who expressed himself clearly enough in his, was deceived, but very inno­cently; because, as St. Austine says,L. 1. de Baptis. Con­tra Donatis. c. 7, 8, 9, 17. the truth was not then discovered and declared by the Council. Now seeing before that Declaration, one might, according to that holy Fa­ther, freely follow the opinion of St. Cyprian, notwithstanding the De­cree of the Pope, and that after that of the Council one had not the same liberty: it is altogether evi­dent, [Page 134]that it must once more be concluded, that it is, because the an­cient Church believed, that a Coun­cil is Infallible, and that the Pope is not.

CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius.

THESE two holy Popes, Victor and Stephen, whom so many Catholick Bishops of the Ancient Church have not believed to be In­fallible, had notwithstanding the truth on their side, and in their fa­vours the Councils decided. But there are others, who, according to the unquestionable testimonies of the Ancients, have fallen into errour: whence it may be irrefragably con­cluded upon better reason, that An­tiquity reckoned them not Infalli­ble. I shall onely alledge seven or eight of the most evident instances, which will be sufficient to prove, that the Ancients acknowledged no other Infallibility amongst Men, but what God hath given to his Church.

The first is Liberius, who, to get himself recalled from the Exile to which the Arian Emperour had Ba­nished [Page 136]him, and to remount the Pontifical Throne which Felix had usurped,Ann. 357. solemnly approved Aria­nism. This he did, by condemning jointly with the Arians, St. Athana­sius, the great defender of the Faith, and scourge of Arianism; besides, by suppressing the Term Consubstantial, which distinguished a Catholick from an Arian, and which was, in a man­ner, the Character and Mark of Ca­tholicity; nay more, by receiving the most obstinate Arians into his Communion; and, in a word, by subscribing to the scandalous For­mulary of Sirmium, which was presented to him by the Head of the Semi-Arians.

And, at length, that it might not be doubted but that he acted as Pope, who makes known to the whole Church what Men ought to believe, for that was the thing the Arians pretended to, who were willing it might be known, that the Head of the Church was on their side: He Wrote two long Letters, which were [Page 137]made publick all over the Empire; one to the Emperour Constantius, the great Protectour of Arianism; and the other to the Arian Bishops, where­in he declares his intention in terms most significant, and most advanta­gious for the Arians.

Ʋbi cognovi quan­do Deo placuit, Juste vos illum condemnas­se, mox consensum me­um commodavi senten­tiis vestris. Lib. E­pist. 7. ad Episc. Ori­entales. Amoto Athanasio à communione omnium, cujus nec Epistolia à me suscipienda sunt, dico me cum omnibus vobis pacem & una­nimitatem habere; ut sciatis me veram fidem per hanc Epistolam me­amloqui: hanc ego liben­ti animo suscepi, in nul­lo contradixi, &c.For there he saith, That having known, when it pleased God to illu­minate him, that they had justly condemned Athanasius, he presently consented to their Judgment; that he had Excommunicated him; that he would not so much as receive his Letters; and that he would have them to know, that he was perfect­ly united with them in mind and heart: that he professes in that Let­ter the true Faith, which Demophilus had made known unto him, which they had declared and received at Sirmium, and that he most willing­ly embraces it without the least con­tradiction.

This, methinks, may be said to be an Authentick Declaration for Aria­nism, [Page 138]and a falling from on high in­to the Abyss of Heresie. And it can­not be known by a more unquesti­onable evidence than his own, that he fell so unfortunately. And there­fore St. Hilary, In fragment, à Pi­thaeo editis. Liberius taedio vic­tus exilii, & in haere­ticâ pravitate subscri­bens, Romam victor intraverat. Hieron. in Chron. & de scrip. Eccles. in Fortunati. who lived in that time, most positively calls him He­retick, pronouncing three or four Anathema's against him, one upon the heels of another; And St. Je­rome, in more than one passage of his Works, says, That that Pope subscrib'd to the Arian impiety; and that the vexation he lay under for his Banishment having made him subscribe to Heresie, in a Victori­ous manner he again entered Rome.

But not to mention all the others who have spoken of that deplorable fall of Liberius, Auxili. l. 1. de or­dinati. c. 25. & l. 2. c. 1. & alii. we need no other proof fully to persuade us of it, than Rome her self and all her Clergy; or to say better, the Church of Rome, which so abhorred that scandalous Declaration of Liberius, that on the spot she deposed him from his Pa­pacy, as an Arian Heretick of pub­lick [Page 139]notoriety. Nor was he chosen and acknowledged of new for true Pope, till that after his Successour St. Felix had suffered Martyrdom, he abjured his Heresie, and was again become the same Liberius that he was before his fall, a wise, generous and zealous Pope. This being so, Is it not clear, that the Church of Rome her self, in the fourth age, did not believe the Pope to be In­fallible?

CHAP. XI. The instance of Pope Vigilius.

THE Second instance that I produce, is that of Pope Vi­gilius. I have already related that example upon occasion of St. Peter's being reproved by St. Paul, and shall at present apply it, in a few, but de­cisive words, to the subject whereof I treat in this Chapter. This Pope, before the fifth Council, made a Constitution,Vigilii Constitutum ad Justin. Imper. Ex verbis Epistolae viri venerabilis Ibae rectissimo ac piissimo in­tellectu perspectis, &c. Nec quemquam hoc nostro constituto per­mittimus aliquando praesumere super ejus­dem Epistolae negotium ..... quoquo modo a­liquid temerariae novi­tatis inferre. which he addressed to the Emperour Justinian, wherein, a­mongst other things, undertaking the defence of the Letter of Ibas Bishop of Edessa, he declares, that according to the words of that Let­ter, understood in the sound sense that might be given unto them, it seemed to be Orthodox, and strictly prohibits any whosoever to innovate any thing touching that Letter, in what manner soever it might be; nor to condemn it, seeing Ibas had been absolv'd, and received as a [Page 141]Catholick in the Council of Chalce­don.

The Fifth Council which was held sometime after,Ann. 553. and at which Vigilius would never assist, though he was then at Constantinople, where that Synod was celebrated, decides exactly the contrary. For having well examined the Letter of Ibas, Si quis defendit E­pistolam quam dicitur Ibas ad Marim Per­sam scripsisse, quae ab­negat Deum verbum de sancta Dei genitrice semper virgine Maria incarnatum hominem factum esse, dicit autem, &c. ..... & defen­dit Theodorum & Nestorium, & impia eorum dogmata & con­scripta. Si quis igi­tur memoratam impi­am Epistolam defen­dit, & non Anathe­matizat eam, &c. ....& qui praesumit eum defendere; vel in­fertam ei impietatem nomine sanctorum pa­trum vel Concilii Chal­cedonensis.....A­nathema sit. Synod. 5. Coll. 3. c. 14. concerning which the Council of Chalcedon had pronounced nothing, it solemnly declares the same Here­tical and impious, as containing the Blasphemies of Theodore of Mopsue­stia, and Nestorius against Jesus Christ and his holy Mother, and pronounces Anathema against all those who Anathematise it not, and dare undertake the defence thereof, as if it had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon.

There you have two decrees quite contrary one to another. Whence it must follow, that either the Coun­cil in its decision, or the Pope in his constitution, are deceived, and [Page 142]maintain an errour. Or whether that Pope did at length consent to that Council, as I have said, upon the credit of very good vou­chers, or that he never consent­ed to it, as there are some who af­firm: It is certain, that his Succes­sours, Pelagius II. and St. Gregory the Great have approved it, and that it hath always been received since without contradiction, by all the Western Church, as a true Ecu­menical Council which cannot err. It is then most certain that Vigilius decided wrong in his constitution, and that by consequent, even accor­ding to the Popes and Church of Rome in the fifth Age; The Popes, for all they are heads of the Church, are not therefore Infallible.

CHAP. XII. The Condemnation of Honorius in the Sixth Council.

THE same appears clearly al­so, in the case of Pope Hono­rius, of whom so much hath been Written in these later times. I am not for contesting with any body. I shall onely produce matter of Fact, which being barely related, will clearly determine that affair. Sergi­us Patriarch of Constantinople, being corrupted by Theodore Bishop of Pharan, Lateran. Synod. sub. Martr. 1. Authour of the Heresie of the Monothelites, who would not ac­knowledge two Wills and two Ope­rations, the one Divine, and the other Humane in Jesus Christ, undertook to spread that Heresie all over the East.

For that end, seeing he had already on his side Cyrus Bishop of Phasis, Histor. Miscell. l. 18. Cedren. & Zonar. in Heracl. who was shortly after Patriarch of Alex­andria, Macarius Patriarch of Anti­och, [Page 144]and Athanasius Patriarch of the Jacobites, he acted so cunningly, that being powerfully seconded by these three Bishops, who were much esteemed by the Emperour Heracli­us, he drew that poor Prince, in his declining Age, into that Heresie. So that he prevailed with him to make that famous Edict under the name of Ecthesis, or the exposition of Faith; whereby he commands all his Subjects inviolably to follow that Doctrine. And then that Pa­triarch of Constantinople, having cau­sed it to be signed by all the Bishops of his Patriarchy, whom he had as­sembled in a Council, he affixed it upon the Doors of his Cathedral Church, at the same time that Cyrus planted the same Heresie in Ae­gypt.

Now seeing Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem vigorously opposed it, he caused that pernicious Doctrine, that came near the Errour of Euty­ches, who confounded the two Na­tures in Jesus Christ, reducing them [Page 145]singly into one, to be condemned in his Synod; as the Council of Chalce­don had condemned the other. Ser­gius finding himself attacked in this manner,Sect. Syn. Act. 12. wrote a long Letter to Pope Honorius, wherein he accu­ses Sophronius of troubling the Peace of the Oriental Church, by introducing a new Doctrine by these new terms of Two Wills, and Two Operations, which had never been heard of before, neither in the Fa­thers nor Councils. Cyrus failed not to second his Collegue in Im­piety, complaining, as he had done, of Sophronius to the Pope; And that Patriarch also on his part, did what he ought, in defending him­self well, and in making known to Honorius the extreme danger they were in in the East, of seeing errour triumph by power, and by the Ar­tifices of these Hereticks, if a spee­dy course were not taken.

It was never more apparent than on this occasion, that when the Ca­tholick Faith is to be declared, one must never biass; nor dissemble, and [Page 146]conceal part of truth, for reconci­ling both parties, and bringing back to the Church those,Sext. Synod. Act. 12. who, through Heresie or Schism, have separated from it. Honorius, who was a very peaceable Man, and so zealous for the peace of the Church, that he en­deavoured to accommodate all mat­ters, and content both parties, Wrote back to Sergius, in a manner, where­by that Patriarch and his party took great advantage, publishing, in all places, and persuading many, by the reading of these Letters, That the Bishop of Rome, owned at that time by the Greeks for Head of the Church, and Ecumenical Pope, ap­proved their Doctrine; which ren­dered the party of the Monothelites more powerfull than ever.

The Successours of Honorius, Hist. Miscel. Cedr. & Zonar. who in the interim died, took a conduct quite contrary to his, for quenching that great conflagration that spread over all the East. John the IV. in his Council of Rome, annulled all the Decrees which these Monothe­lites [Page 147]had made in their Synods. Pope Theodore condemned and de­posed Pyrrhus, Anastas. in Theo­dor. who succeeded Ser­gius, and maintained his Heresie, and after him his Successour Paul, the most furious of all those Hereticks, who, as a foaming and raging Bear ravaged the Vineyard of our Lord▪ For he grew to that height of more than Barbarous fury, as to cause the Popes Nuncio's, sent to Constantino­ple for remedying these disorders, to be scourged.

The Illustrious Pope Martin, Auct. Vit. S. Mart. Pap. Successour to Theodore, acted more vigorously than his Predecessour. For in a Council of an Hundred and five Bishops, which he held at the Lateran, where the Writings of the Monothelites were examined, with the Petitions that were pre­sented against them, he declared their Doctrine Heretical; Anathe­matised Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul, Patriarchs of Constantino­ple, who had always maintained it; [Page 148]Exhorted the Gallican Church,Epist. Mart. Pap. ad Amand. Trajectens. which hath always vigorously de­fended the Catholick Faith, against all Heresies, to thunder against this as he had done; and solemnly con­demned the Ecthesis, or Edict of the Emperour Heraclius. Hist. Misc. l. 19. Auct. Vit. S. Mart. Anastas. in S. Mart. Cedr. & Zonar. in Constante. This put the Emperour Constans, Grandson of Heraclius, and a great Protec­tour of the Monothelites, into such a rage, that he caused the Holy Pope to be carried away from Rome, and having most outragiously used him, Banished him into the Cher­sonesus, where, being overwhelmed with miseries and poverty, he glori­ously accomplished a long Martyr­dom, which shortly after was fol­lowed by the deplorable death of that Tyrant.

His Son Constantine Pogonatus, a great Catholick, by his prudent con­duct, repaired all the faults of that unhappy Prince. For having set­tled the Empire, by the great Vic­tories which he obtained over all his Enemies, he resolved also to give [Page 149]Peace to the Church, which his Fa­ther had troubled near Fifty years by the Monothelites. Anno 680. Hist. in Miscel. Cedr. & Zonar. Anastas. in Agath. Id. & Synod. 6. Act. 9. For that ef­fect, with consent of Pope Agatho, he called the sixth Council at Con­stantinople, where the business of the Monothelites was sifted to the bot­tom, and sovereignly determined to their shame. In that Council there were above Two hundred O­riental Bishops, four Legats of Pope Agatho, Theodore and George Cardi­nal Priests, John a Deacon, who was afterwards Pope, and Constantius Sub-deacon; and on the part of the Council, of Sixscore Bishops held for the same purpose at Rome; Three Bishops, the Deputy of the Arch­bishop of Ravenna, and many other Learned Church-men and Monks, who were sent thither from the Western Church.

The Writings that had past on both sides, upon that subject,Concil. 6. Act. 12. were read there, and particularly the Letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius, and the Pope's Answer to that Pa­triarch; [Page 150]And after they had been well examined, this is the Judgment which the Council in the following Session solemnly pronounced against them, and is the same which we have in all the Editions, and parti­cularly in the last of Paris. Act. 13. Has invenientes om­nino alienas existere ab Apostolicis dogmati­bus, & à definitionibus Sanctorum Conciliorum, & Cunctorum probabi­lium Patrum, sequi ve­rò falsas doctrinas hae­reticorum, eas omnino abjicimus, & tanquam animae noxias execra­mur, & Honorium qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae eo quod inveni­mus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Ser­gium quia in omnibus ejus mentem secutus est & impia dogmata con­firmavit. Ha­ving found the Epistle of Sergius to Honorius, and that of Honorius to Sergius, wholly contrary to the Doc­trine of the Apostles, the Definitions of Councils, and the Judgment of the Holy Fathers, and that they were conform to the false doctrine of He­reticks, we absolutely reject and ab­hor them as pernicious to Souls. We have moreover Judged, that the names of Theodore, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, &c. ought to be blotted out of the Church; and that with them, Honorius, heretofore Pope of ancient Rome, ought to be Excommunicated, because we have found by his Let­ters to Sergius, that in all things he hath followed the mind of that Here­tick, and that he hath confirmed his impious Doctrines.

The holy Council repeats that Condemnation in the definition of Faith, that was made in the Eigh­teenth Session, and again Anathe­matises him, as also the Heretical Patriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Macarius of Antioch, Ad haec & Honori­us Antiquae Romae Papa hujusmodi haere­seos confirmator. Sext. Syn. p. 1084. Edit. Paris. in the thanks that were gi­ven the Emperour at the end of the Council; And that Emperour, in his Edict, whereby he Banishes the Heresie of the Monothelites out of his Empire, declares the same against the Heretical Bishops, and against Honorius, whom he calls the con­firmer of that Heresie.

The Council being ended, the Legats brought an Authentick Co­py of it to the Pope St. Leo II. who succeeded Agatho, that died during that Council; And this Pope Leo, who understood Greek very well, took the pains himself to Translate it into Latin, such as we have it. Afterwards, Writing to the Empe­rour, to whom he sent his Approba­tion [Page 152]of all the Acts of the Council; he Anathematises Honorius, Necnon & Honori­um qui hanc sedem A­postolicam non Aposto­licae Traditionis Doc­trinâ lustravit, sed immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est. T. 6. Concil. Edit. Pa­ris. p. 1027. who en­lightned not (says he) the Aposto­lick Church, by the Doctrine of A­postolical Tradition, but who on the contrary endeavoured to destroy the Faith. And in the Letters which he Wrote to the Bishops of Spain, and to the King Ervigius, to whom he sent the Definition of the Coun­cil to be signed, he expresses himself as to that point, in words, at least as significant and weighty,Qui immaculatam Apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam à prae­decessoribus suis acce­pit, maculari consen­sit. Ibid. p. 1252. saying, That that Pope hath been smitten with an Anathema with Theodore, Cyrus and Sergius, for having con­sented that the Immaculate Rule of Apostolical Tradition, which he had received from his Predecessours, should be corrupted.

What this Pope, who had Read, Examined, Translated and Appro­ved that Council, said of Honorius, other Popes, his Successours, have also said in the following Ages. For in the ancient Diurnal-book, which is a kind of Ceremonial of the [Page 153]Church of Rome, the Confession of Faith, which all the new Elected Popes did make, is to be seen, and wherein they declare, That they re­ceive the Sixth General Council, where Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, &c.Ʋnà cum Honorio qui pravis eorum as­sertionibus fomentum impendit. inventers of the Heresie of the Mo­nothelites are, say they, condemned with Honorius, who favoured and countenanced their wicked Doc­trines.

Adrian II. in his Epistle that was read, and received with applause in the seventh Action of the Eight E­cumenical Council, confesses, That the Orientals pronounced Sentence of Anathema against Honorius, accu­sed of the Heresie of the Monothe­lites; And that great Eighth Coun­cil, which so strongly maintained the Primacy of the Pope against Photi­us, yet for all that, with consent of the Popes three Legats, who presi­ded in that Council, in the definiti­on of Faith, they Anathematised Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyr­rhus, &c. and with them Honorius [Page 154]Bishop of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Macarius of Antioch.

These are matters of fact to be read in the Councils, and in the Books which I cite; and they are so strong and decisive against the In­fallibility of the Pope, that Baroni­us, Bellarmine, Pighius, and the other modern Authours, who will abso­lutely have the Pope to be Infallible, have been forced to deliver them­selves from the persecution of those troublesome matters of fact, to al­ledge forgery in them, and boldly to say, that the Acts of the Sixth Coun­cil have been corrupted by Theodore of Constantinople, who, in hatred to the Popes, foisted in, immediately after the Council, all that concerns Honorius; and that the Epistles of St. Leo are false, and have been for­ged by some Impostour, an enemy of the Holy See. For, say they, what likelihood, that after the Letter of Pope Agatho had been read in the fourth Action, wherein he sayth, That the Apostolical Church hath [Page 155]never swerved from the truth, they would have condemned one of his Predecessours, and that Leo his Suc­cessour should doe the same?

But they who yield not to that reason, nor to some other conjectures which they find to be weaker, object reasons against them, which they think can never be answer'd. For, say they, if that wicked Patriarch had corrupted the Acts, would not the Popes Legats, who presided in the Council, and brought a Copy of them to Rome, have clearly seen the Imposture, and that what was insert­ed concerning Pope Honorius was no Act of the Council, which had not mentioned him? Would they not have complained to the Emperour of that horrid Cheat? Would they not have told Pope Leo that these Acts were falsified? Would they have suffered, without speaking one word, that he should have Translated them in that manner, to impose upon the whole Church? And would the Em­perour, who was himself present at the Council, put into his Edict, that [Page 156] Honorius had been condemned there, or at least would he have suffered that Edict to be falsified in his pre­sence?

Now if any one, to excuse the Legats and Pope Leo, should think fit to say, That these Acts were not corrupted till long after their death; Might not his mouth be stopt with this Reply; To what end then was that Imposture? Was there not to be found in the Records of the Vati­can the true Copy of that Council, the Translation of it made by Pope Leo, and besides, a Thousand Copies of it elsewhere, which might have been opposed to those Falsaries for discovering their Cheat? Would not Pope Adrian, very far from Writing to the Fathers of the Eighth Council, that Honorius had been condemned in the Sixth, have advertised them, that their Copies were corrupted? Durst the Fathers have renewed the Anathema against Honorius, and A­drian's three Legats never have op­posed it? Yet they did no such thing, and there was no complaint made at [Page 157]that time that the Acts of the Sixth Council were falsified, because there have never been any other Copies of these Acts, either in Writing or in Print, except those which we have, wherein Honorius is condem­ned with Sergius and Pyrrhus, and the other heads of the Monothelites.

As to the Epistles of Pope Leo, Father Francis Cambesis, a learned Jacobin, Edit. Paris. 1648. hath so cleared the truth of them, that at present no body doubts of it. And besides, he hath given us a very rare piece, which alone might end the Controversie, if there still re­mained any, about a point so fully determined. That is a little work of the Deacon Agatho Keeper of the Re­cords, and Vice-Chancellour of the Church of Constantinople. For he saith there, that Officiating as Se­cretary in the Sixth Council, he Transcribed all the Acts with his own hand, which were carefully kept in the Imperial Palace, and that by the command of the Emperour he took five Copies of them, for the five Patriarchs, that so the Decisions of [Page 158]the Council might not be altered: by Consequent, it was one of these Copies which the Legats carried to the Pope, who, without doubt, is the first of the five Patriarchs. A little after he adds,Id praeterea autori­tate decernens, ut Ser­gii, Honorii (que) ac cae­terorum pariter ab eâ­dem sanctâ & oecu­menicâ Synodo ejecto­rum nomina in sacra Ecclesiarum dyptica praeconio publico refer­rentur, eorum (que) per loca imagines erige­rentur. that Philippicus, who from his youth, was bred in the He­resie of the Monothelites, being ad­vanced to the Empire, caused a Pic­ture to be removed from before the Gate of the Palace, before he would enter it, which represented the Sixth Council; and commanded that the Images should be set up again, and that the Names of Sergius, Honorius, and of all the rest who had been A­nathematised in the Holy Ecumeni­cal Council, should be replaced in the Sacred Dypticks.

So many convincing evidences make it manifestly out, that the Acts of that Council have not been cor­rupted by the Greeks. And there­fore most part of those that said it be­fore, abandoning so weak a defence, have retrenched themselves behind a­nother, saying, That the Fathers were mistaken, in not having rightly un­derstood [Page 159]the sense and meaning of the Epistles of Honorius, who made use of a wise dispensation for uniting and calming all Winds. But that is a worse and far more dangerous An­swer than the former. For it strikes onely at some private persons, who are accused, but not known, upon bare conjectures of having falsified the Acts: but the other attacks a whole Ecumenical Council, robbing it of all the authority and force which it ought to have against Hereticks.

The truth is, by the same liberty that is taken, to say, that the Council hath not rightly understood the Let­ters of Pope Honorius, thought it hath examined them, the Monothelites, if there were any at present, might say, That it hath not rightly understood the Scriptures, nor the Fathers, upon the credit of whom it pretends to have rightly condemned the doctrine of Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyr­rhus, Paul of Constantinople, and of Ma­carius of Antioch; and thereby are made useless all the Decrees of Coun­cils, and all the Constitutions of Popes [Page 160]received in the Church, which have condemned, as Heretical, certain doc­trines, and certain propositions parti­cularly pointed at, and contained in the Books of some Authours, as the Fathers of the Fifth Council did, in regard of the Three Chapters; and in our time Pope Innocent X. and Alex­ander VII. in regard of the Book of Jansenius.

These are Arguments, which, in my opinion, can never be answer'd. But since the method of this Treatise is not the way of Arguments, which draws always Dispute after it a­gainst those, who, that they may not seem to be at a stand, when they are put to it by evident reason, never fail of the subterfuges of perplexed di­stinctions, which are never well un­derstood: I'll keep within the bounds that I have set to my self, and onely make use of unquestionable matters of Fact in Antiquity, that History furnishes us with. Upon that ground then, I say, for an An­swer to both, in the first place, that whether the Acts of the Sixth [Page 161]Council have been corrupted, or not, it is certain, that all Antiqui­ty hath received it in the same man­ner as we have it at present with the Condemnation of Honorius.

Detestamurque cum eâ Sergium, Honorium, &c. Act. ult.That appears, not to say any thing of Pope Leo, by the Decree of the seventh Council; which, as the sixth did, anathematises Sergi­us, Pyrrhus, and Honorius; Anastas. in Vit. Le­on. & Epist. ad Jo [...]. diacon. by Ana­stasius the Library-keeper, who cer­tainly saw the Copy that was brought from Constantinople, and who, in the Life of Leo II. saith, that that Pope received the sixth Council, where Cyrus, Sergius, Pyr­rhus, and Honorius, were condemn­ed; by that Letter of Adrian II, which I have alledged; by the de­termination of the eighth Council; and by the Confession of Faith which the ancient Popes made af­ter their Election: nay more than that, by the constant Tradition of the Gallican Church, as it may be seen in the Chronicle of Ado, and in the most ancient Manuscript of his Martyrology;Aetat. 6. which is to [Page 162]be found in the Mazarine Biblio­theke.

This is also to be seen in the Opuscles of Hincmar Archbishop of Reims, Opusc. de non Trin unit. where he puts the Con­demnation of Honorius in the sixth Council, with that of the other Monothelites. And for that very reason it was, that writing to Pope Nicolas. he saith,Opusc. 33. c. 20., That it is known that all the Churches of France are subject to that of Rome, and that all the Bishops are subjected to the Pope by reason of his Primacy; and that therefore they ought all to obey him:Apud Flodard. l. 3. Hist. c. 13. but salva fide, adds he, the Faith being secured; which it is most clear he would not have added, had it not been believed in France, as elsewhere, that Popes might err, as well as Pope Honorius. In fine, for an authentick Confirmation of all this, there is no Author to be found, who, before some Moderns of the last Age, durst say, even contrary to the Tradition of the Church of Rome, that the Acts of the sixth Council have been cor­rupted by the Greeks.

This is so true, that in the anci­ent Breviary of Rome printed at Ve­nice in the year 1482, and 61 years after at Paris, in the Year 1543, after that it is said in the first Les­son of the second Nocturn of the Office of St. Leo, on the eight and twentieth of June, Hic suscepit san­ctam sextam Synodum; in the se­cond it is to be read. In qua synodo damnati sunt Cyrus & Sergius, Ho­norius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, &c. But in the new Breviary the Name of Ho­norius is left out, and it hath been thought sufficient to put into that second Lesson, In eo Concilio Cyrus, Sergius, & Pyrrhus, condemnati sunt. Whereupon it is easie to conclude from most manifest matters of Fact alone, that all Antiquity, Oecume­nick Councils, Popes, all the Gal­lican Church, nay and even the Church of Rome, until the last Age, have believed that the sixth Council received by all the Church, hath condemned Pope Honorius, and ranked him amongst Monothe­lite Hereticks. Whence it clearly [Page 164]follows, That Antiquity hath be­lieved, that the Pope was not in­fallible. The same may be said to those who maintain, that the Coun­cil, in condemning the Epistles of Honorius to Sergius, did not rightly understand them. Whether that be so or no, it is certain, accor­ding to your selves, that it con­demned them: Then a whole great Council of above two hundred Bi­shops of the seventh Age, repre­senting the Universal Church in her Pastors lawfully assembled, did not believe the Pope to be Infalli­ble; for had they been of that Be­lief, they would have had a care whether they had well or ill un­derstood these Letters, not to have anathematised him as they did.

The Result of all is, That Anti­quity, in the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Ages, as well as in those that preceded, hath believed that the Pope was not Infallible. This is it that I was to prove; leaving the Modern Doctors who hold his Infallibility, to their Liberty of [Page 165]thinking and saying thereupon, whatever they please, by Logick, that can never overthrow the truth of matters of Fact which I have produced, and which make known to us what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Infallibility of the Pope.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Popes Clement III. Inno­cent III. Boniface VIII. and Six­tus V.

SUch as apply themselves to the Study of Antiquity, find, that in the Ages following there have been other Popes that have erred in their Decisions; as these that follow. In the twelfth Age,Ostiens. C. Quarto de Divortiis. Cle­ment III. declared in his Decretal, Laudabilem, That the Wife of an Heretick being converted, and her Husband continuing obstinate in his Heresie, might be married to ano­ther; which, doubtless, neither Ca­tholicks [Page 166]nor Protestants could at present suffer to be brought into practice. And therefore Pope In­nocent III. who filled the Holy See shortly after Clement, recalled that Constitution; thereby plainly de­claring, that his Predecessor had erred. This is affirmed by Cardi­nal Cortzeon, who flourished in the Pontificat of Innocent III. in his Sum, which I have seen in Manu­script in the Abbey Royal of St. Vi­ctor. And this same Pope Innocent himself, for all he was so able a man, was subject to the same fail­ing, from which Popes, according to the Belief of Antiquity, are not exempted; that is, to be deceived, even when they decide a point of Doctrine in their Council, without the Consent of the Church.

The matter of Fact is related by Caesarius a Cistertian Monk,Lib. 3. Historiar. Me­morab. c. 32. and contemporary with Innocent. He says, that a Monk of his Order, who, without doubt, before he en­tered the Monastery, had given it out that he was a Priest, committed [Page 167]daily a dreadful Sacriledge, in ce­lebrating Mass, though he had ne­ver received sacred Orders. Ha­ving confessed this to his Abbot, who failed not to enjoyn him, as he ought, to abstain from saying it for the future, he would not obey him: for on the one hand he fear­ed, that by refraining he should disgrace himself, and give occasion to his Brethren to think ill of him; and on the other, he thought he had no cause to apprehend that his Ab­bot, to whom he had discovered his Crime under the inviolable Seal of Confession, durst do him any prejudice because of that Disco­very.

The Abbot being in great per­plexity, bethought himself to pro­pose this Case, in general Terms, in a Chapter of his Order that was held some time after: and asking the Question, what was to be done if such a Case should ever happen in their Monasteries; the whole Assembly were as much puzled as the good Abbot had been; and nei­ther [Page 168]the Chapter of the Cistertians, nor any of the rest, durst ever un­dertake to decide that case of Con­science, which was thought to be so difficult, that it was resolved upon, by all, to write about it to the Pope for a Resolution.

Innocent III. the then Pope, as­sembled thereupon, the Cardinals, Doctors, and Learned Men, to take their Advice; who, after some de­bate, agreed all in his Judgment: to wit, That such a Confession be­ing rather Blasphemy than a Con­fession, the Confessor, in such a case, ought to discover so horrible a Crime, because it might bring great prejudice to the Church. And the Year following he wrote to the Chapter what he had determined,Et placuit sententia omnibus, scri: sitque sequenti anno Capitu­lo quod fuerat à se de­termin [...]tum, & à Car­din [...]libus approbatum. and what was approved in that great Congregation of Cardinals. It is not at all to be doubted, but that that Definition is wrong. So that the same Pope, a little after, made no Scruple to retract it in the great Council of Lateran where he himself presided,Ann. 12 15. which posi­tively [Page 169]declared the contrary in these Terms:Caveat sacerdos ne verbo, vel signo, vel a­lio quovis modo prodat aliquatenus peccatorem. Qui pecca [...]um in poenitentiali Judicio si­bi detectum praesump­serit revelare, non so­lum à sacerdotali offi­cio deponendum decer­nimus, verum etiam ad agendara perpetuam poeniten [...]iam in arctum Monasterium detruden­dum. Let the Priest have a care that he discover not, either by Word, Sign, or in any other way whatsoever, the Sin of his Penitent. That if any one, adds it, presume to reveal the Sin that hath been discovered to him at the Tri­bunal of Confession, we ordain, not only that he be deposed from the Sacerdotal Office, but also that he be confined to a Monastery, there to do Penance du­ring Life.

These are two quite opposite De­cisions upon a Point of highest Im­portance,Conc. Later. 4. c. 21. and which concerns a Sacrament; one of the Pope with his particular Council, or his Coun­cil of Cardinals, Priests, and Dea­cons, who represent the Church of Rome; the other of the same Pope, with a great Council, representing the Universal Church. Whence comes that difference, if it be not, That the Pope pronouncing and de­ciding upon any Point concerning Doctrine and Manners in a general Council, or with the Consent of the Church, is Infallible; and [Page 170]when he acts otherwise he is not.

This appears still more manifest­ly in the Bull, Ʋnam Sanctam, of Boniface VIII. whereby that Pope, whose History is sufficiently known, proposes to all Believers, as an Arti­cle of Faith, the Belief whereof is necessary to Salvation, That Popes have a Supream Power over all the Kingdoms of the World, as to the Temporal. It was believed then in all these Kingdoms, and is so still, that that Definition is wrong. Even they themselves who hold that the Pope hath some Power over the Temporal, have a care not to say, That one is obliged to believe it upon pain of Damnation: and it is known that Clement V. recalled that Bull in the Council of Vienna. Cap. meruit. de Pri­vilegiis. That Pope then, and that Council in the fourteenth Century, believed not that the Pope was infallible.

The same may be said of the Bull of Sixtus V. which he caused to be printed with his Bible, and where­by he declares to the whole Church, That that Bible is corrected accor­ding [Page 171]to the Primitive Purity of the Vulgar Translation. And neverthe­less, because it was afterwards clearly seen that it was not, Cle­ment VIII. suppressed that Bull, and caused another to be printed, wherein all the Faults of the former are very well corrected: and so it may very well be concluded, that Clement VIII. was persuaded, that his Predecessor, instructing all Be­lievers in a point that regards even the Principle of Faith, might be deceived. However, I will not say so, because I will not at all enter into Dispute with some Modern Doctors, who, to slip the Collar, have bethought themselves to say, That it is true the Bull was print­ed with the Bible,Tannerus disp. 1. de Fide, q. 4. dub. 6. n. 263. Thom. Comptonus in 2.2. dis. 22. de sum, pontif. sect. 5. which is still to be seen in many Libraries, but that it was not affixed upon the Gates of St. Peter's Church, and on the Field of Flora, so long as it ought to have been, ac­cording to the Laws of the Chan­cery of Rome. As if the Truth or Falshood of the Contents of a [Page 172]Bull, depended on the time that is to be taken in publishing it; and as if the Pope who makes it, became not Infallible but at the precise Minute of the Accomplish­ment of the time that it should have been affixed. Let us leave that Instance then of Sixtus V. that we may not engage into that Sophistry of Disputation, which to me seems not altogether so se­rious in a matter of that Impor­tance.

CHAP. XIV. The Instance of Pope John XXII.

I Shall produce no more Instan­ces but that of Pope John XXII. That Pope, in his extream old Age of near fourscore and ten Years, took a Conceit, that as a certain and constant Truth, the Opinion of some ought to be established in the Church,Contin. Hangii. who had heretofore taught that the Souls of those who died in Grace, and had been entirely pur­ged from all the remaining dreggs of their Sins, did not see the Face of God till after the Resurrection. He did all that lay in his Power to have it pass. He taught it publick­ly in Conferences and Congregati­ons which he held upon that Sub­ject: he preached it himself; he obliged, by his Example, the Car­dinals and Prelates of his Court, and other Doctors, openly to main­tain it. He caused a learned Jacobin, [Page 174]named Father Thomas de Valas, Ibid. & Gobel. per­sona in Cosmodr. aet. 6. c. 71. Paul Langius in Chron. Citizen. to be put in Prison; who not doubting but that Opinion was an Error con­trary to the express Word of the Son of God, who said to the good Thief, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, preached the contrary even in Avignon, where the Pope held his Court. In fine, I find a Doctor of very great Authority,Hadrian. 6. in 4. sentent. art. 3. de Minist. Confirm. 22. whose eminent Virtue and singular Learning; with a consummated Prudence in the management of Affairs, raised him afterwards to the highest Dignity of the Church, that says very plainly,Publicè docuit, de­claravit, & ab omni­bus teneri voluit, quod animae, &c. That he ob­liged all men to hold that Doctrine for the future.

Be as it will, it is certain that he did what lay in his Power to bring into his Opinion the Sacred Facul­ty of Theology and University of Paris, which was by all men reve­renced as the Mother of Sciences; that for that end he sent thither two Doctors with the General of the Cordeliers who publickly maintain­ed that Doctrine, and preached the [Page 175]same; which stirred up all Paris against them. Whereupon, King Philip de Valois caused all the Bi­shops and Abbots that then were at Paris, Continu. Hangii. to assemble with the Doctors of the Faculty; who in his Presence confounded those of Avignon, and proved to them, that what they had preached by order of the Pope, was heretical.

That Prince, who would suffer in his Kingdom no Novelty of Do­ctrine, wrote to his Holiness with a great deal of Force and Respect, beseeching him to retract that wicked Opinion,Quatènus sententiam Magistrorum de Pari­siis qui melius sciunt quid debet teneri & credi in fide, quam Ju­rista & alii Clerici, qui parum aut nihil sciunt de Theol [...]gia, approba­ret. Ibid. which caused so much Scandal in the Church. Nay he prayed him to send a Legate into France, who in his Name might approve and confirm the Decree of the Doctors of Paris, who knew far better what was to be believed as a matter of Faith, than his Ca­nonists and other Clergy of Avig­non, that were no great Divines.

The Pope, who would neither wholly retract, nor yet on the other hand provoke the King, whose [Page 176]Protection he stood in need of, took a middle Course, which he thought would not be disagreeable unto him, and prayed him to be satisfied,Epist. Joan. ad Phi­lip. 14. Calend. De­cemb. Pontif. 12. that every one might con­tinue in their Opinion, and Say, Teach, and Preach, what they thought good upon that Subject. As to that Proposition, the King would again have the Advice of the Faculty,Joan. Gerson. Serm. in die Paschat. co­ram Rege. Petr. de Alliac. prop. de toll. sc. coram Re­ge. An. 1406. Gob. Perso. Langius Odor. Rayn. ad An. 1334. whom he there assem­bled; and the Faculty by a Decree of the Second of January, One thou­sand three hundred and three, at the Mathurins, declared of new, That the Opinion in question was Heretical, and that by consequent it could neither be Preached nor Taught. After that, Philip pro­scribed it by Sound of Trumpet, prohibiting all his Subjects to teach or maintain it: and then, that he might oblige the Pope to condemn it, he wrote to him a second time in so forcible and extra­ordinary Terms, that at length the Pope retracted it a little before his Death, which hapned the Year fol­lowing.

I have said all that I could, in my History of the Fall of the Empire to excuse him, even so far as to af­firm with some, that that Do­ctrine which he would have esta­blished by his own Authority, was not as yet condemned, as it was afterwards by Benet XII. his Suc­cessor.

There are some notwithstanding who say, that it had been long be­fore rejected by the Roman Church, as appears by the Confession of Faith that Clement IV. sent in the Year Two hundred threescore and seven, to the Emperour Michael Paleologue, whereof I have spoken in my History of the Schism of the Greeks. However it be, it is cer­tain that it is an Error, con­demned not only by Pope Benet, but much more solemnly, above an hundred Years after, in the third Article of the Definition of Faith which the Council of Florence made for reuniting the two Church­es. And seeing it was not doubt­ed but that Pope John XII. in the [Page 178]manner he set about it, acted with all his Authority and Force to introduce and establish that Error in the Church; so also was it be­lieved in that Fourteenth Age, that the Pope teaching the Church might err, and that he is not Infal­lible, but when he pronounces from the Chair of the Universal Church, as Head of it, in a general Coun­cil, or with consent of the princi­pal Members of the Church, who are the Bishops.

CHAP. XV. The Tradition of the Church of Rome as to that.

IT will be no difficult Task for us to prove that that Doctrine is conform to the constant Tradition of the Church of Rome, as appears by the conduct of ancient Popes, who in great Controversies about Faith, after that they themselves had pronounced against Error, have thought that for condemning it by a sovereign and infallible Sentence, there was need of a Council, or at least by another way, the consent of the Church: Ʋt pleniori Ju [...]acio omnis possice ror aboleri; Ep. 15. ad Ephes. concil. to the end that Error might be abolished by a more solemn and decisive judgment, said the great St. Leo writing to the second Council of Ephesus, though he him­self had already condemned Euty­ches in his particular Council which for that end he held at Rome.

This hath been confirmed by the Popes of the last Age, when that after Leo X. had published his Bull against the Errors of Luther, Solum (que) Concilium generale remedium à nostris praedecessoribus, in casu simili usurpa­tum superesse. Clem. VII. in Bull. indict. Concil. 1533. Tam necessarium opus. Pius IV. in Bull. con­firm. they declared in their Bulls, speaking of the Council of Trent which was called for the supreme Decision of that Controversie, that that was the last and necessary Remedy, which had always been made use of by their Predecessors on the like Occasions. Wherein all the Popes perfectly well agree with the fifth Council; which for proving that necessity, alledges the Example of the Apostles, who decided in com­mon with St. Peter, the Question touching the Observation of the Law of Moses, Nec enim potest in communibus de fide disceptationibus aliter veritas manifestari. and then declares, that otherways Truth cannot be found in Controversies that arise about the Faith. It is evident by that, that the Popes and that Coun­cil did not believe that the Pope was infallible: for had they be­lieved him infallible, they would also have been persuaded, that it was sufficient to consult that Ora­cle, [Page 181]or, that after his Responses and Decisions, it would not have been necessary, for abolishing Error en­tirely, to have recourse to the de­termination of the Church repre­sented by a Council.

But if it be said, that there are some Heresies which the Popes a­lone have condemned, and which have always been reckoned lawful­ly condemned, without the Inter­position of a Council; it is easily granted: but at the same time it may be said, that that concludes nothing at all, because in the three first Ages of the Church there were Heresies, such as that of Cerinthus, of the Ptolemaits, the Severians, Bardesanites, Noetians, Valesians, and many others, that single Bi­shops or particular Synods have condemned, and which we are obliged to account Heresies, tho neither Popes nor General Coun­cils have had any hand in their Condemnation. Not that these Bishops and Synods are infallible, but because all the other Bishops [Page 182]who abominated these Heresies as much as they, condemned them as they had done, by approving all that they had done. So when Popes have decided against any Doctrine which is afterward to be esteemed heretical, it is so, because they have defined with consent of the Church, which hath received their Constitutions; as we have in our days seen an illustrious Instance of it.

That which more confirms that ancient Tradition of the Roman Church, is, the great number of Popes, who condemning some of their Predecessors, after Oecumeni­cal Councils, have thereby decla­red, that they themselves no more than others, have not received of God the gift of Infallibility, which he hath only bestowed upon his Church. And indeed, two great Popes of the last Times were so fully persuaded of this, that they would not accept of it from the hands of men that would have attributed it unto them.

The first is Adrian VI. who in his Commentaries upon the fourth of the Sentences,Art. 3. de Mines. confirm. says positively, and in a most decisive manner,Certum est quod Pon­tifex possit err are, etiam in iis quae tangunt fi­dem, haeresi [...] per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo. that he is certain the Pope may err, even in matters belonging to the Faith, teaching and establishing a Heresie by his Definition or by his Decre­tal; which afterwards he proves by many Instances; and very far from following Pius II. and changing Opinion as he did when he came to be Pope, he persisted in it so con­stantly, that he thought fit, du­ring his Pontificat, that a new Edi­tion of his Book should be printed at Rome, exactly conform to that which he published when he was Doctor and Dean of Louvain, where­in that Passage is entire, without the Omission or Alteration of one single Word.

The second is Paul IV. who be­fore his promotion to the Papacy had been great Inquisior,Relat. Joann. Hay. Paris. Theol. Addit. aux mem. de Casteluam. c. 2. b. 6: the most severe and zealous that ever was for the preservation of the purity of the Catholick Faith against all [Page 184]Heresies.Num matrimonium per verba de prasenti contractum, quod est verum matrimonium & verum sàcramen­tum juxta sanclorum Theolegorum sententi­am, authoritate n [...]stra dissolvi possit, intelligo cum carnalis nulla con­junctio intercessit. This Pope, in the Year One thousand five hundred and fifty seven, held a great Congre­gation of Cardinals, Bishops, and Doctors, at Rome, for the exami­ning that important question, Whe­ther by the power of the Keys which Jesus Christ had given him, as Suc­cessor to St. Peter, he could dissolve the Marriage which the Mareschal of Montmorency had contracted in formal terms de praesenti, with the Lady de Piennes.

Having proposed the matter to them, by giving them to understand, that the Question was about the de­ciding of a Point of very great Im­portance, concerning a Sacrament, he declared to them, that he would not have them alledge to him the Examples of his Predecessors,Non dubito quin ego & decessores mei er­rare aliquando potueri­mus, non solum in koc, sed etiam in pluribus aliis rerum generibus. that he would not follow them, but in so far as they were conform to the Authority of Holy Scripture, and solid Reasons of Divinity. For I make no doubt, added he, but that my Predecessors and! may fail, not only in this, but in many other things: [Page 185]Which he even proved by Testimo­nies of Scripture, which teacheth us,Nec rationem habere ullam exempli quod hic vel ille decessor meus, &c. that God permits that men should for a time be ignorant of that which afterwards he discovers to his Church.Perspicite an deces­sores nostri id satis in­tellexerint quod de in­dissolubili matrimonii vinculo disquirimus. Who knows then now, said he, but that God may manifest by our means, what others have not known touching the indissolvable Bond of Marriage? Wherefore, have no re­spect to Examples, and don't tell me what this man or that man of my Prede­cessors have determined about this mat­ter in a like Case Confider only whe­ther these Popes have understood right­ly or not what they have decided con­cerning this matter of Marriage which we examine.

There is a Pope, who doubtless will never be accused of having failed in maintaining the pontifical Authority, that nevertheless frank­ly confesses, and in very plain terms, that he and his Predecessors may have erred in Decisions that they may have made concerning points relating to the Faith. So that from all that I have hitherto said upon [Page 186]that Subject it may evidently be concluded, That great Saints of the ancient Church, Bishops in all parts of Christendome, in the East, in the West, and in Africa, full and general Councils, ancient Popes who have either presided in or consented to these Councils; in a word, that all Antiquity hath be­lieved, that the Pope deciding by his pontifical Authority, without the consent of the Church, is not at all infallible.

CHAP. XVI. The state of the Question touching the Superiority of a Council over the Pope, or of the Pope over a Coun­cil.

IF I proceeded in this Treatise by way of Discourse and Argu­ment, I might soon conclude, and not fear that any Objection could be brought against my Conclusion: for if Antiquity hath believed as I think I have demonstrated, that the Pope is not Infallible, and that he may be deceived in his Decrees; it's most evident, that it hath also be­lieved by necessary consequence, that the Tribunal of the Universal Church, which without contradi­ction is infallible, and represented by a general Council, is above that of the Pope. But because for avoid­ing of Dispute, I only alledge evi­dent matters of Fact, against which all the Arguments in the World can never prevail; for, in fine, can [Page 188]one by dint of Argument make that which has been, never to have been? I shall only relate what the Ancient Church hath believed touching that famous Question. Seeing the State of the Question ought plainly and without Ambiguity to be proposed, for avoiding perplexity, to the end that people may at first agree about the thing that is in question, and that it may not be said as it often­times happens after much jangling and dispute without concluding any thing; that the thing was under­stood in a quite different sense than it was proposed in: Take therefore the state of the Question as fol­lows.

It is enquired, Whether after that a Council is lawfully assem­bled, the Pope who without con­tradiction is Head of it, presiding in it in person, or by his Legates, or not being present nor presiding therein either the one way or t'other, as it hath happened oftner than once, and is to be seen in the second Oecu­menical Council of an hundred andAnn. 381. [Page 189]fifty Bishops,Ann. 553. and in the fifth of a­bove an hundred and sixty: Whe­ther, I say, that Council considered in its Membets united, either under the Pope who has Right to preside in it, or failing of him, under ano­ther President, is above the Pope, and hath sovereign Authority over him, so that he is obliged to submit to its Decrees and Definitions, to approve them and consent thereun­to as all others are, though he be in his own particular, of a contrary Judgment; or whether the Pope is so above all the other Members of that Council united together, be he there or not, that if he approve and confirm not by his Assent and Au­thority the Decrees and Definitions thereof, That Council has no Au­thority, neither over Him nor over Believers?

In this precisely consists that Question which hath not been mo­ved in the Church, but since the Council of Pisa, some two hundred and forty Years ago.Ann. 1409. And the rea­son why it was never spoken of [Page 190]before, is, because it was not at all doubted in the Ancient Church, but that a Council was above the Pope. I shall make it out by matters of Fact, against which no Reply can be made.

CHAP. XVII. That it is the Holy Ghost, which in the Definitions of Faith pronounces by the Mouth of the Council.

ANtiquity hath always belie­ved, as it is believed at this day, That the Council held at Je­rusalem concerning the Legal Obser­vations, to which many amongst the converted Jews pretended that all who embraced the Faith of the Gospel were tied, hath been a pat­tern to all Oecumenical Councils which have been since celebrated in the Church for the supreme Deci­sion of other points of Controver­sie, which have often divided Chri­stians in [...]o very different Opinions: [Page 191]and when the matter in question had been well examined, the De­cree that pass'd in that Council proceeded from the Holy Ghost, which was uttered in these Words, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. It hath ever since also been believed, that when other Councils, after an exact Enquiry into the Truth, de­fined what was to be believed, or what was to be done, it is the Holy Ghost that speaks in their Decrees; and that it may truly be said, as it was said at Jerusalem, It hath seem­ed good to the Holy Ghost and to this Assembly. This hath been expressed by St. Leo, in these terms,Sanctorum patrum canones spiritu Dei con­diti, & totius mundi reverentia consecrati. St. Leo Epist. 84. ad Anast. Thessalonic. which have been received with so much Applause in the whole Church, when he saith in one of his Epistles, That the Canons of the holy Fathers have been made by the Spirit of God, and that they are consecrated by the Veneration of the whole Earth.

Now it is certain, that St. Peter depended upon the Holy Ghost as well as St. James, St. John, St. Paul, [Page 192]St. Barnaby, the Elders, and other Brethren who were present in that Council; and if after that he com­pelled by his Example the Christi­ans to Judaise, as Cardinal Baroni­us hath thought, he had been much more to be blamed for having dis­obeyed the Holy Ghost and the Council, than when St. Paul rebu­ked him openly before the Coun­cil; as I have made it clearly out by the Testimony of the Fathers, and of Pope Pelagius II.

So that it ought to be concluded, that the Pope, who is no less inferi­our to the Holy Ghost than St. Peter to whom he succeeds, is obliged to submit to his Judgment against his own, to obey and consent to his Decisions, and consequently to those of the Council, who neither speaks nor decides but with the Holy Ghost, according to those high Words which contain all the Force, Authority, and Soul of Oecumeni­cal Councils; Visum est spiritui san­cto & nobis.

This is so true, that if after the great Council of Nice, for example, defined by Plurality of Voices, that the Word is consubstantial to the Father, the Pope St. Sylvester had not received that definition, and belie­ved the Consubstantiality of the Word, as the Arians did not, he would have been reckoned an He­retick as well as they. And there­fore he failed not to consent to the Decrees of that Council, by appro­ving and confirming them by his own Assent, and by the Assent of the Bishops whom he had assembled at Rome upon that occasion. I offer you, says he, in his Epistle to the Fa­thers of Nice, if that Letter be true, as Cardinal Baronius thinks, I offer you my Hand, and that of my Disciples, Meum chirographum & discipulorum meo­rum in vestro sancto concilio quicquid con­stituistis unà parem da­re consensum. T. 1. Concil. for consenting with you to all that ye have determined in your holy Coun­cil.

And it's that precisely which in the Ancient Church is called the confirming of a Council; to wit, to consent by Vote and an authentick Act to what hath been established [Page 194]in it. That appears evidently by the Letters of two great Popes; St. Leo, and St. Martin. The Council of Chalcedon made Decrees concerning the Faith, for con­demning the Heresie of the Eu­tycheans, and the Remains of that of the Nestorians, and by the eight and twentieth Canon thereof, to honour the Imperial City, the se­cond place among the Patriarchs was given to the Patriarch of Con­stantinople: which is contrary to the Council of Nice, that dispo­sed of it otherways; and to which St. Leo also would never conde­scend, what Instance soever the Fathers of Chalcedon made to him for it.

He was nevertheless apprehen­sive, that this might have a bad Effect, and that because of that Refusal it might be thought in the World, that he would not consent to the determinations of that Coun­cil which had so well asserted the Faith, against the Heresie of Euty­ches; therefore he wrote to them [Page 195]in these terms:Ne per malignos inter­pretes dubitabile vide­atur utrum quae in Sy­nodo Chalcedonensi per unanimitatem ve­stram de fide statutae sunt approbem, haec ad omnes fratres & Coe­piscopos nostros scriptae direxi.—Ʋt & frater­nitas vestra & omnium fidelium corda cognos­cant, me non solum per fratres qui vicem meam executi sunt, sed etiam per approbationem g [...] ­storum synodalium pro­priam vobiscum iniisse sententiam in sola fidei causa, &c. St. Leo Ep. 61. Syn. Chalced. Lest by malign In­terpreters of my Intentions it might seem doubtful whether or not I approve what you have with unanimous Con­sent determined concerning the Faith, in the Council of Calcedon; I write to all my Brethren and Fellow-Bishops these Letters, which the most glorious Emperour, as he hath desired, will de­liver unto you, to the end your Fra­ternity, and all Believers, may know, that not only by the Approbation of my Legates, but also by my own, I have joyned my Judgment to yours, but on­ly in those Points which concern the Faith, for the sake of which this Uni­versal Council hath been celebrated by the express Order of the Emperours, and the Consent of the Holy Aposto­lick See. You see then, that to ap­prove a Council, according to St. Leo, is to conform in Judgment to that of the Fathers, and to consent to the Definitions that have been made in it.

This is still more clearly apparent by the circulatory Letter which the Pope St. Martin wrote to St. Amand [Page 196]Bishop of Ʋtrecht, and to all the Bishops of France, sending them the Acts of the Council of an hun­dred and five Bishops whom he had assembled at Rome against the Mo­nothelites, Ann. 549. and exhorting them to subscribe to them in a Council of the Gallican Church,Secundum tenorem Enclyticae à nobis di­rectae scripta unà cum subscriptionibus vestris nobismet destinanda concelebrent, confir­mantes & consentientes iis quae pro orthodoxâ fide & destructione hae­reticorum vesaniae nu­per exortae à nobis sta­tuta sunt. Mart. 1. Ep. ad Amand. Traject. ext. post Act. Con­cil. Later. sub Mart. and to send them back to him with their Subscripti­ons, whereby we may see, That they confirm and consent to all that hath been defined in the Council of Rome, for the Catholick Faith, and for over­throwing that furious Heresie which of late hath risen against the Church. He desires that the Bishops of France may confirm the Decisions of Rome concerning a Point relating to Faith: it is not, for all that, to be said, that the Gallican Church is su­periour to the Roman; and there would be no reason to say so, be­cause to confirm Definitions, is no­thing else, as St. Martin explains himself, but to consent unto them by Vote and Suffrage.

So that every Bishop who sub­scribes to the Decrees of Council, [Page 197]approves and confirms it in consent­ing to it by his hand-writing; which perfectly agrees with what St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to the Bishop of Meteline, whom some would have made believe,Ne credat hoc sancti­tas tua: scripsit ènim consona sanctae Synodo omnia (que) nobiscum con­firmavit & nobiscum sentit. Cyril. Alex. Epist. ad Acacium Meliten. Episc. that the Pope protected Nestorius: Believe it not, said he to him, for I assure you, that the Pope hath written to us conform to the Decisions of the Coun­cil of Ephesus, that he hath with us confirmed all the Acts, and that he agrees with us in one and the same Judgment. This it is then which the Popes themselves call confirm­ing a Council: and it is never to be found in the Ancient Church, that Councils, by their Synodal Letters directed to the Popes, have demand­ed any other Confirmation of their Decrees relating to the Faith, than their Consent and Approbation, which they were obliged to give. For, in fine, if the Holy Ghost speaks by a Council lawfully called, when they pronounce concerning a mat­ter of Faith, and that they say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis; [Page 198]the Pope must needs approve and obey what the Holy Ghost hath said. And if the Holy Ghost speak not by the Council until the Popes have given their Approbation to it, then might they alone, by refu­sing that, have been the cause, that the Holy Ghost, who is to teach us all Truth, might never have instructed us, and that Aria­nism, and all other Heresies, had only been tolerable Opinions; which, in my Judgment, no Man dares to say.

CHAP. XVIII. That Ancient Councils have examined the Judgments of Popes, that they might pronounce the last and defini­tive Sentence upon them.

THough Councils have always had a great Respect for the Popes, and that in great Contro­versies which have given occasion for calling them, for giving a su­preme Decision in controverted Points, they have many times pro­nounced Sentences conform to those which the Popes had already past against one of the two Parties; nevertheless they have examined them, to know whether they were just or not: which makes it appa­rent, that they believed that they had a Superiority over the Pope, altogether like to that which supe­riour Judicatures have over inferi­our. Take two famous Instances of this, which puts the Truth there­of beyond all doubt.

Flavian, Patriarch of Constanti­nople, in his particular Council, condemned the pernicious Doctrine of Eutyches, who acknowledged but one Nature in Jesus Christ; and the great Pope St. Leo, by his Judg­ment, confirmed that of the Patri­arch, as appears by the Letters which he wrote unto him, where­in he wonderfully well asserts the Catholick Belief concerning the Distinction of two Natures, the divine and humane, in one only per­son, in Jesus Christ, against the Er­ror of that Arch-Heretick who con­founded them. Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who openly decla­red himself the Protector of Euty­ches, undertook his Business, and prevailed so far by favour of Chry­saphius, who could do any thing with his Master the Emperour The­odosius the younger, that this Prince called the second Council of Ephe­sus, there to examine what had been determined at Constantinople and Rome against Eutyches.

St. Leo, who approv'd not this Proceeding that look'd like cabal­ing,Quia etiam talium non est negligenda cu­ratio, & piè ac religi­osè Christiamssimus Im­perator haberi voluit Episcopale concilium, ut pleniori Judicio om­nis possit error aboleri, fratres nostros, &c. qui vice meâ Sincto con­ventui vestrae fraterni­tatis intersint, & com­muni vobiscum senten­tia quae domino sunt placitura constituant, hoc est, ut primitus pe­stifero errore damnato, &c. at first withstood it, but con­sented thereunto at length for the sake of Peace, hoping that all things would be carried in that Council according to Canonical Forms, and that then the definitive Judgment that would be pronounced there, would calm the Troubles of the Church. Whereupon, he sent his Legates thither with Letters to the Patriarch Flavian and to the Coun­cil, wherein having declared what he had done against the new Heresie of Eutyches, he adds, that however, seeing all care is to be taken to re­claim those who were gone astray, and that the Emperour had ap­pointed a Council to be held for that Effect, to the end that Error might entirely be abolished by a more ample Judgment, he sends a Bishop, a Priest, and a Deacon, with an Apostolical Natory, to assist there­at in his Name, and there to settle, by common Advice, what was fit for the Service of God; that is to [Page 202]say,Si tamen sensus hae­reticos—plenè aperte (que) propria voce & sub­scriptione damnaverit. St. Leo Ep. 15. ad Ephes. Syn. that after so pernicious an Er­ror should be condemned, they would take into consideration the re-establishment of the Author of it, always provided that he condemn­ed his Heresie by Word and Wri­ting.

This great Pope openly declares, That that Opinion of Eutyches is He­resie.Ep. 16. ad Flav. Nay, he writes to Flavian, that it is so manifest, that there was no necessity to assemble a Council for condemning it; and nevertheless, he is content that one be held, to the end that Error may be entirely abolished by a more am­ple Judgment.

But more still. For that second Council of Ephesus, by the Power of Chrysaphius and Violence of Di­oscorus, being become that infa­mous Den of Thieves where all Order was over-turned, and Euty­ches absolved; this holy Pope who would have that Heresie thundred by a definitive Sentence, made con­tinual Instances to the Emperour Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria, [Page 203]after the Death of Theodosius, for calling of a new Council, which was held at Chalcedon; where, after Examination of the Doctrine of Eutyches, and the Letters of St. Leo, they confirmed by their Sovereign Authority, and by a supreme Judg­ment, what the holy Pope had pronounced against that Heresie.

And in that he gloried, when writing to Theodoret who had con­demned in that Council the Heresie of Nestorius whereof he was sus­pected, and that of Eutyches, after he had congratulated with him in a most obliging manner, he sub­joyns upon his account these lovely Words: We glory in the Lord, Gloriamur in Domino, — qui nullum nos in nostris fratribus detri­mentum sustinere permi­sit, sed quae nostro prius ministerio definierat u­niverso fraternitatis firmavit assensu, ut verè à se prodiisse osten­deret, quod prius à pri­mâ omnium sede for­matum, to [...]ius orbis Judicium recepisset. St. Leo Ep. 63. ad Theodor. who hath not permitted that our Brethren should do any thing to our Disadvan­tage; but on the contrary, hath con­firmed by the Assent of the whole Council what had been before defined by our Ministery, to shew that that Judgment has truly proceeded from him; which being first rendered by the chief of all Sees, hath been received by the Judgment of the whole Church. [Page 204]Is not that to say, that to know whether the Decisions of the Pope proceed from God or not, they must be received by the whole Church, and that by consequent the Council which represents it, and which gives them their full force by its supreme Authority, is above the Pope?

This appears still more clearly by one other Instance, where it is to be seen, that a General Council ha­ving examined a Judgment solemn­ly rendered by the Pope, rescinds it, and passes a contrary Sentence. It is that which the fifth Council pro­nounced against the three Chapters, and against the Constitution of Pope Virgilius, whereby he had approved them, forbidding all men whosoe­ver to condemn them. I have alrea­dy spoken of that Action which standeth not in need of any long discourse to set it off in its full Force and Vigour.

In this Council the Doctrine of the Three Chapters, and the Con­stitution of the Pope who approves [Page 205]them, are examined. He is prayed to preside in that Assembly, and in the Examination that is made there of these Writings. He refuses, though he was then at Constantinople where the Council was held, and with all his might still maintains those three Chapters; and never­theless they are condemned, and are to this day reckoned to have been very lawfully and justly con­demned: nay, he was afterwards necessitated to submit to that De­cree, as I have already said upon the Credit of very good Vouchers; and if yet he did not submit to it, it is still certain, that the Council examined his Judgment, and rescin­ded it. After that, can it be doubted, but that the ancient Church belie­ved that a Council is superiour to the Pope?

Let's reflect a little upon what I said of the sixth Council, which condemned the Heresie of the Mo­nothelites. In it was examined what the Pope St. Martin had de­cided concerning that Subject in his [Page 206]Council of the Bishops of Italy ce­lebrated at Rome, and what Pope Honorius had before him declared, in relation to the same Controver­sie, in his Epistles to Sergius Patri­arch of Constantinople, one of the chief Authors of that Heresie. The Judgment of St. Martin was ap­proved in that Council; and that of Honorius so severely censured, that the Pope was there anathe­matised. Whether these Letters were well or ill understood, it makes nothing to our present pur­pose. The Council passes Judg­ment upon him, and no body ever objected against it in Antiquity. This is sufficient to conclude in­vincibly, that the Council is supe­riour to the Pope.

But is there any thing more con­vincing and decisive for fixing of this Truth, than what was done in the case of the Donatists, who by their Schism troubled all the Church of Africa? Optat. Milevit l. 1. contr. Parmen. Euseb. Eccles. hist. l. 10. c. 5. They applied themselves to the Emperour Con­stantine who was then in Gallia, [Page 207]and desired of him Judges chosen from among the Bishops of the Gal­lican Church, against Cecilian Bi­shop of Carthage, because they would shun the Judgment of the Pope, whom they distrusted.August. Ep. 162. ad Gelor. & Eleus Ep. 165. ad Generos. 166. ad Donatist. 167. & alib. saepe. The Emperour nevertheless having pro­tested that it belonged not to him to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters, sent them back to the Pope, to whom, as Head of the Church, it belongs to judge of greater Cau­ses. Pope Miltiades took for Asses­sors in this Judgment, fifteen Bi­shops of Italy, to whom he joyned three famous Bishops of the Gallican Church, Maternus of Cologne, Rhe­ticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles, whom the Emperour had sent him to be of the number of the Judges, that the Donatists might not have cause to say, that every thing had been refused them. That Cause was solemnly judged in that Council of Rome. Donatus, Head of the Schismaticks, appeared there with ten Bishops of his Party, and alledged all that he had to say a­gainst [Page 208]gainst Cecilian, who appeared also, accompanied with ten other African Bishops, and defended his Cause and that of the Church, so well against the Authors of that Schism, that they were condemned.

They were very willing to be judged by this Council, imagining, as St. Austin observes,Ep. 162. that either they might gain their Cause by Artifices and Calumnies, or that if they lost it, yet they might still maintain their Party, by complain­ing loudly in all places, that the Pope and his Bishops, who were prejudiced against them, had judg­ed partially. The truth is, they did so, and pressed the Emperour so hard to give them new Judges, and in greater number, that that good Prince, overcome by their extream Importunity,Orabida furoris auda­cia! Opt. loc. cit. which he called extream Fury, granted their desine: and seeing he passionately desired to restore Peace to the Church, and utterly to abolish so fatal a Schism, by a supreme Sen­tence that might for ever put an [Page 209]end to that great Contest, he called the great Council of Arles, Apud Arelatum ean­dem causam diligentius examinandam terrui­nandamque curasse. August. Ep. 162. Euseb. l. 10. c. 5. August. Ep. 167. ad Fest. which St. Austin calls a full and universal Council, because as Eusebius assures us, and after him that holy Doctor, there was there an infinite number of Bishops of all the Provinces of the Empire,Ex omnibus mundi partibus, & praecipue Gallicanis. Concil. Arelat. 11. Ganls.

The Legates of Pope Sylvester, with the eighteen Bishops who had been at the Council of Rome were present there. The Cause of the Donatists was examined there a­fresh, with the Judgment which Pope Melchiades, the Predecessor of St. Sylvester, had given against them; and they were again con­demned by a definitive Sentence, and without appeal, in regard of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal: for the Ap­peal which these Schismaticks, who observed no measures, brought to the Tribunal of Constantine, August. Ep. 162. was most unjust, as was frankly acknow­ledged by that Emperour, who said that if he at length took cogni­zance of that Cause, to stop the [Page 210]mouth of these Hereticks, and ar­rest the course of their Fury, he humbly begg'd pardon of the Bi­shops, whose Authority, in what concerns the spiritual, he should invade.

Whereupon, St. Austin answer­ing the Complaints that the Do­natists of his time always made of Pope Melchiades, Quae vox est omnium malorum litigatorum, cum fuerint etiam ma­nifestissimâ veritate superati. Ibid. as their Ancestors had done, jeered them pleasantly, saying, that they acted like bad Lawyers, who having lost their Cause blame their Judges, and complain to all men, that they have been unjustly condemned, when they have even been convicted by the most manifest discovery of the Truth.Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicarunt non bonos Judices fuisse: resta­bat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae Ʋniversalis concilium, ubi etiam cumipsis judicibus cau­sa posset agitari, ut si male judicasse convi­cti essent, torum sententiae solverentur. Ibid. Then, to confound them, he adds these great Words, which plainly decides the Question that we examine, and to which nothing can be replied: Suppose that the Judges who condemned your Ance­stors at Rome had judged amiss, was not there still the full Council, where that Cause might be again examined with the same Judges [Page 211]who had already judged it; that if it had been found that their Judgment was not just, their Sen­tence might have been rescinded?

I freely confess, that I cannot see how it can be better made out that the Pope's Tribunal is sub­ject to that of a full and gene­ral Council, which may confirm or rescind a Sentence past at Rome, as a supreme Court can confirm or rescind the Judgment of an in­feriour. So when the same St. Austin says in another place, speaking of the Pelagians, Jam enim do hac causâ duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam; inde eti­am rescripta venerunt, causa finita est. August. Serm. 2. de Verb. Dom. c. 10. We have Rescripts come from Rome, the Cause is ended; that's to be un­derstood, that it is ended at Rome, whither these Hereticks after they had been condemn­ed in the Councils of Africa, ap­pealed to the Pope, and thought to have gained their Cause by their Artifice which had once succeeded with them. It was not judged supremely but in the Council of Ephesus. We must [Page 212]then of necessity conclude, that it cannot more clearly he seen than in those Instances which I have now alledged of universal Councils which have judged the Sentences of Popes, That it was believed in the ancient Church, before Saint Austin, and in his Time, and after him, without the least doubting, that a ge­neral Council is above the Pope. And that's the thing I was to prove.

CHAP. XIX. That the ancient Popes have always acknowledged, and protested, that they were subject to Councils.

BUT that I may farther prove it upon as solid a ground, and which ought to be the more plausi­ble, and less to be rejected, because I shall produce, as Evidences for this Truth, those who are most con­cerned in the Affair: I need say no more, but that the ancient Popes, whom of late, in spight of them­selves, they would have elevated above Councils, do themselves pro­test, that they are subject unto them, and that they ought to obey them in matters belonging to Faith, the Regulation of Manners, the universal Good and general Disci­pline of the Church.

Is there any thing clearer and more sincere as to that Subject, than the Testimony of Pope Syricius, Successor to Damasus? The Em­perours [Page 214] Theodosius and Valentinian the younger,Ann. 390. had called a great Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Capoua, Ambros. Epist. ad Theoph. Alexand. Epist. Syricii ad Anys. Thessalon. for quenching the Schism of Antioch, which after the Death of Meletius and Paulinus still continued by the Election that the two different Parties of that Church made of Flavian to succeed to Meletius, and of Evagrius Suc­cessor to Paulinus. Seeing Flavian appeared not, the Council delega­ted Theophilus of Alexandria to judge and determine that great difference with consent of the Bishops of Egypt; and at the same time, since the Council was informed against a Bishop of Macedonia called Bonosus accused of Heresie and Impiety against the holy Virgin, who durst not appear; the Council commit­ted the Tryal of the Cause to Anesius of Thessalonica, that he might de­termine it in a Synod which he should hold with the Bishops of Macedonia and Illyrium.

These, whether to discharge themselves of the Judgment which [Page 215]they well foresaw they must of ne­cessity pass against one of their Brethren,Cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis Ju­dicium, ut finitimi Bo­noso atque e [...]us accusa­toribus Judices tribue­rentur, advertimus quod nobis Judicandi forma competere non possit. Nam si inte­gra esset bodie synodus recte de ii [...] quae com­prehendit scriptorum vestrorum series decer­neremus. Vestrum est igitur qui hoc recepistis Judi [...]ium, sententiam ferre di o [...]nibus — vicem enim Synodi re­cepistis quos ad exa­minandum Synodus ele­git. — Primum est uti ii judicent quibus judicandi faculias est data: vos enim toti­us ut scripsimus Syno­di vice decernitis; nos quasi ex Synodi autho­ritate judicare non con­venit. or out of the Veneration that they had for the Holy See, re­ferred that Judgment to Pope Syri­cius. But he wrote back to them, that if the Council had determined nothing about the Cause of Bonosus, he would have pronounced a just Judgment concerning what they had written to him of that Bishop; but that since the Council had com­missionated them to take Cogni­sance of that Cause by a decisive Judgment with the Bishop of Thes­salonica, he frankly confessed, that he had no Power to judge of it. It is you, said he, who are to supply the place of the Council in that Judg­ment, and who received the Power to determine it, to whom it belongs to pronounce about that Affair, Epist. Syricii ad Anys. Thes. in col­lect. Roman. bipertit. veter. monument. Romae, 1662. seeing you represent the Council which hath transferred its Authority upon you, and not to me who have it not. There is a Pope of the fourth Age, who ingenuously confesses, That the De­legates of the Council, much more [Page 216]the Council it self, have greater Power than he hath, and who by consequent acknowledges that the Authority of Councils is above that of Popes.

Innocent I. who three Years after Syricius, was Pope, and who had observed his Conduct in relation to the Council of Capoua, walked also according to the Tradition of the Roman Church,Chrys. Ep. ad In­noc. 1. Ep. Inn. ad Jo. Chrys. apud Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Innoc. Episc. ad cle­ric. Constant. Pallad. dial. de vit. Chrysost. c. 2. and the Example of his Predecessors, who never thought that their Power was e­qual, and far less superiour to that of a Council. For in the great Per­secution that Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, rais'd against St. John Chrysostom, who was condemned and deposed, in a Synod of Bishops of the Faction of Theophilus, Theophili Judicium cassum & irritum [...]sse decrevit, dicens opor­t [...]re & conflare aliam i [...]rep [...]ehensi [...]ilem Syno­dum occi [...]entalium sa­c [...]rdotum cedentib [...]s a­ [...]ci [...]is primun, d [...]in­de inimicis; neutra [...]um quippe partiam ut plu­rimum [...]ectum esse Ju­dicium. Pallad. lo [...]. cit. and Enemies to that Saint; seeing the Pope and Western Bishops had been written to on both sides, that holy Bishop did indeed rescind that Judgment past contrary to all the Forms and Rules of Councils by incompetent Judges, against an Absent who had judicially appeal­ed [Page 217]to a lawful Council: but as to the Substance of the Affair, and the Accusation in hand, he would ne­ver meddle in it. He thought, that considering the Importance of the Affair, wherein the Honour and Dignity of a Patriarch, whose Faith had always been so pure, and his Learning and eminent Sanctity in so high a Veneration over all the Church, was struck at,Quodnam remedium hisce rebus afferemus? necessaria erit Synoda­lis cognitio. nothing but an impartial Council, wherein the Friends and Enemies of neither side should be present, could pronounce a definitive Sentence concerning the matter.

Ea sola est quae hu­jusmodi procellarum impetus retardare po­test. Innoc.This he wrote to both Parties; and in the Letters which he directs to St. Chrysostom to his Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople, he says positively, that that Council,Cum opem ipse ferre non posset. Pallad. even the same to which that holy Pa­triarch had appealed, was absolute­ly necessary for determining that great Affair by a supreme Sentence; that there was no other Remedy but that, for the Evils that afflict­ed them; that he could not help [Page 218]them otherwise;Multum delibera­mus quonam modo sy­nodus Oecumenica con­gregari possit, per quam &c. Expectemus igitur & vallo patientiae com­muniti, &c. that an Oecume­nical Council alone could restore Peace to the Eastern Church, and calm so furious a Tempest: and that in the mean time it behoved them to arm themselves with Pati­ence, and have recourse only to God, expecting till that Council should be called, wherein he la­boured incessantly, searching out the Measures that might be taken for having it called. Could that Pope express himself in clearer terms, that a general Council hath an higher power, and of larger Ex­tent than his own, and that by con­sequent it is above him?

However, if I mistake not, there is somewhat that strikes higher in what Innocent III. one of his Suc­cessors, no less zealous than he was for the Grandeur and Rights of the Holy See, wrote to Philip August. This Prince, who had a great de­sire to have the Marriage which he had contracted with the Queen Ingerbuge dissolved, instantly pres­sed the Pope to declare it null, that [Page 219]so he might be free to marry ano­ther. That wise Pope writing back to the King, protests before God,Innoc. III. in l. 3. Regest. 15. Ep. 104. ad Philip. Reg. Franc. Non auderemus in hu­jusmodi casu de nostro sensu pro te aliquid de­finire. that if he could in Conscience grant what he demanded, he would do it with all his Heart; but, that tho he would stand by that which the Queen had answered Cardinal Ro­bert Cortzeon, in favour of the dis­solution of that Marriage, who had interrogated her judicially, yet he could not of himself determine any thing about so important an Affair as that; and that,Si super hoc absque deliberatione Concilii determinare aliquod tentaremus, praeter di­vinam offensam & mundanam insamiam quam ex eo possumus incurrere, forsan ordi­nis & officii nostri pe­riculum immineret. If he offered to do it without a Council, besides offend­ing of God, and the Disgrace that he should draw upon himself in the World, he might perhaps be in danger of being deposed, and of losing his Pontifical Dignity. There was a Pope, and one of the most learned that ever sat in St. Peter's Chair, who twice, and in few Words, confesses with much Sincerity, that the Council is above him: once, by saying, that he could determine nothing in that Affair proposed to him, without the Definition of a Council; and then, [Page 220]if he offered to do so, that he should run a hazard of being deposed from the Popedom. By whom? With­out doubt by a Power that was su­periour to his; which, as it is evi­dent, could be none other upon Earth but that of a Council.

Pope Agapetus, long before, said the same upon an occasion, where the Question however was not a­bout a matter of so great Impor­tance as this, and of which, it is fit, I should give my Reader an Ac­count in few words. In one of the Councils which Pope Symmachus held at Rome, there was a prohi­bition made, That no Pope, for ever, should alienate the Goods of the Church, and especially of the Church of Rome, which at that time were not Cities and Provin­ces, as they were after the Dona­tions of the Kings of France, but some Lands and Farms which it held of the Bounty of Believers, besides the Oblations which in those days made up the greatest part of it. I give you here the most consi­derable [Page 221]terms of the Decree, which prohibits that Alienation.Ann. 500. We or­dain in the Presence of God, Mansuro cum Dei consideratione decreto sancimus, ut nulli A­postolicae sedis praesuli à praesenti die, donec, disponente domino Ca­tholicae Fidei manserit doctrina salutaris, li­ceat praedium rusticum, quantaecunque fuerit magnitudinis, vel exi­guitatis, sub perpetuâ alienatione vel com­mutatione, ad cujusti­bet jura transferre; nec cujusquam excu­sentur necessitatis ob­tentu. by this Decree, that from this present day, so long as the Doctrine of the Faith con­tinues in the World, by the Dispositi­on of divine Providence, that it be never lawful for any Pope to alienate any farm, great or small, nor to transfer the same by way of Exchange to any whosoever, under pretext and excuse of any necessity that may hap­pen.

Now seeing about thirty six years after there was a Permission desired of Pope St. Agapetus to alienate some of these Lands,Concil. Rom. sub Symmach. de bon. Eccles. non alien. c. 4. under a very speci­ous pretext of relieving the poor, he made Answer, that the venerable Constitutions of his Predecessors that had prohibited such kinds of Alienations, tied him from grant­ing it; that he thought they would not take it ill that he did nothing contrary to those Decrees, what­ever the occasion might be, for any Respect in the World. Nor would I have you think, adds he in [Page 222]his Epistles to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, Nec tenacitatis studio, aut saecularis uti­litatis causâ hoc facere vòs credatis, sed divi­ni consideratione Judi­cii necesse nobis est, quicquid sancta syno­dalis decrevit autho­ritas, inviolabiliter cu­stodire. that I do so out of Covetous­ness or any temporal Interest. But, considering the strict Account that I must give at the last Judgment, I think my self obliged to observe invi­olably what the holy Council hath en­joyned us. Yet, all this while, this was but a National Council of Ita­ly which had made that Decree, to which Pope Agapetus says that he was obliged to submit: upon stron­ger Reason, without doubt, would he have said the same, if it had been a Decree of an Oecumenical Coun­cil.

There are a great many Popes who have expressed themselves as plainly as these, that they were subject to a Council. I'll mention no more but one, who delivers his Mind upon that Subject in such a manner, as no man is able to reply to. And that is the famous Gerbert, Silvester II. who filled three Sees successively of Reims, Ravenna; and lastly of Rome, and was a most Learned Pope, whom I have cha­racterized [Page 223]in some of my Histories. For that purpose, he makes use of this passage in the Gospel, where our Saviour says to his Disciples, That if your Brother offend you, reprove him privately, and then in presence of two or three Witnesses; and if he amend not, tell the Church of him; and if he obey not the Church, let him be as a Publican and as a Heathen.Defensor. p. c. c. 29. The famous and learned Tostatus Bishop of Avi­la, employs that Passage to prove that the supreme and highest Tri­bunal of the Church is that of a Council, to which Jesus Christ re­ferred all his Disciples, and by con­quent St. Peter, who is therefore subject to it as to his lawful Judge, from whom he is to expect the Justice that he may demand against his Brother. Pope Silvester makes use of it in another manner, but for the same end: for he pretends, what is true, that these Words spoken to St. Peter by our Saviour in relati­on to his Brethren, were also spoken to the same Brethren in regard [...] [Page 224]St. Peter, as well as of the rest. Whereupon that Pope writing to Seguinus Archbishop of Sens, Constanter dico, quod si ipse Romanus Epis­copus in fratrem pecca­verit, saepiusque ad­monitus Ecclesiam non audierit, hic, inquam, Romanus Episcopus praecepto Dei est ha­bendus sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus. Sylvest. 2. Epist. ad Seguin. Senon. hath made no difficulty to express him­self in these very pithy and signifi­cant Words: I say it boldly, that if even the Bishop of Rome offend against you, and that being often admonished he obey not the Church, that Bishop of Rome, I say, ought to be look'd upon by the Command of God himself, as a Publican and as a Heathen. Could that Pope have expressed himself more clearly, That he thought the Popes, for all they are Heads of the Church, are still subject to a Council that represents it.

CHAP. XX. That the ancient Popes have belie­ved, That they were subject to the Canons.

IT is another invincible Argu­ment that Antiquity hath al­ways been in that Belief, that the ancient Popes have always protest­ed in their true Epistles, for I speak not of those which are supposititi­ous, that they were obliged, in the Exercise of their Power, and in the Government of the Church, to square their Conduct according to the Canons and holy Decrees of Councils, against which they could undertake nothing.

Is there any thing plainer as to that point, than what is to be seen in the Epistle of Pope Gelasus to the Bishops of Dordany, Ʋniuscujus (que) Synodi constitutum, quod uni­versalis Ecclesiae pro­bavit assensus, non ali­quam magis exequi se­dem prae caeteris opor­tere quam primam. That no man ought more exactly to execute what is ordained by the Universal Council, than the Bishop of the chief See? In that of Celestin I. to the Bishops of Illyri­um; The Regulation of Councils must [Page 226]be our Rules and have dominion over us, Dominentur nobis regulae, non regulis do­minemur. [...]imus sub­jecti canonibus, dum canonum praecepta ser­vam [...]. and not that we should raise our selves above these holy Rules, that we may dispose of them at our Pleasure: let us submit our selves to the Canons by observing what they enjoyn. In what St. Leo wrote to Anatolius: Nimis haec improba. nimis sunt prava quae sacratissimis canonibus inveniantur esse con­traria. What­soever is contrary to the most holy Ca­nons is too wicked and d praved to be tolerated. In the Letter of Simplicius to the Patriarch Acacius: Per universum mun­dum indissolubili ob­servatione reti [...]etur, quod à sacerdotum u­niversitate est constitu­tum. What is established by an Ʋniversal Council is retained throughout the whole World by an inviolable Observation. In that of Pope St. Martin to J [...]hn Bishop of Philadelphia: Defensores divino­rum canonum & custo­des sumus, non Fra­varicatores; quando­quidem Praevaricatori­bus conjunctae sunt re­tributiones. We are the Defend­ers and Guardians of the holy Canons, and not the Prevaricators of them, for we know, that great Correction is re­served for those that betray th [...]m.

St. Gregory the Great speaks with as much force as these▪ in an hun­dred places of his Epistles; as when he says in the thirty seventh of his first Book:Absit hoc à me, [...]t statuta majorum in qualibet Ecclesiâ in­fringam. Far be it from me, that I should infringe the Statutes of our Predecessors in any Church whatsoever: And writing to John, Patriarch of [Page 227] Constantinople: Dum concilia univer­sali sunt consensu con­stituta, se & non illa destruit, quis [...]uts prae­sumit aut solvere quos ligant, aut l [...]gare quos solvunt. He that presumes to loose those whom General Councils have bound, or to bind those whom they have loosed, destroys himself and not the Councils. He was so well per­suaded of his Duty, that obliged him to observe the Canons, that he even thought, that that Obligation extended to matters which he found to be established by an ancient Cu­stom and Tradition in his Church.

For, the Empress Constantina ha­ving entreated him to send her ei­ther the Head or some other consi­derable part of the Body of St. Paul, to be put in a Church which she had built to the Memory of that great Apostle; that holy Pope wrote back to her,Illa praecipitis, quae facere nec possum, nec audeo, &c. In Romanis vel to­tius occidentis partibus intolerabile est atque sacrilegium, si sanclo­rum corpora tangere quisquam [...]ortasse vo­lucrit: quod si prae­sumpserit, c [...]ium est quia haec temeritas im­punita nullo modo re­manebit. lib. 3. Indic. 12. Ep. 30. ad Con­stant. Augus [...]am. That he could have passi­onately desired, that her Serenity had commanded him in any thing wherein he could have served and obeyed her; but as to what she or­dered him to do, he neither could nor durst do it, because, said he, it is at Rome, nay in all the West, looked upon as unsupportable, and a great Sacriledge, to touch the Bo­dies [Page 228]of the Saints; and if any one have the boldness to attempt it, his rashness will never pass unpunished.

Perhaps if at Rome they had made any Reflexion on this Epistle, when it was resolved there to have an Arm of the Body of St. Francis Xavier, the Apostle of the Indies, which was then to be seen at Goa in his stately Monument above three­score years after his Death, as fresh and ruddy as when he was alive, they would not have given Orders to have it cut off; and that if he who obeyed that Command, had read that Letter, he would have answer­ed with as much respect as St. Gre­gory did, Nec possum, nec audio. For besides, that that Arm which is now to be seen at Rome is all withered, and that since that time the holy Body is not so fresh as it was before; they who were employed in that Office, and had the boldness to lay hands upon that sacred Body, died within the Year. And I have learn­ed of a very honest Gentleman of Quality who lately returned from [Page 229]the Indies, that those of Goa attri­bute to that Action all the Evils they have been afflicted with since that time, and all the Losses which the Portuguese have sustained in the East-Indies.

Thus the holiest Popes, when they were desired any thing to the pre­judice of the Canons, or even of the ancient Customs, which pass for so many Laws, have not scrupuled to confess, that their power extended not so far. For besides the Instances that I have just now alledged,Ne in aliquo patrum terminos praeterire vi­deam [...]r, contra majo­rum statuta ag [...]re ne­q [...]ivi [...]us. Joan. VIII. Epist. ad Carol. Reg. John VIII. speaks in the same manner to one of the Kings of France: We could not act against the Decrees of our Pre­decessors, lest it should seem that we transgress the Bounds set to us by our Fathers. Contra Deum & sa­cr [...]rum c [...]nonum san­cti [...]es nulli omni [...]o petitioni possumus prae­ber [...] cons [...]sum. And Eugenius III. to the Bishops of Germany; We can grant no Demand against God, and against the Decrees of the sacred Canons. The meaning of that is, that as the Pope can grant nothing against the Ser­vice of God, because he is inferiour to God, so neither can he grant any thing against the Canons of Oecu­menical [Page 230]Councils, because he is under them.

In fine, that we may not alledge an infinite number of other Testi­monies, which may be seen in the true Epistles of the Popes, since Sy­ricius, I shall conclude with that of Silvester II. to the Archbishop of Sens, Sit lex communis E [...]sie Catholinae, Evan [...]lium, Apos [...]oli, Prophet [...], Canones spi­r [...]tu D [...]i condati, [...] totius mundi reveren­tia cons [...]erati, & de­cret [...] se [...]as Apostolicae oh his non dis [...]o [...]dan­tia. Epist. ad Seguin. Arch. Senon. wherein he says, This is the Law according to which the Catholick Church is to be governed, The Gospel, the Writings of the Apostles and Pro­phets, the Canons which the Spirit of God hath made, and which are conse­crated by the Veneration of all the World, and the Decrees of the Apo­stolick See which are not contrary to these Canons. Ex Art. Concilii Florent. è Sesi. 25. Antiq. E [...]ition. cum a [...]rob. Clement. VII. And that is the very same that was defined in the Coun­cil of Florence after long debate be­twixt the Latins and Greeks, con­cerning the primacy and power of the Pope in the Universal Church.

It was agreed upon on both sides, That the Pope, as Successor of St. Pe­ter, was Head of the Church, the Father and Teacher of all Believers, who had received from Jesus Christ, [Page 231]in the person of St. Peter, full power to govern the Church. The diffi­culty only rested in expressing the manner how he might and ought to govern it. The Latins would have the Definition run thus, That he had above all others the priviledge and full power of governing the whole Church according to the Sayings and Sentences of the holy Fathers, Juxta determinationem sa­crae Scripturae, & dicta sanctorum. The Emperour John Paleologue and Greek Prelates,An siquis, inquit, san­ctorum in Epistola ho­noret Papam, accipiet hoc pro Privilegio? vigorously oppos'd that Clause, & dicta sanctorum. How, said he, if any of the Holy Fa­thers, writing to the Pope, says to him what he thinks fit, for rendering him greater Respect and more Honour; shall the Pope take these Expressions of Complement and Civility for Privi­ledges that belong to him? Besides, in the draught of the Bull of Union of the two Churches, the Pope ha­ving only put his own name, Euge­nius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, as if he alone had made these Decrees: the Emperour and the [Page 232] Greeks would by all means have that amended, and that there should no mention be made of the Pope in it, unless the other Patriarchs were al­so named.

At length, after that these two considerable Clauses had been well examin [...]d, the Union was made in the manner that the Greeks desired it, to which the Latins agreed. Then the Bull was framed, which began thus; Eugenius, Servant of the Servants of God, &c. Our death beloved Son John Paleologue illustri­ous Emperour of the Romans, those who hold the place of our venerabl [...] Brethren the Patriarchs, and all the rest who represent the Eastern Church consenting to all the Decrees which an [...] in this Bull, &c. And then amongst other Articles it was defined, [...], &c. [...] m [...]d [...]m qui & in [...]ti [...] conci [...]i­ [...], & in canonibus con [...]. That Jesus Christ hath given to the [...]ope in the person of St. Peter, full pow­er to govern the Universal Church in the manner as is contained both in the Acts of Oecumenical Coun­cils, and in the sacred Canons, and not according to the false Transla­tion, [Page 233] Quemadmodum etiam & in gestis Conciliorum, &c. as if it were said, that the Canons of Councils attri­bute also to the Pope, the power of governing the Universal Church. It is a quite contrary Sense to the Words of the Council, which says only, that the Pope hath received from Jesus Christ the power of go­verning the Church in the manner as is prescribed to him by the Ca­nons, Juxta eum modum qui & in gestis Conciliorum, & in Canonibus continetur. Which comprehends all, because it is supposed, as it is very true, that the Canons of Oecume­nical Councils are conform to holy Scripture, Tradition, and the true Sayings of the holy Fathers, from whom we derive our Tradition.

From those two Clauses of the Bull wherein both the Eastern and Western Churches, after they had well examined them, agreed, two things may be unquestionably con­cluded: the one, that the Pope can determine nothing in his Constitu­tions of infallible Authority, with­out [Page 234]the Consent of the Church; and the other, that the Exercise of his power which is not infinite and unlimited, ought to be moderated according to the Rules prescribed to him by the Canons of the Coun­cils, to which all Believers are sub­ject. What the Popes have over others, is the Care they ought to take to see them observed, not on­ly by their Authority, but by their Example, which is of greater force and efficacy than their Ordinances; and if they themselves violate them acting arbitrarily as they please, without regard to the Canons which ought to be their measures, or suffer them to be violated by o­thers without punishment, they become culpable before God, who hath made them not the Masters, but the Stewards of the Church, to act according to her Orders, and cause them to be obeyed. This the great St. Leo expressed admirably well in those rare words which he wrote to the Emperour Martian: With the Assistance of Jesus Christ [Page 235]I must constantly continue my Service, In quo opere auxili­ante Christo, fideliter exequendo, necesse est me perseverantem ex­hibere famulatum, quoniam dispensatio mihi credita est, & ad meum reatum tendit, si paternarum regulae sanctionum quae in Sy­nodo Nicenâ ad totius Ecclesiae regimen spiri­tu Dei instruente sunt conditae, me, quod absit, connivente, violentur. Ep. 54. ad Martian. Dum tamen evidens utilitas vel necessuas id expo [...]cunt. Greg. IX. In talibus eadem u­tilitas & urgens neces­sitas secundum institu­ta canonum debet at­tendi. Innoc. III. Ep. ad Episc. Favent. in faithfully executing what I am com­manded, because he has trusted me with the Care and Dispensation of his House; and I make my self guilty of great Ʋnfaithfulness, if by my Conni­vance, which God preserve me from, I suffer the Rules and Canons to be vi­olated, which have been made, by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in the Council of Nice, for the Government of the whole Church.

Not but that the Pope, who ought to take the care of the gene­ral Good of the Church, may, on certain Occasions, dispense with the Canons: but in that thing it self he is subject to the Canons, see­ing he cannot dispense with them as he pleases, and without any o­ther reason save that of his Will, but only in Cases prescribed by the Canons, when urgent necessity,Ʋbi necessitas non est, inconvertibilia maneant sanctorum pa­trum instit [...]ta. Gelas. Ʋbi necessitas non est nullo modo violen­tur sanctorum patrum constituta. St. Leo. or manifest advantage, makes it ap­pear according to the Canons that the Church intended not to oblige to them. Except in such cases, the ancient Popes say openly, that the [Page 236]Canons and holy Decrees must be inviolably kept, and that they can­not dispense with them.

Whereupon St. Bernard writing to a Pope,Quid? Prohibes dis­pensare? non sed dissi­pare, &c. ubi necessilas urget excu abilis di [...] ­pensatio est; ubi uti­litas prov [...]cat, dispen­satio laudabil [...]s est, utilitas dico con munu, non propria: nam cum borum nih l [...]. est, non plane fide [...]is d [...]she [...]sa­tio est, sed c [...]eussima dissipation. Bern. de cons. ad Eu­gen. l. 3. c. 6. told him with a great deal of holy liberty, that he forbids not to dispense, but to dissipate; that he knows very well that the Popes are the Stewards of the house of God, but for Edification and not for Destruction, and that the Stew­ard ought to be faithful: when Ne­cessity urges, Dispensation is excu­sable; and laudable when Advan­tage, not of a private person, but of the publick, requires it; and when neither appear in that which is de­fired, then what is granted is no more a faithful Dispensation, but a most cruel Dissipation. And this, as a learned Pope teacheth,Hadrian. V. de dis­pens. Apostolic. renders both him that obtains that Dispen­sation, and him that grants it, cri­minal in the sight of God, unless he that granteth it hath been, without his Fault, imposed upon by a false Information, as many times it hap­pens. The power then of dispen­sing [Page 237]exempts not Popes, according to the Ancients, from the Obedi­ence which they owe to the De­crees of Councils; and when they do otherwise, and act in their Con­stitutions contrary to the Canons, that is not a lawful practice, but an abusing of their power, and an abuse that draws many others after it.

Pri [...]cipium maiorum inde fuisse quod non­nulli pontisices coacer­vaverant sibi magistros & prurientes auribus — ut eorum studio & calliditate inveni­retur ratio quâ liceret id quod liberet — pon­tificem esse dominum beneficiorum onni [...]n [...] — Ita quod voluntas pontificis qualiscunque ea faerit, sit reg [...]la quâ ejus operationes & actiones dirigantur, &c.This that great Assembly of Car­dinals and Prelates pick'd out of the best and ablest men of the Court of Rome, which Paul III. called in the Year One thousand five hundred and thirty eight, to search for means of remedying the Troubles of the Church, represented to him with much Vigour and Respect, when they told him that the source of so many Disorders was the Flat­tery of some new Doctors, who strained their false Subtilties to make his Predecessors believe, that they were the absolute Masters of all in the Church, that they were above all Canons, and that there was no other Law for them, but their own Will and Pleasure.

So that when it happened that some Popes manifestly abusing their power, transgressed the limits set them by the Canons, Appeals were made to the next Oecumenical Council;Ann. 1303. as was done upon account of the Bull of Boniface VIII. who pretended to a Sovereign power over all the Crowns upon Earth; as the University of Paris, in the Year 1491, appealed to a Pope bet­ter informed, and to the first ge­neral Council, concerning certain exactions and gatherings of Tenths, which were attempted against the Canons and Liberties of the Gallican Church; and as hath been done oftner than once in Germany upon the like Occasions.

But seeing that Remedy is tedi­ous, and that it may be abused by Appeals very ill brought, which, seeing they could not be judged in an whole Age, would render the pontifical Authority useless in the smallest matters, which Pius II. and Julius II. have most justly con­demned; instead thereof, we have [Page 239]in France an Appeal as of Abuse, to the [...] arliament, which (representing the King sitting in his Chair of Ju­stice, to whom, as protector of the Canons, it belongs to hinder any thing from being acted contrary to them) has Right to judge whether there be any matter, in the Bulls, Ordinances, and Ecclesiastical Sen­tences, which wound the Canons and our Liberties.

For in this chiefly consist the Li­berties of the Kingdom and Gallican Church, that no new thing can be commanded or enjoyned us con­trary to the holy Decrees of the Councils received in France, and against the ancient Law, in the possession whereof we have always maintained our selves, without sub­mitting to any other Laws, unless we our selves consent to them; so that whatever derogates from these ancient Constitutions which are our inviolable Laws, is by Decree rescinded. And this seems to be grounded upon that excellent Sen­timent of Innocent III. a great Pope, [Page 240]great Canonist, and great Lawyer, who speaks like a Pope, when he says,Quae in derogationem sanctorum canonum at­tentantur, tanto potius infringi volumus, & carere robore firmita­tis; quanto authoritas universalis Ecclesiae, cui praesidemus, ad id nos provocat & inducit. Innoc. III. l. 1. Ep. ad Episc. Favent. We will that all that is underta­ken and attempted against the holy Canons, be void and null; and we will it so much the rather, that the Autho­rity of the holy Church wherein we pre­side moves and inclines us to it. As if by that he would tell us, that the Authority of the Church depends upon the Observation of her Ca­nons and Laws, and not on the Liberty that a Pope might take to violate them.

From all that I have said in this Chapter, this truth of Fact results, That all Antiquity hath believed, that Popes being subject to the De­crees of Councils, and obliged to act and govern according to the Laws that are prescribed to them by the Canons, Councils by con­sequent are above the Popes.

CHAP. XXI. What General Councils have decided as to that Point.

SEeing that Question was not moved in the Ancient Church, when all were of the Opinion that I have now mentioned: Councils that decide nothing but upon occa­sion of Differences and Disputes which arise amongst Christians about some certain point of Do­ctrine, have given no definitive Sentence as to that particular, till it was begun to be questioned and disputed about.Concil. Pisan. t. 11. Edit. Paris Act. conc. ex codic. Gem­metic. t 6. Spirit. Monach. Dionys. 1.29. l. 1. & sequen, Niem. l. 23. Platina. Ciacconius. And this I think happened upon occasion of the Council of Pisa, which the Car­dinals of both obediences, that is, of Gregory XII. and Benet XIII. with consent of almost all Kings and Sovereigns, called for extinguish­ing that Schism; which these two Competitors and pretended Popes entertained by their Collu­sion and Obstinacy, contrary to the [Page 242]express Promise they had made of resigning up their Pretensions.

For seeing some who stood for Gregory, Ann. 1409. protested against the Council which, as they said, had no Authority over the Popes, such an unprecedented protestation in the Church being exploded, the famous Doctor Peter Plaoust, one of the Deputies from the Universi­ty of Paris, which at that time was in the Meridian of its Repu­tation, made a long and learned Speech in full Council,29 May. wherein he proved by many Reasons, that the Universal Church, and by consequent a General Council which represents her, is above the Pope; adding, that that was the Judgment of the University of Pa­ris, and of all the other Universi­ties of France.

No sooner was he come down from the Pulpit, but that the Bi­shop of Novare stept up, and read aloud a Writing, which declared, that an hundred and three Doctors and Licentiates of Divinity, de­puted [Page 243]by the Universities to that Council, being assembled by order of the Cardinals to consult about that matter, were all unanimously of the Judgment of the University of Paris; and he affirmed, that besides the Universities of France, it was also the Judgment of the famous University of Bologna, 1 June. from which they had Letters, and of that of Florence, who had given it in writing under the Hands of sixscore Doctors.

Six days after, the Process that was brought against Gregory and Benet having been proved and made out in a judicial manner, the Coun­cil past a definitive Sentence, whereby it declares, Pietro de la Luna and Angelo Corario heretofore called Popes, Benet XIII. and Gre­gory XII. obstinate Schismaticks and Hereticks, convicted of enormous Crimes, of Perjury, Impiety, and of Collusion, to deceive Believers, and to keep up the Schism which so long had rent the Church, and as such, deposes them from the Pa­pacy. [Page 244]This the Council did pur­suant to the Decree, whereby it had before determined, that that Council represented the Church universal, and that it was the only supreme Judge upon Earth to whom the Judgment of that Cause belonged, though it was most cer­tain, that one of these two Pre­tenders was the true Pope.

After wards they chose Alexan­der V. who was acknowledged by the Universal Church, except those two wretched Remains of Obedi­ence, who held out still for the two Antipopes; and that Pope appro­ved all the Decrees of the Council, even a moment before his Death, which was most holy and preci­ous in the sight of God. I have heretofore proved, according to the Judgment of almost all the Churches of Christendom, of that of Rome in particular, nay and of the Universal Church represented by the Council of Constance, which was but a continuation of this, that it ought to be reckoned, with­out [Page 245]contradiction, lawful. But, since on the one hand, it hath pleased some Doctors beyond the Alpes to doubt of it, and that on the other, I decline all dispute in this Treatise, I will only stick to matter of Fact, which cannot be contested; to wit, that this Coun­cil of Pisa hath been one of the greatest Assemblies that was ever seen in the Church.

For there were in it five and twenty Cardinals, four Patri­archs, six and twenty Archbishops, an hundred fourscore and two Bi­shops either in person or by Proxy, two hundred fourscore and ten Ab­bots, amongst whom were all the Heads of the Orders, the Generals of the Carthusians and of the four Mendicant Orders, the great Ma­sters of Rhodes, of the Holy Sepul­chre and the Teutonick Knights, the Deputies of the Universities of Paris, Tholouse, Orleans, Angers, Montpellier, Bologna, Florence, Cracovia, Vienna, Prague, Cologne, Oxford and Cambridge, and of some [Page 246]others, and those of the Chapters of above an hundred Metropolitan and Cathedral Churches, above three hundred Doctors of Divinity and of the Law, the Ambassadors of the Kings of France, England, Poland, Bohemia, Sicily, and Cy­prus, of the Dukes of Burgundy and Lorrain, Brabant, Bavaria, of the Marquess of Brandenburg, Lant­grave of Thuringe, and of almost all the other Princes of Germany; besides that the Kings of Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and, in a word, those of Spain, except Arragon, shortly after adhered to that Council; and by consequent, all these Prelates, all these Do­ctors, all these Orders, all these Universities, all these Kingdoms, all these States, that's to say, in a word, almost all Christians, in the beginning of the fifteenth Century, when that Dispute was started concerning the Superiority of the Council or of the Pope, believed, conform to the Belief of Anti­quity, [Page 247]That a Council is above the Pope.

But you are to take notice of somewhat more particular and convincing still. When five years after, the Council of Constance was opened, for continuing that of Pi­sa, as it had been decreed in that Council, which was rather inter­rupted than concluded, the Dispute concerning the Superiority of the Pope or of the Council, was start­ed again with greater Heat than before, For some Cardinals being arrived from Scaffhausen, whither the Pope who had escaped from Constance had retired, attempted in full Assembly where Sigismund the Emperour was present, to prove that the Council was dissolved, because John XXIII. who had aban­doned it, being owned for true Pope by all that were present, was above the Council which could have no Authority without him.

Then was there a general mur­muring in the Assembly, and many [Page 248]of those who had greatest Au­thority and Reputation by reason of their Dignity and Knowledge,Et iis responsum fuit alacriter per plures de ipso concilio viros mag­nae authoritatis & sci­entificos, scilicet quod Papa non esset supra Concilium, sed sub con­cilio, & facta est illie contentio magna hinc inde. Niem. in vit. Joann. J. Gers. Serm. coram Concil. undertook to refute them, and to prove on the contrary, That the Council was superiour to the Pope, conform to the Sermon that the famous John Gerson had made to the Council a few days before, wherein he had made it out in twelve propositions, That a general Council representing the Univer­sal Church, is above the Pope, not only in the doubt whether or not he be true Pope, but also in the Assurance that is to be had, whe­ther he be lawfully chosen or not,Etiam ritè electi. as they did undoubtedly hold John XXIII. to have been.

Wherefore that Question, both before and after the Sermon of Ger­son, having been examined in the Conferences of Nations, according to the Order appointed by the Council, a Report of it was made in the fourth Session,Act. Concil. Con­stan. t. 12. con. Ed. Paris. Anton. tit. 22. c. 6. §. 2. where nine Cardinals and two hundred Bishops were present with the Emperour [Page 249] Sigismund, the Ambassadors of the Kings of France, England, Poland, Norway, Cyprus, Navarr, and ma­ny Princes of Germany; and there, seeing it had been already declared in the preceding Session, that the Council subsisted, and still retained all its Force and Authority, tho the Pope had withdrawn himself, it was by common Consent thus concluded and defined; That the Holy Council lawfully assembled, and representing the Church Militant, hath received immediately from Jesus Christ a Power which all and every one, even the Pope himself, are obli­ged to obey, in all that concerns the Faith, the extirpation of Schism, and the general Reformation of the Church of God, in its Head and Members.

And to the end that it might not be said what some have said since without having carefully read the Council of Constance, that that is only to be understood during the time of a Schism, it is added to the Decree in the following Session, That whatever Pope refuses to obey the [Page 250]Decrees not only of this Council, but also of any other that shall be lawfully called, ought to be punished if he amend not.

The Council afterward exercises its sovereign Authority over Pope John XXIII. acknowledged by them for true Pope, by the Church of Rome, and by all Christian People, except a very few who still adhe­red to the Schismaticks. Mar­tin V. who was chosen Pope in place of John XXIII. in the forty fifth Session, approved the De­crees which had solemnly been made in that Council, and pro­tested that he would observe them inviolably. In fine, in the Bull wherein he enjoyns what is to be asked of Hereticks who return from their Heresie, amongst others this Article is put: Whether they believe not that all Believers ought to approve and hold what the holy Council of Constance, representing the Ʋniversal Church, holds and ap­proves for the Integrity of the Faith and the Salvation of Souls; and [Page 251]whether they condemn not and re­pute not condemned, what the same holy Council hath condemned and condemns as contrary to the Faith and good Manners. This, without doubt, is one of the most authen­tick Approbations that a Pope can give to a Council.

Now seeing, in compliance with a Decree of this Council, the Pope had called another at Pavia, af­terward at Sienna, and lastly at Basil, where it was held fourteen Years after that of Constance, un­der Eugenius IV. who caused the Cardinal Julian of St. Angelo, named by his Predecessor for that Function, to preside in it in his place, that Council in the second Session, when without contradi­ction it was very lawful, the Pope presiding therein by his Le­gate, renewed those two Decrees, and defined the same thing in the same terms, touching the Superi­ority of General Councils, to which Popes were obliged to submit, in [Page 252]matters concerning the Faith, the extinction of Schism, and the Re­formation of the Church in its Head and Members.

This was not all: for sometime after, Eugenius having sent the Archbishops of Colossis and Taran­to to the Council, to represent the Reasons and Authority that he had to dissolve it, and to trans­fer it to another place: The Fa­thers, in a general Assembly, made a Synodal.Respons. Synod. Sess. 6. Answer by way of Constitution, containing more than twenty four large Pages; wherein having refuted all the Reasons whereby one of these Archbishops would have proved the Superiority of the Pope over a Council,Septemb. 1432. they, on the contrary, evince by many Reasons, and by the Authority of the Council of Constance, and of the Gospel which remits St. Peter to the Church, that the Council which represents her hath all her Au­thority; and again define once [Page 253]more, that the Council is above the Pope

However, Eugenius dissolved it contrary to the Advice of Cardinal Julian who presided therein. But when he perceived that that began to produce very bad Effects,Ann. 1433. he made the Year following a new Constitution, whereby annulling and rescinding all that he had done for dissolving it,Illas & alias quascun­que & quicquid per nos aut nestro nomine in praejudicium & de­r [...]gationem sacri Con­cilii B siliensis, seu contra ejus authorita­tem factum, attenta­tum seu assertum est, cassamus, revocamus, nullas & irritas esse declaramus. that that Council had lawfully conti­nued till then from the Beginning, and approves whatever had been done in it, even so far, as to declare null certain Constitutions, in one whereof he declared, that in mat­ters belonging to the Government of the Church, he had power over all Councils. And that was so authentick and solemn, that Pi­us II. even in the Bull of his Retra­ctation, ingenuously confesse, that Pope Eugenius consented to the De­crees of that Council,Accessit & i [...]sias E [...] ­g [...]nit consen [...]us, qui dissolutionem Con [...]ii à se sactam revocavit, & progressam e [...]e ap­probavit. approved its progress and continuation, and recalled the Bull whereby he had dissolved it.

There are two Councils then without speaking of that of Pisa, whereof the Council of Constance was a continuation, and two Coun­cils in formal terms approved by two Popes, Martin V. and Euge­nius IV. and these Councils deter­mine, the one during the Schism, and the other after the Schism was extinct, that every Council re­presenting the Universal Church, is superiour to the Pope. Now all the Doctors of that party which hold for the Pope's Superiority, acknowledge that a Council uni­versal and approved, cannot err in its Decisions; whence it may ea­sily be concluded, that since the Decrees of these Councils, one is obliged to believe what all Anti­quity before these Councils belie­ved, that is, that an Oecumenical Council lawfully assembled, is a­bove the Pope. I don't see how one can avoid this, without find­ing ways to invalidate the Autho­rity of the Councils, and particu­larly [Page 255]of that of Constance, which is held for the sixteenth General Council. And this a modern Author hath attempted to do in a Book written on purpose, and last Year printed at Antwerp by John Baptista Verdussen. We are now to see how he hath succeeded in it.

CHAP. XXII. Of the Writing of the Sieur Emma­nuel Schelstrate against these two Decrees of the Council of Con­stance.

THree years since,Ann. 1682. Cleri Gallicani de Ecclesiasticâ potestate declaratio. the Clergy of France representing the Gallican Church, being by Order of the King assembled at Paris, made an authentick Declaration in four Articles, of what they be­lieve and define concerning Eccle­siastical Power, conform to the Holy Scriptures, Tradition, and the practice of the whole Church, and particularly of that of France. Amongst other things, they de­clare in the second Article, That the Popes, Successors of St. Peter, have in such manner full power over the spiritual, That the Decrees of the holy Council of Constance, ap­proved by the Holy Apostolick See, and contained in the fourth and fifth Session, concerning the Authority [Page 257]of General Councils, must also remain in their full force, and not at all be infringed. And they add, That the Gallican Church approves not the Opinion of those who would weaken these Decrees, and rob them of all their force, saying that their Authori­ty may be called in question; that they are not sufficiently approved, or that they extend not beyond the time when there is a Schism in the Church.

Doubtless there is nothing more authoritative, (and at the same time more modest) than that De­claration of a Church so venerable in all Ages as the Gallican hath been, and which, next to that of the Apostles, hath always main­tained, and made the Catholick Faith to flourish in France in its full Integrity, without having been e­ver suspected of the least Error. Ne­vertheless, there is a late Writer, to wit, the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate, Canon of Antwerp, and Under-Li­brary-keeper of the Vatican, who, as he declares at first in the Scheme [Page 258]of his Dissertation, undertakes to overthrow all that the Clergy of France hath asserted concerning these Decrees, and to shew in three Chapters; first, that one may and ought rationally to doubt of their Authority; secondly, that it is on­ly to be understood during the time of a Schism, and in regard of con­troverted Popes; and lastly, that they are so far from being appro­ved, that they have been manifestly rejected by an express Bull.

Now seeing the authentick Acts which we have of the Councils of Constance and Basil are in the hands of every Body, and owned for true for above two hundred and three­score Years, and no man ever dream'd to call them into questi­on: he hath bethought himself of disputing us that lawful and peace­able possession, authorised by the long Prescription of almost three hundred Years. And this he pre­tends to do, by opposing to us cer­tain old Manuscripts that he hath [Page 259]raised out of the Grave, which contain the Register and Acts of the Council of Constance, which had ne­ver been seen, as they are there, and which God, by a singular Provi­dence, as he saith, hath suffered to be found almost at the same time when the Gallican Church made her Declaration; as if he would afford means of confounding it at the very Instant that it was published.

This, without doubt, is an Un­dertaking magnificently projected. But what is it founded upon? Upon the most ruinous Foundation in the World, and which I might ea­sily overturn, and by consequent all the Superstructure, by saying in one word, which is most true, that the pretended good Manu­scripts that he produceth against us, after a Possession of two hun­dred threescore and ten Years, are not more to be received, and are not near so good, as those from which the Decrees that we have of the Council of Constance have been [Page 260]taken. Should I answer him in this manner, it would lie at his door to prove that his Manuscripts are better than ours, which he will never be able to do, as we shall pre­sently see. But to do him a favour, I am content not to handle them according to Rigour, only will clearly and calmly make it out to him, with all the respect that is due to his Character, that the Conse­quences which he draws from what he finds there are false; and that after his way of arguing, all Oecu­menical Councils might be strip'd of the Authority which they ought to have, and which they have had in the Church to this present.

CHAP. XXIII. A Refutation of the first Chapter of the Dissertation of M. Schelstrate.

THIS Author undertakes to prove in this Chapter against the Gallican Church, That the De­crees of the fourth and fifth Session of the Council of Constance are of dubious Authority; first, because the Decree of the fourth Session hath been corrupted by the Fa­thers of the Council of B [...]sil, who in the Extract that they caused to be made in the Year 1442. of the Decrees of the Council of Constance, omitted in the first De­cree the words ad fidem, and added thereunto these words; Et ad re­formationem generalem Ecclesiae Dei in capite & in membris: That all men, even the Pope, are obliged to obey that Council, in what concerns the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members. As to the [Page 262]Omission of the word ad fidem, he is so favourable as to excuse it, for it appears only to have been done by the fault of the Transcri­ber, because that word is general­ly to be found every where, and indeed ought to be there. As to the words which he pretends have been added, he confesses that they are in all the Editions of the Councils that have been hitherto made; because, as he says, they have all followed the first that was made in the Year One thousand four hundred fourscore and nine­teen, at Haguenau, from a Copy of that Extract of the Fathers of Basil: but he pretends that it is not lawful, and that those Fa­thers have added these Words; upon no other proof, but that they are not to be found in the an­cient Manuscripts which he hath seen.

Well, must it be allowed then upon a proof of this Nature, and a bare negative Argument which [Page 263]does not conclude, to accuse a whole Assembly of Prelates of an Imposture, in which a Cardinal presided, a man of a very austere Virtue, whom Pope Clement VII. hath canonized? Let him be ac­cused of Head-strongness, and of abounding in his own Sense, in what he thought to be just; I consent to that, there was his weak side: but that he should be taken for an Impostor and a Fal­sary, and be treated so, upon so bare a conjecture, is a thing that honest men can hardly suf­fer.

The Manuscripts which M. Schel­strate hath seen contain not these last Words of the Decree: be it so, we take it upon his Word, reckon him an honest man, and shall never accuse him of having imposed upon us, but only of ha­ving reasoned ill, in concluding from thence, that the Fathers of Basil have falsified that Decree: for who hath told him that the [Page 264]Manuscript from which the Fa­thers of Basil made their Extract, contained not these words? Why does he, without being well assu­red of it, accuse them of Impo­sture? Don't we daily see, that there is difference amongst several manuscript Copies of one and the same work, that there is to be found in one what hath been omitted in another, and that there­fore ancient Editions are correct­ed? Witness that true and famous History of St. Austin, which the Fathers of Saint German des Prez cause to be made from a great many Manuscripts, the differences whereof they mark, and from some of which they take what they add to the ancient Editions which want certain words that are not to be found in the Copies from which they have been printed. Ought he not to presume that that Copy of Basil hath been taken from a Manuscript that had these last Words, which he hath not found [Page 265]in his own, that ought to be reck­oned defective?

And to prove to him that they are so, I declare, that those which I have seen, and which are very ancient, have the same Words at the end of the Decree of the fourth Session. And at the very Instant that I am writing this in my Apartment in the Monastery of St. Victor at Paris, where the Ca­nons regular of that Royal Abbey have done me the favour to let me chuse an honourable Retire­ment, suitable to my Profession and way of Living. I have before me that famous Manuscript of their celebrated Library, from which Monsieur de Sponde hath taken all that is most rare in his History of the Council of Constance, which is certainly the finest part of his work. Now in this Manuscript which is the most ancieat that can be seen, I read that Decree word for word as it stands in the printed Acts, and in the last Editions, the [Page 266]most exact and most correct of all.

But there's one thing still more ob­servable. We have in these Manu­scripts of St. Victor, the Extract of the Sessions which they who were at the Council for the French Na­tion, sent to Paris, as fast as they got them; and that Decree of the fourth Session is to be found there­in in express terms as we have it. Will M. Schelstrate say, that the Council of Basil, which was not held till many Years after the Coun­cil of Constance, hath falsified these Extracts? What can he answer to that?

And, that he may not think to object to us the multitude of his Manuscripts, for he quotes nine of them, I can tell him that there are ten in Paris, all conform to that of St. Victor, which alone is worth all his. And certainly I can very well exceed that number, seeing I my self, not to speak of ot her Ma­nuscripts which they who are more [Page 267]curious than I am, without doubt, have in their Libraries, have dis­covered ten of them.

Besides, we may produce against him the unquestionable Evidences of Peter D' Ailly Cardinal of Cam­bray, and of the famous John Gerson Chancellor of the Univer­sity of Paris, who was at the Council of Constance, not only as the Deputy of that great Body, but also as Ambassadour from the King: for, in fine, that holy and learned man, who cannot be sus­pected of Imposture, and whose Manuscripts we have, in many pla­ces relates that first Decree of the fourth Session, word for word, as it is in the Manuscript of St. Vi­ctor, Tractat. de potestat. Ecclesiast. Tract. an & quomo­do licèt appel. Serm. pro viagio Reg. Rom. directio­ne prima. Serm. coram Con­cil dom. secunda post Epiph. and the printed Acts; and what can never be answered, he related it even in presence of the whole Council, in the Sermon which he made for the Journey of the King of the Romans; and having recited the Decree en­tirely with that Clause, Ad ge­neralem [Page 268]reformationem Ecclesiae Dei in Capite & in Membris, imme­diately after he said to all the Fa­thers of the Council, declaring his Judgment, these very significant and expressive words.

Conscribenda prorsus esse mihi videretur in eminentioribus locis, vel in culpenda per omnes Ecclesias, salu­berrima haec definitio, lex vel regula: tan­quam directio funda­mentalis &c. vilut in­fallibilis, adversus monstruosum horren­dumque offendiculum quod hactenus positum erat per multos de Ec­clesia in itinere man­datorum Dei, deter­minantes ex textibus Glossae, non ad regu­lam evangelicam & aternam acceptis, Pa­pam non esse subjectum Generali Concilio, ne­que Judicari posse per ipsum: quod praeterea Generale Concilium ab ipso robur immediatè sumebat, nec poterat sine eo casu quocunque convocari, vel stabiliri: quod nemo poterat ei dicere, Cur ita facis? Quoniam solutus erat legibus, & supra jus. Et ita de plurimis per quae blonda, fallax & subdola adulatio fovebat libidinem dominandi, & in tyrannidem Ecclesiae destructricem Papatum seu ejus usum convertebat, ita ut non pateret via reductionis seu pacis. I am of Opinion, that in all Churches, and in the most eminent Places of the World, this holy and most useful Definition, this Law or Rule of the Council, ought to be written, or even engraved, in great Letters, as being the fundamental and infallible Direction which we ought to follow against the horrible and monstrous Scandal, which is a stumbling Block that many amongst us have cast in the way of the Com­mands of God, determining, and endeavouring to prove by Texts of the Gloss ill understood, contrary to the Evangelical and Eternal Rule, that the Pope is not subject to a Ge­neral [Page 269]Council, and that he cannot be judged by it; besides, that a Gene­ral Council receives from him imme­diately all its force, and that in no case it can be called and held without him; that no man may say to him, Why do you do that? because he is not bound to obey the Laws, and that he is above all Canons: and many other such Maxims, whereby a soft, fallacious, and malicious flattery fo­mented the unbridled desire of predo­minating, and changed the Pontifical Power, or the exercise of it, into a Tyranny which wholly ruined the Church; so that there would no way remain of reducing matters into good Order, and of setling Peace.

Now I would beseech M. Schel­strate to tell me ingenuously, if he dares think that the Chancel­lor of Paris had the Impudence to recite in a Sermon, and before all the Fathers of the Council, the Decree of the fourth Session, o­therwise than they themselves had made it; and add impudently these [Page 270]words, Ad reformationem Ecclesiae in Capite & in membris, which the Council had not put into it; and afterwards to speak to them in the manner I have now mention­ed. I take him to be a man of too much Honour, and too pru­dent, ever to let that Thought en­ter into his Head; and I make no doubt but that he will give Glory to God by confessing, That since Gerson recited that Decree before the whole Council as we have it in the printed Acts, it is altoge­ther evident that the Council made it so, and that it is not in the least falsified; that other­wise the Council would have gi­ven him the Lie as an impudent Impostor.

But what now if I shew that that so famous Doctor hath done the same oftner than once, as may be seen particularly in the Sermon which he made before all the Fa­thers of the Council, the second Sunday after the Epiphany, upon [Page 271]that Text of the Gospel, There was a Marriage in Cana of Galilee? There he treats very amply of the Marriage of Jesus Christ with his Church, represented by the Coun­cil of Constance; and having said that the second Advantage of that Spouse, is the fullness of Power that the Council which represents her hath even over the Pope, and that that was solidly proved in a Book lately before published; he speaks in this manner.

Quamvis ultra multi­plicare sermonem quid opus est super eâ veri­tate; cujus decisio cla­rissima solidissimaque facta est per hoc sacrum Concilium, cui non licet obniti, nec ipsam in ar­gumenta deducere, quo­niam disputationum & argumentationum, & evasionum frivolarum nullus unquam esset fi­nis, sed casus assiduus in errores absurdos, in­sanos, & impios. Vere & graviter Ecclesiastes, Quia cito non profertur contra malos sententia, filii hominum absque ullo timore perpetrant mala. Nunquid non ideo sacra hujus synodi Constantiensis impugnantur Judicia qua sic habent? But what necessity is there to en­large Discourse, or reason any more upon that Truth which hath been most clearly and solidly decided by this sacred Council, to which it is not law­ful to gainsay, nor to bring that Que­stion any ways under Examination again, to clear it by Arguments? for there would be no end of disputing; Evasions and frivolous Distinctions would always be found out, to betray [Page 272]men into absurd, mad, and impious Errors. The Preacher hath truly and gravely said, that because Sen­tence against an evil Work is not ex­ecuted speedily, therefore the Heart of the Sons of Men is fully set in them to do Evil; Is it not therefore that there are some who dare boldly impugn the Determinations and Decrees of this Council of Constance, of which the Tenor follows?

Primo declarat, &c. Here he re­lates at length the Decree of the fourth Session, with that Clause, Et ad reformationem Ecclesiae in capite & in membris; and having done so, This, says he to the Fathers of the Council, is the Decree that you have made. Dare M. Schelstrate, after this, still say, that those of Basil have falsified that Decree, by add­ing thereunto those Words?

And since, for convincing him, he hath obliged me to alledge so authentick a Piece in that part of this excellent Sermon which John [Page 273]Gerson made to the Council of Constance, I should be glad he might know what, after the Re­hearsal of the Decree as we have it, that learned Doctor adds speak­ing still to the Council. These are his own Words, which are very considerable.Huic veritati fundatae supra petram sacr [...]e Scripturae quisquis à proposito detrahit, ca­dit in haeresim jam damnatam, quam nul­lus unquam Theologus, maxime Parisiensis, & Sanctus asseruit. Whoever oppo­ses and contradicts that Truth found­ed upon the Rock of Holy Scripture, falls into the Heresie that now hath been condemned, which no Divine, especially of the Faculty of Paris, nor no Saint, ever maintained. In this manner Gerson speaks of the Opi­nion of those who will not have a Council to be above the Pope. We give it a softer term, and re­ject it, not as heretical, but as con­trary to the Doctrine of Antiquity, and consequently false.

Then he goes on with greater force still, and expresses himself in these Words. I lately saw St. Tho­mas and St. Bonaventure; I have not here the Books of other Doctors. They allow the Pope the supreme and [Page 274]full Ecclesiastical Power; Vidi nuper Sanctum Thomam & Bona­venturam, hic reli­quorum libros non ha­beo, dant supremam & plenam summo pontifi­ci potestatem Ecclesi­asticam, rectè procul­dubio, sed boc faciunt in comparatione ad fi­deles singulos & par­ticulares Ecclesias. Dum etiam comparatio facienda fuisset ad an­ctoritatem Ecclesiae Sy­nodaliter congregatae subjecissent Paepam & usum potestatis suae ei­dem Ecclesiae, tanquam matri suae, cujus legem dimitti non debere ira­dit sapiens; tanquam praeterea regulae vel le­gi directivae infallibili­ter, cui se submittere tenetur omnis frater peccabilis de Ecclesia, cujus anctoritatem si non audierit frater qui­libet, etiam Papa qui nobiscum dicit Pater Noster, audi itur quid dixerit omni Catholi­co Christus: sit tibi, inquit sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus, id est, excommunicatus. and without doubt they are in the right, because saying so, they compare the Pope with all Believers and all Churches taken particularly. But if they had been to compare him with the Authority of the Church assembled in a Council, they would have subjected him, and the exercise of his Power, to the same Church, as to his Mother, whose Laws the Wise Man says one should never forsake, and as to the Rule which directs us infallibly, and to which all men in the Church liable to failing, are obliged to submit. And if any one, whoever he be, of our Brethren, though he were Pope, who says his Pater Noster as we do, will not acknowledge her Authority, and obey her, let us hearken to that which Jesus Christ enjoyns to every Catho­lick, Let him be to you, saith he, as an Heathen and as a Publican; that is to say, as an excommunicate Per­son. And this is just the same which the Pope Silvester II. said in express terms many Ages before [Page 275] Gerson. And to prevent M. Schel­strate from offering to say, that the Text of this Doctor hath been fal­sified, by adding thereunto these words, Et ad reformationem Eccle­siae in caepite & in membris; I de­clare unto him, that the Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica, where that great man quotes that Decree, hath been collationed with four Manuscripts, two of the History of St. Victor, marked N N. S. and M M. 11. with one of the Colledge of Naevarr, and of the Bibliotheke of Monsieur Colbert, marked 99. That the Treatise An & quomod [...] appellare liceat à summo pontifice, where the same Decree is to be found, is altogether conform to two Manuscripts, one of St. Victor marked N N. 9. and the other of the Bibliotheke of Navarr. That the Sermon, pro viagio Regis Roma­norum, hath in like manner most exactly been compared with a Ma­nuscript of St. Victor, marked ac­cording to the ancient Catalogues, [Page 276]N N. 11. with one of the Biblio­theke of Navarr, and with one of the Library of Monsieur Colbert, marked 99. In a word, that what is to be read in the Sermon, Nup­tiae factae sunt, &c. wherein Gerson repeated before the Council the Decree of the fourth Session, is to be found in a very ancient Manu­script of St. Victor, marked N N. 19. word for word as we have caused it to be printed.

All these Manuscripts have been communicated to me by Monsieur d' Herouval, Regular Canon of St. Victor, and Doctor of the Surhon­ne, whose merit already well known to the Learned, will shortly be to the Publick, in the new Edition that he is preparing of the Works of Gerson, which by his Care and Pains, will be found restored to their Perfection, that they have never hitherto had.

This, I think, is enough to ob­lige M. Schelstrate to yield. Would he have any thing more precise? [Page 277]He shall be satisfied. The Coun­cil of Basil, ten Years before the Extract made, which he pretends they falsified, proposed that De­cree such as we have it, and re­newed the same in the second Ses­sion. Cardinal Julian, who was nominated by Martin V. to preside in that Council, and who after the Death of that Pope presided therein in Name of Eugenius IV. consented to that Decree in behalf of the Pope in that second Sessi­on, and defended it in the Letter which he wrote to Eugenius, to remonstrate to him the Reasons which obliged his Holiness not to offer to dissolve that Council. Had not this Decree been that of Con­stance most faithfully proposed, would he have consented to it; Would not he have objected against that notorious Falsification?Et tibi prout opus [...] ­deris esse juxta tibi in­juncta & ordinata in Concilio Constantien­si optimè provideas. Julian. Ep. 2. ad Eu­gen. Would not he have protested, that what was added to the end of the De­cree was no part of it, he who was very well acquainted with his [Page 278]Council of Constance, and daily stu­died it, having express Orders from Eugenius, to act in the Council of Basil, as he should find it expedi­ent, according as he was enjoyned and directed by the Decrees of the Council of Constance.

Would he have more still? Here is enough to satisfie him. Eugenius IV. in the Bull which he published during the sixteenth Ses­sion, declares, That, according to the Decrees of Constance, he had called the Council of Basil for the Extirpation of Heresies, the Peace of Christian People, and the ge­neral Reformation of the Church in Capite & in Membris: and seeing the Council was lawfully assem­bled,Qui nimo praefatam dis­solutionem irritam, & inanem declarantes, ipsum sacrum Conciti­um purè, simpliciter & cum effectu, ac omni devotione & favore prosequimur, & pro­sequi intendimus. it hath still continued, and so ought to be continued, for pro­curing those three ends, as if it had never been dissolved. Then he rescinds all that he had done for the dissolution of it, protesting that he approves it, and will have it to continue purely, simply, and with [Page 279]all Devotion and Favour. Thus the Pope speaks, who when he was Cardinal was present at the Council of Constance, whose De­crees he could not be ignorant of; and by consequent, if the Decree of the second Council of Basil, re­lated in the same Council, as be­ing that of Constance, had not been the same in proper terms, it is not to be doubted but that Eugenius would have affirmed it to be false, and have rejected it.

In fine, in the very same Ma­nuscript which M. Schelstrate pro­duces, there is to be found in the Preface of the Decree, as in our Acts, that, This Holy Council of Constance lawfully assembled for the Extirpation of the present Schism, for the Ʋnion, and for the Reforma­tion that ought to be made of the Church in its Head and Members, to the end that that Union and Refor­mation of the Church may the more ea­sily, more surely, more amply, and [Page 280]more freely be obtained, ordains, de­clares, and defines as follows; to wit, That all men, of whatsoever Dignity they be, even Papal, are obliged to obey the Council in all things belong­ing to the Faith, and the Extirpati­on of this Schism. And who does not see that for compleating the Sense according to the Intention and express words of the Council, one must not stop there, but that it must necessarily follow, and to the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members thereof? So it is in our Copies which are true, and is wanting in his, which unjusti­fiable Omission makes them clearly appear to be defective.

But, says M. Schelstrate, one of my Manuscripts affirms, that the day before, and the very same day of the fourth Session, there were great Debates concerning the matters to be put into the Decree, and that at length by a sudden In­spiration of the Holy Ghost, all agreed, that nothing should be [Page 281]put into it but the Points that are to be seen in that Copy; and the other Manuscript informs me, that the Emperour made them all agree by finding a moderation to which he brought the Cardinals to con­sent. Now that is exactly what we would be at: I'll tell ye how. There were four Points to be exa­mined relating to that Decree: first, Whether the Council hath received immediately from Jesus Christ, a full Power to which the Pope himself is obliged to submit in what concerns the Faith and the Extirpation of Schism; secondly, and if it ought to be put into it, in what concerns the Reformation of the Church, in the Head and Members; thirdly, whether in case the Pope would not obey it, he might be pu­nished; and fourthly, if all that ought to be understood of any other Council as well as of that of Con­stance.

As to the first, since all the Na­tions agreed upon it, it easily past; [Page 282]but as to the three others, some, and especially the Cardinals, who, at least, would therein gratifie the Pope, opposed them. Now the mean and moderation which the Emperour Sigismund found out to unite all dissenting minds, was, that in the Decree of the present fourth Session, the two first Points only should be inserted, and that for the other two they might after­wards consider what was to be done about them in the following Senssi­on. That appears manifestly by our Acts, by our Manuscripts, and even by that of M. Schelstrate, wherein, as I have just now pro­ved, there is a necessity, consider­ing that Proceeding, for making a rational and compleat Sense, that these Words which have been o­mitted in it, be added, And as to what concerns the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Mem­bers.

This is more clearly still to be seen in the fifth Session which was [Page 283]held eight days after, and wherein for putting an end wholly to that Affair, and for proposing without Interruption, and at one glance, what men ought to believe con­cerning that Point, they put in the first place the Decree of the fourth Session word for word as we have it; and then made a Decree, by which the two other Points were defined and declared, to wit, that the Pope himself is obliged to obey not only that Council of Constance that was held during the Schism, but also all others; and that if he refuse to submit to them he may be punished. And this is to be seen not only in our Acts and Copies, but likewise in the Ma­nuscript of M. Schelstrate, as he himself confesses; and therefore he must acknowledge, that even though these Words, for the refor­mation of the Church in the Head and Members, had not been put into the Decree of the fourth Session, as he pretends, yet that would not at [Page 284]all reach the bottom of the Affair, because they are actually in the Decree of the fifth Session. For to render a Decree authentick, what matters it in what Session it hath been made?

After all, it must necessarily be concluded from what I have now said as to these uncontroverted matters of Fact, that we ought not to correct the Council of Constance, according to the Manuscripts of M. Schelstrate. But on the contra­ry, it is his part to correct them according to ours, and according to the Council, as we have it. And so, the first Argument that he alledges why we should doubt of the Authority of these Decrees, is null.

The other two are of the same force, and in a few words, may without any difficulty be over­thrown. Seeing he cannot deny but that these two Decrees are in the fifth Session, he saith what he hath learned from those Ʋltramontanian [Page 285] Authors who have written for the Superiority of the Pope against that Council; to wit, that they were made in a hurry, without suffici­ent Deliberation, and against the Judgment of many who opposed them. This is the very same thing that the Nestorians, nay and some of our Protestants, have said against the Council of Ephesus, and against St. Cyril, whom they accuse of ha­ving caused Nestorius to be con­demned with extream Precipitati­on, without hearing him, and with­out possibility of having the cause sufficiently examined. All Here­ticks might say as much, and do, indeed say so of all Councils which have condemned their Heresie.

But, not to rest on that, I main­tain to M. Schelstrate, that there never was a Question better exa­mined, than that which was mo­ved in this Council. For, since the Council of Pisa, where it was first started, had decided in favour of the Council, it was almost the [Page 286]whole Subject of Disputes and Con­ferences, and was tossed to and fro [...] in the Council of Constance even before and after the Sermon of John Gerson. Besides, after that Assembly wherein all that the Cardinals who were sent from the Pope objected, had been convin­cingly refuted, it was so well exa­mined, that all the four Nations ac­quiesced in the Point.

I know very well, there were great Debates about it, and that the Cardinals opposed it; I even grant him what he hath found in his Manuscript, and which he con­fesses had never been known be­fore, and which, perhaps, is not true, that the Cardinals, nay and the Ambassadours of France, made a private Protestation in the Cham­ber of Presence, that it was only for avoiding of Scandal that they assisted at the fifth Session, and not for consenting to what they knew was to be defined in it. What can he conclude from thence? Hath [Page 287]not he read the History of the Con­claves, where, after a thousand In­trigues, a thousand Oppositions, and a thousand other things more than I can tell, at length a lawful Election is made, to which all the Cardinals who were so divided before, consent? Let him read the Histories of the Council of Trent written by Fra. Paolo and Cardinal Pallavicini, there he will find a great many Debates about Points that were to be decided in the Ses­sions; and nevertheless the Holy Ghost, which unites all minds in­to one Judgment, made all the Decrees of that Council to pass with the unanimous Consent of all the Fathers who had been so di­vided before.

It is just so with this Council of Constance; I grant there may have been Oppositions, Contests, private Protestations, and what­ever M. Schelstrate pleases to in­form us of from his Manuscripts: yet when all is done, these Car­dinal [Page 288]and all they who debated and protested privately, were pre­sent at the fifth Session: and seeing the Holy Ghost unites all minds in a Council, to the end they may say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, the two Decrees of that Session past by common Consent, as the Acts say, to which M. Schelstrate has nothing at all in his Manuscripts that can be objected.Quibus articulis sive constitutionibus lectis, concilium cos & cas uniformiter approbavit & conclusit. This is the Language of the Acts: These Arti­cles and Decrees having been read, the Council with a common Consent appro­ved them.

In fine, the third Argument he makes use of to weaken the Autho­rity of the Decrees of these two Sessions, is, that the Council be­ing then only made up of those of the Obedience of John XXIII. could not represent the Universal Church. Now, to convince him of the Insig­nificancy of that Argument, which without doubt is the weakest of all, I need only tell him in two words, that what he supposes after [Page 289] Bellarmine, who hath supplied him with all his weak Objections, is very false. For almost all the Car­dinals of the two Obediences of Gre­gory XII. and Benet XIII. were uni­ted in the Council of Pisa, where these two pretended Popes, who by Collusion played upon all Christen­dom, were declared Schismaticks and Antipopes, and Alexander V. chosen, who was acknowledged for true Pope by most Churches, with­out any Competition, and especial­ly by the Church of Rome.

Now the same Cardinals and Bishops who constituted that nu­merous Council, continued it at Constance, as Pope John XXIII own­ed by the same Council for true Pope, declares in express terms in the Bull whereby he calls that Council, according as it had been decreed at Pisa five Years before. So that the Obedience of John XXIII. besides the Concurrence of almost all the Kingdoms of Christendom, nay and of the Church of Rome al­so, [Page 290]was over and above composed of the greater and sounder part of the two other who were re-united at Pisa, and continued that Coun­cil at Constance. If M. Schelstrate pretend that the Absence of those who held for the one or other of those two who had been declared Schismaticks and Antipopes, hin­ders the Council from being Oecu­menical, he must know that his unjust Pretence would ruine most of the Oecumenical Councils; for the Hereticks that have been con­demned in them might say, that those of their Party who had right to be present in them, either were not there, or would not own them for lawful and Oecumenical Councils.

And Protestants might say the same, especially of the Council of Trent, where neither the Bishops of the Church of England, nor of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and that part of Germany who follow­ed the Confession of Ausbourg, nor [Page 291]the Bishops of Greece, of the East, and of Egypt, who own not the Pope for Head of the Church, and who are no more of his Obedi­ence, than those at the time of the Council of Constance, who held for Pietro de la Luna or Angelo Corario, were present. All these Bishops, I say, of so great a part of the Chri­stian World, were absent from the Council of Trent when it made its Decrees, and would not own it. Is there any thing more cer­tain? And nevertheless M. Schel­strate is obliged to confess with all other Catholicks, that their Ab­sence could not hinder that Coun­cil from being Oecumenical, be­cause for making it universal, it is enough that all be invited to it, as they were, and that they might be present there if they pleased, or if the Princes on whom they depend gave them leave. So that the Ab­sence of the Prelates who were the Dregs of those two Obedi­ences, hinders not but that the [Page 292]Decrees of Constance are the Defi­nitions of an Universal Council, and that they have an infallible Authority.

But there is still somewhat that presses more home: for if it were not so, and if it were to be appro­ved which Bellarmine says before M. Schelstrate, that these Decrees have no Authority, by reason of that Absence, and that there was no Pope in Council when they were made, strange things would follow from thence. In the first place, the Condemnation of the Errors of Wicleff and John Huss would be null, because they were condemned in the fifteenth Session,Sess. 15. before the Union of the remnant of those two Obediences, and when as yet there was no Pope there in the Council. Secondly, that detesta­ble Proposition of John Petit, that any private man might meritori­ously kill a Tyrant, any way what­soever, would not be lawfully condemned of Heresie by the same [Page 293]reason. And lastly, that the Con­demnation, and afterwards the De­position of John XXIII.Sess. [...]. which hap­pened long before the Union of the two Obediences, must have been made without any lawful Power.

Cardinal Julian, who presided in the Council of Basil for Pope Euge­nius, wrote this to him to take him off of his design of dissolving it because of the Decrees of the second Session. And would to God Cardinal Bellarmine and M. Schelstrate had read and consider­ed that Letter before they made an Objection that draws after it so dangerous Consequences!Nam [...]quis dixerit decreta illius concilii non esse valida, ne­ [...]ess [...] babet sateri pri­vationem oli [...] Joannis factam vigor [...] illorum decretorum non valu­isse. Si illa non valent, nec etia [...] [...]apae M [...]r­tini tenuit electio facta illo superstite. Si Mar­tinus non fuit Papa, nec sanctitas vestra est. quae per Cardinales ab ipso factos electa est, &c. Ep. 2. Juliani ad Eugen. I am ob­liged, said he to him, most holy Fa­ther, to remonstrate to your Holiness, that if the Decrees of Constance, which the Council of Basil has re­newed, have no Authority, that where­by John XXIII. was deposed, is of no force. If it be so, the Election of Pope Martin V. which was made du­ring the Life of John XXIII. is null, and consequently that of your Holiness, [Page 294]seeing you must then have been elected by Cardinals of his Creation who was not Pope. By the same reason it is evident, that all the other Ele­ctions made since Martin V. until the present Pope, must be unlawful.

M. Schelstrate, without doubt, will answer to that, that John XXIII. consented to his Condemnation, and even ratified it when he was at liberty. But he must needs have done so, considering the con­dition he was in; and it is enough to read the very Author who is cited, that is Leonard Aretin, to be informed that the poor deposed Pope went to Florence to cast him­self at the feet of Martin V. only because he knew not whither to be­take himself,Consilio Martini cog­nito (id erat ut Man­ [...]ouae perpetuo carcere tencretur) antequam, &c. Leonard Are­tin. Hist. ver. Italic. and that he was in­formed, that it was resolved, that if he did it not, his Person should be seised, and confined to perpetu­al Imprisonment. And besides, is it not well known that the Ratifi­cation cannot be good if the Act that is ratified be null?

Bellarmine's Answer has as little force: Though, saith he,Etsi Concilium sine Pa­pa non potest definire nova dogmata fidei, potest tamen judicare, tempore Schismatis, quis sit verus Papa, &c. L. 2. de Conc. c. 19. the Coun­cil without the Pope cannot determine new Doctrines of Faith, yet it may judge during a Schism, who is the true Pope, and provide a true Pastor for the Church, when there is none cer­tain. In the first place he grants by that, that all which the Coun­cil determined against Wicleff, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, and against that damnable Propo­sition of John Petit, is null, as having been decided by an incom­petent Judge: Who dare maintain such a thing? Secondly, it is ab­solutely false that a General Coun­cil, without the Pope, cannot make Decrees concerning the Faith. Did not the first Council of Constanti­nople make such against Macedoni­us, concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost? And did not the fifth condemn the Heresie of the three Chapters, not only without Pope Vigilius, but likewise contra­ry to his Constitution, who would [Page 296]have had them not to be condemn­ed? Besides, it was not the Busi­ness of that Council to judge who was the true Pope: for the Coun­cil of Constance never questioned but that John XXIII. was, it would only have had him perform the Promise which he made to re­nounce his Right, and freely to lay down, for Peace sake, tho he was true Pope. And in the fourth place, if that Council was not then, as he called it before, but a parti­cular Council where a third part of the Church only met, it could not lawfully have condemned John XXIII; because, as all agree, none but an Oecumenical Council, repre­senting an Universal Church, hath that Power and supreme Authori­ty; nay, and many deny that it can, unless in case of Heresie, pro­ceed against any Pope, much less if that Council held him for a true Pope, as the Council of Con­stance owned John XXIII, to have been.

From all this it follows, that the three Reasons alledged by M. Schel­strate in as many Articles, to prove against the Clergy of France, that one may doubt of the Authority of the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session of the Council of Con­stance, are not only false, but also of dangerous consequence to the Church. Thus we have dispatch­ed his first Chapter: the other two will not long hold out.

CHAP. XXIV. A Refutation of one of the two Chap­ters of M. Schelstrate.

THis Writer, in one of these Chapters, pretends to prove, that those Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session are not approved. I have already made it out, that Martin V. approved them twice solemnly; once, by ordaining that those who return from Heresie should be interrogated, whether [Page 298]or not they approved, without Exception, all which that Coun­cil approves, and condemned all that it condemns; and another time in the last Session, where he declares, that he approves, and will inviolably observe, all the Decrees that have been made in that Council concerning matters of Faith, and as he expresses it by a new word, Conciliariter. Upon which, two Objections are raised against us.

The first, from these Words, concerning matters of Faith: from which M. Schelstrate concludes, that the Pope hath only approved the Decrees against Wickleff, and John Huss, because they alone, saith he, concern matters of Faith. What then will become of the other De­crees that were made for the Ex­tirpation of Schism, and for the Reformation of the Church, which are the two principal Points for which the Council and the Popes Martin and Eugenius, in express terms, declare that the Holy Synod, [Page 299]representing the Universal Church, was called?

Let him tell me, whether those Decrees be approved or not: if they be not, he must then, accor­ding to his Principles, grant that the Deposition of John XXIII. is null, that all that followed upon it is invalid, and that all the good Laws that were made in that Council for Reformation, are of no Authority, and oblige no Man. And if they be approved, it is not to be doubted but that those of the fourth and fifth Session are also approved, seeing they were chiefly made for the extinction of Schism. For if the Council were not above the Pope, even lawfully elected, as John Gerson saith, and if it had not Power to depose him, when that is necessary for the common Good of the Church, in case of Heresie, Schism, or enormous Scan­dal, as it hath happened oftner than once; the Council could ne­ver have compelled the Pope, who was acknowledged to be true and [Page 300]lawful, to renounce his Right for peace sake.

The other Objection brought against us is weaker still than the former. Cardinal Bellarmine, whom M. Schelstrate hath followed step for step, upon that word Concilia­riter; from which he concludes, that these Decrees of Constance have not been approved by Pope Mar­tin V. because the Pope declares,Id est move aliorum Conciliorum, re dili­genter examinata. Con­stat autem hoc decre­tum sine ullo examine factum à Concilio Constantiensi. L. 2. de Concil c. 19. that he only approves those which have been made Conciliariter, or, as that Cardinal interprets it, in the manner as other Councils have made their Decrees, the Matter having been diligently examined. Now it is sure, adds he, with the greatest Confidence imaginable, and as if no body could doubt of the truth of what he says, without so much as bringing any proof for it, the thing being clear in it self: It is then, says he, most certain, that that Decree of the Superiori­ty of a Council was made by the Council of Constance without any Examination, sine ullo examine.

I have two things to say to that; first, that a manifest Falshood was never asserted with so much Bold­ness: for never was there a Que­stion examined nor debated in the Council with greater heat than this, as I have already made it appear, and as it even appears by the Manuscript of M. Schelstrate. For there it is to be seen, that be­fore the fourth Session, the De­puties of the Nations, and the Cardinals, after many Contests and Oppositions of the same Car­dinals, all agreed,Habita fuit non modi­ca disceptatio inter D. Regem D. D. Cardina­les & deputatos nati­onum, &c. by a sudden Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in one Judgment concerning that Point of the Superiority of a Coun­cil over the Pope, who ought to obey it in what relates to Faith and the Extirpation of Schism. And he adds, that before the fifth Session,Die Sabbati 6 Aprilis, cum per prius inter D. D. Cardinales & Nations altercatum fuisset—tandem or­dinatum & conclusum est, &c. which was not held till eight days after, and wherein, according to himself, it was de­fined, that the Pope ought to obey the Council in what concerns the Reformation of the Church in the [Page 302]Head and Members, there fell out again great Debates betwixt the Cardinals and the Deputies of the Nations. How can it then be said so boldly, without bogling, as Cardinal Bellarmine hath done, Nullo facto examine? I declare that it is a thing I cannot comprehend, after the unquestionable Testimo­nies that I have before alledged to the contrary.

The next thing that I have to say against the Answer of Bellar­mine, is, that that word Concilia­riter signifies not only, as he hath interpreted it, the matter in que­stion having been well examined, but also being afterwards solemnly decided in a Session of the Coun­cil, without which nothing is de­fined. In the Council of Constance Votes went by Nations. There were at first four, the Italian, Eng­lish, French, and German, and af­terward the Spanish was added. The Deputies of every Nation consulted first severally; and then all the Nations communicated their [Page 303]Opinions: after which, all these Nations held an Assembly, where every private Person had liberty to speak and give his Voice, yet all the Voices made but one Suffrage for each Nation, though they dif­fered in the number of Prelates and Doctors.

In fine, when they were all a­greed, after much disputing and debate, that was no more but pre­liminary, and a necessary Conditi­on to a final Decision, which was only made in a General Assembly of Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Generals of Orders, Ambassadors of Princes, and, in a word, of the whole Council, with great Ceremony, after high Mass, Li­tanies, and other Prayers, in the publick Session held in the Cathe­dral Church, where after that a Cardinal or Bishop having from the Pulpit read the Decrees and Articles framed in the Assembly of the Nations, demanded if they approved them: it was still free to every one to say what he [Page 304]pleased concerning them. And when they had all unanimously said Placet, We consent to them, as they never failed to do after these previous Deliberations, shorter or longer, according to the greater or less difficulty of the matters that they had examined; then was the Decree authentically made, and had its full force: and that, in the terms of Martin V. is called a Decree made Concilia­riter.

In this manner the Errors of Wickleff were condemned in the eighth Session; that of John Huss, and the damnable Proposition of John Petit, in the fifteenth; defi­nitive Sentence pronounced against John XXIII. who was deposed in the twelfth; and the Decrees of the Superiority of the Council made in the fourth and fifth Session. Before that, the Council had determined nothing at all, nor laid any Obligation upon Belie­vers.

This the Pope, like a very know­ing man, expresses in the terms he makes use of, approving the Coun­cil, in the five and fortieth Session. The Colledge of Cardinals and of the Nations, concluded, that a cer­tain Book of F. John Falkenberg, full of Heresies, ought to be con­demned. The Ambassadors of the King of Poland, and of the great Duke of Lithuania, who concern­ed themselves in that Condemna­tion, publickly besought the Pope to condemn it in full Session be­fore the conclusion of the Council, according to the Resolution taken by the Cardinals and the Nations; and they pressed him to it in so offensive a manner, that they pro­tested in name of those Princes their Masters, that in case of a re­fusal, they appealed to the next Council.

Seeing these Ambassadors had spoken so haughtily, and in so dis­obliging a manner, under the spe­cious Pretext of an extraordinary [Page 306]Zeal for the Faith; and that be­sides it was not at all to the pur­pose, that the Pope, in the present Juncture, should give cause to think, that he thought himself ob­liged to submit to what the Car­dinals and Nations had determined in their Assemblies: he weighed his Words, and answered very prudently, making it by his An­swer appear, that on the one hand he was not wanting to comply with his Obligations; and on the other, that he knew very well how to preserve his Rights and Liberty.

For he told them, that he would always inviolably observe and stick to what the Council had decided in matter of Faith, Conciliariter. That shews that he had at least as much Zeal for the Faith as these Ambassadors had, who pressed him in so disrespectful a manner to condemn a Book. And at the same time he adds, that he ap­proves all the Decrees which the Council had made authentically, [Page 307]and according to the forms Conci­liariter, but not at all what was done otherwise; as if he would give them to understand, that tho he be obliged to obey the Council, and inviolably to approve and ob­serve what hath been defined in the Sessions, yet he is not at all bound to submit to what the Cardinals and Nations might conclude in their Assemblies, without the Au­thority and Approbation of the Council in their Sessions. This, I think, may undeceive M. Schel­strate, who pretends, that the Pope, by speaking so, makes it appear, that he is above the Council: he ought to say above, not the Coun­cil, but the Colledge of Cardinals, and the Assemblies of the Nations, when they are not authorised in the Sessions.

And therefore, when one of the Ambassadors of the King of Poland would still appeal to the next Council, the Pope commanded him Silence upon pain of Excom­munication: [Page 308]and he did very well, because that Appeal was manifest­ly rash, abusive, and unwarranta­ble, it being most evident, that a bare Resolution of the Cardinals and Nations, without the Autho­rity of the Council, could not ob­lige the Pope. And this was the reason why Martin, justly provo­ked by so unworthy a Proceeding, made shortly after a Bull,Joan. Gerson. Tract. an & quomodo pos­sit appellari à Papa. which he caused to be read, not in the Coun­cil, but in a publick Consistory, whereby he declares, that it is not lawful for any one to appeal from the Holy See▪ or the Pope, nor to decline his Judgment in cases of the Faith, which, as being greater Causes, ought to be brought be­fore the Pope, and Holy Apostoli­cal See.

M. Schelstrate alledges these words as his last Argument which he thinks invincible, to prove that the Pope is absolutely above all Councils. But it is very easie to give him an Answer that hath been [Page 309]an hundred times made without Reply, That these Words, and o­thers of the like nature, ought to be understood with relation to all Churches taken particularly, to all Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarchs, from the Judg­ment of any of whom Appeals may be made to the Pope, and not to any of them from the Judgment of the Pope who is their Superi­our, not when they are assembled in Body in a General Council re­presenting the whole Church; but when they are taken separately and each of them in particular, accor­ding to these Words of St. Austin in his second Book of Baptism a­gainst the Donatists: Quis nescit illam Apo­stolatus prercipatu cui­lib [...]t Episcopatui pr [...] ­fere [...]dum. L. 2. de Bapt. contra Dona­tist. c. 1. Who knows not that St. Peter, by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship, ought to be preferred before any other Episco­pacy whatsoever? He says, before every Episcopacy, and not before all Episcopacy in a General Coun­cil. So that that Bull of Martin V. no more than another of P [...]as II. [Page 310]which begins Execrabilis, cannot absolutely condemn and forbid the Practice, but only the Abuse that may be made of an Appeal to a General Council, by appealing to it rashly, without Reason and a lawful Cause, as those Ambassadors of Poland and Lithuania did.

If, notwithstanding all this, M. Schelstrate will have the Pope, by that Bull, absolutely to condemn all Appeals to a General Council, which nevertheless it doth not ex­press; he may be answered with­out difficulty, that were it so, yet it could be of no force, because it was not made Conciliariter, and facro approbante Concilio, nor with the consent of the Church, which hath never pretended but that in certain Cases Appeals may be made from the Pope to a Council.Quomodo & an liceat à summo pontifice ap­pellare, & ejus Judi­cium declinare? To be persuaded of this, he need only read the Treatise written upon that Subject by that learned and holy man John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, and the [Page 311]Declaration which that famous University made by an authentick Act to Philip the Fair, Decl. Univ. Paris. Ann. 1303. mense Septemb. that a Com­cil might be called, and appealed unto, against Boniface VIII. and that the University consented and would stick, according to the ho­ly Canons, to that Convocation and Appeal, which the King and all France made to the Council.

If I mistake not, I have hither­to shewed the Weakness, or ra­ther, the Nullity of what M. Schel­strate objects, and that Martin V. solemnly approved the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session, by the Declaration which he made in the last Session, and by the Questions that he will have to be put to He­reticks that are converted. But though we had not those two so formal Declarations of that Pope, would our Author make no ac­count of that of Pope Eugenius, concerning which it hath not pleased him to tell us one word? Nevertheless, he cannot be igno­rant, [Page 312]that the Council of Basil, Basiliense Concilium initio quidem fuit le­gitimum, nam & lega­tus aderat Pontificis, & Episconpi plurimi. Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. Milit. c. 16. & l. 2. de Conc. c. 19. which all men, even Cardinal Bel­larmine himself, own to be lawful, in the second Session after its first opening renewed these Decrees of Constance, which were approved by the Cardinal of St. Angelo Ju­liano Caesarini, who presided therein in name of that Pope. Nor do I doubt but that he knows, that Eugenius IV. himself, in the Bull which he made during the time of the sixteenth Session, approved all that the Council till then had done, and consequently these Decrees of Constance renewed in the second Session, and the Synodal Answer wherein the same Council anew confirms those Decrees, and backs them with very strong Reasons, which are there specified at length.

And now I have but two words to say to M. Schelstrate concerning the Approbation of these Decrees. First, if he be not satisfied with it, he must of necessity reckon as null all the Decrees which the first [Page 313]Councils made against the Arians, Macedonians, and the other Here­ticks, because it is never to be found, that these Councils have been approved, neither so formal­ly, nor so many times, as the De­crees of Constance have been, by the Popes Martin V. and Eugeni­us IV.

Again, that he ought to know, as I have formerly made it appear, that in the Ancient Church no o­ther Approbation nor Confirmati­on was ever known to have been made of Councils by the Popes, but the consent which they themselves, as well as others, were obliged to give to them. For, if after that the Councils of Nice and Constantinople which were lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, had defined the Consubstantiality of the Word, and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Popes Silvester and Damasus would not have received these De­crees, nor have approved them: it is certain that they would have [Page 314]been reputed Hereticks by the whole Church; Who can doubt of that? And these Councils would have been no less infallible than they were in making their Defini­tions, by the Inspiration of that divine Spirit, which is the Soul of all Oecumenical Councils, accor­ding to these Words, Visum est spi­ritui sancto & nobis.

For to say that all the Authori­ty of Councils is derived from the Pope, who may not follow and approve their Decisions concerning the Faith, and thereby take from them all their force, is an error condemned by the learned Cardi­nal of Cambray, Peter D' Ailly, in most significant terms, when preaching before the whole Coun­cil of Constance and Pope Martin V. in the Year 1417. the second Sun­day in Advent, about a month af­ter the Election of that Pope, he related the whole History of the Council which the Apostles cele­brated at Jerusalem, and then ex­pressed [Page 315]himself in these Words: By that it is manifest, Manifestè reprobatur error quorundam per­niciosissimus, & toti Ec­clesiae periculosissimus, qui adulando potestati Papae, ita detrabunt Authoritati sacri Con­cilii, &c. that the Au­thority of deciding and defining ought not to be attributed to the Pope alone, but to the whole General Council; whence it follows, that the most perni­cious and dangerous Error to the Church, of some men, ought to be con­demned, who, to flatter the Pope, so rob the Council of its Authrity, that they have the Boldness to say, that the Pope is not of necessity obliged to follow the Decisions of the Council; and that on the contrary, we should test upon the Judgment of the Pope, if he oppose that of the Church, or of a General Council.

Thus that great Cardinal, from the chair of Truth before the whole Council of Constance, conform to its Decrees, and in presence of the Pope himself, who found no fault with it, and seemed not at all dis­pleased, that that Opinion was call­ed an Error most pernicious and most dangerous, invented by the Flatterers of Popes.

Decr. Facult. Ann. 1429. Kal. April.So also the sacred Faculty, fol­lowing so good an Example, about twelve years after made F. John Sa­rasin retract that Proposition which he had put into one of his Theses: All the Authority that gives force to the Decrees of a Council, Tota authoritas dans vigorem statutis residet in solo summo pontisice. resides in the Pope alone. He was obliged to make a publick recantation, and to change his Proposition into this, All the Authority that gives force to the De­crees of a Council, To [...] authoritas dans vigorem statutis residet non in solo summo pon­tifice, sed principaliter in spiritu Sancto & in Catholica Ecclesia. resides not in the Pope alone, but chiefly in the Holy Ghost and Catholick Church.

And certainly it is very rational that the Pope should depend upon the Will of the Holy Ghost, who teaches, as it pleases him, all Truth to the Church, and to the Council which represents it; and not that the Holy Ghost should depend up­on on the Will of the Popes, as it must needs do, if after that divine Spi­rit hath by the Council defined the Consubstantiality of the Word, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Unity of Person, and the Plurality [Page 317]of Natures, Wills and Operations [...]n Jesus Christ, and such other Truths concerning the Faith, his Decisions had no Authority, if it pleased not the Pope to consent to [...]hem. And this, I think, is suffi­cient in relation to the Approbation of the Decrees of Constance: one word more as to what M. Schelstrate pretends, that they were only made for the time of a Schism.

CHAP. XXV. A Refutation of the other Chapter of M. Schelstrate.

THis Objection that is made a­gainst us, is of an old ruinous Engine ready to fall of it self, tho we set no strong hand to it to push it down. The truth is, the Council of Constance, which fore­saw that it might be made use of to weaken the supreme Authority of Oecumenical Councils, did antici­pate and overthrow it even before [Page 318]it was made; and for that end, in the fifth Session, wherein it decla­red that all men of what Dignity soever, are obliged to obey the De­crees and Ordinances of that sacred Council of Constance, these words are added, And of any other Gene­ral Council lawfully assembled. Et cujuscunque alteri­us Concilii Generalis legitimè congregati. He that speaks of any other Council without Restriction, comprehends all times, both out of Schism and during a Schism. So the Coun­cil of Basil which was a long time lawful, when there was no Schism [...] declared that the Pope was obliged to obey it, and every other Coun­cil; and the Reasons given for it in that long Synodal Answer ap­proved by Pope Eugenius, necessa­rily comprehend all times, as may be seen in the two Reasons which only I shall alledge.

The first is, That an Oecumeni­cal Council is a whole, and a Body whereof the Pope, or he that pre­sides in it in his place, is the Head For there is no Acephalous Coun­cil, as M. Schelstrate speaks, that [Page 319]is to say, without a Head, call­ing that of Constance so in the Ab­sence of the Pope. Nay if he re­fuse to preside when he might, or withdraw himself from it, there is always some body that presides therein in his place; and repre­sents him in that quality of Head, as the whole Council represents the Universal Church; and it will be acknowledged without difficul­ty, that the Head is no more but the chief Member and principal Part of that great Body,Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum uni­versalis Ecclesiae est. Gregor. l. 4. Ep. 8. as Saint Gregory, speaking of Saint Peter, positively affirms.

Not as Jesus Christ, who is not only the Head, but also the Master of the Universal Church which he hath purchased with his own Blood; and by consequent it is his Church, it properly belongs unto him, and he can dispose thereof as he thinks fit, as an Owner can do with his Estate, Dominus est. Hence it is that he cannot be said to be but a part of the Church:Domious Ʋniverss, no [...] est pars universi [...] Arist. 12 Me [...]aph. he is over all, as God who is the absolute Ma­ster [Page 320]of the World, is not a part of that whole, of that Universe whereof he is the Master, as Ari­stotle himself hath acknowledged.

It is not so with the Pope, who is indeed Head of the Church Uni­versal, but not Master, Jesus Christ having said to St. Peter, as well as to all the other Apostles:Matth. 20. Mark 12. Luke 22. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Do­minion over them; but it shall not be so among you. And that entirely ruines that odious Comparison that some would make between our Kings, who are over the States of their Kingdom, and the Popes whom they would place over the whole Church. There is a great deal of Difference: Our Kings are the Masters in their States, exercise Dominion over them; but not the Popes in the Church, but it shall not be so with you. The Pope then is but a part of the Church, and of a General Council that represents it, and not the Ma­ster.

Now it is evident by the light of Nature, that the whole is more noble than every part, and carries it over them, according to that sen­tence of St. Austin, L. de Bapt. c. 4. Ʋniversum par­tibus semper optimo Jure praeponitur. And upon that Maxim received of all Men without contradiction, St. Jerome in one word derides that question, when he saith,Ep. ad Evagr. Major est Authoritas orbis quam urbis. Thus the Pope as the chief part and Head of the universal Church, is above every part, and his power regulated according to the Canons extends over all the Churches taken particularly, and none are exempt from his Jurisdiction, but no ways over all the Churches as­sembled in a General Council, un­less it be for calling of them, and presiding therein. And in this manner is to be understood what is to be found in the Bulls of Euge­nius IV. and Leo X. in the Coun­cils of Florence and the Lateran, besides that this last is not agreed upon to be an universal Council.

The other reason of the Coun­cil of Basil in its Synodal Answer is, that an Ecumenical Council hath received the gift of Infallibi­lity as well as the universal Church, which it represents; and that the Pope may err, as I have proved it to have been the belief of all An­tiquity. But to avoid disputing: This reason may be set off in a stronger and more convincing man­ner, by saying, They who hold an opinion contrary to that of the Superiority of a Council, are still ready to grant that during a Schism it is above the Pope, who is con­troverted, because what is certain ought always to be preferred before the uncertain. This is a Principle then agreed upon on both sides, from whence it may be thus ar­gued.

It is certain that a general Coun­cil representing the Universal Church is Infallible; no Catholick can doubt of this. On the other hand it is not certain that the Pope is so, seeing many very able and [Page 323]Catholick Doctors, and most fa­mous Universities, not only doubt of it, but teach and vigorously maintain that he is not. Hence it must necessarily be concluded, that, seeing what is certain ought to be preferred before the uncer­tain: The tribunal of a Council which, as it is certainly known, cannot err in its determinations, is over that of the Pope, who, per­haps, may be deceived, there be­ing no certainty of his Infallibi­lity.

It is evident that those two rea­sons of the Council of Basil, when it was very lawful and approved by Pope Eugenius, make it appear that every General Council is above the Pope, both in the time of a Schism, and when there is no Schism; seeing in both times the Council is a whole, of which the Pope is but a part; and that it is certain that in both these times the Council is alike Infallible; and that at least, it is not cer­tain that the Pope is, neither [Page 324]in the one nor other of these times.

Having said so much, I think I have fully answered M. Schelstrate as to what he hath alledged in the dissertation that he hath made against one of the chief Articles of the Declaration of the Clergy of France. For as to the long dis­course which that Author makes in one of his Chapters, to per­suade us, upon the credit of his Manuscript, that after great debates among the Nations it was at length resolved, by common consent, that the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members should not be attempted 'till after the election of the Pope: It is without doubt pitiful and deserves not any an­swer.

Can it be concluded from thence that a Pope lawfully elected, who is present and presides in the de­liberations of a Council, is not a part of that whole and of that Bo­dy which represents the Univer­sal Church, whose Authority ought [Page 325]to be preferred before that of any of its Members in particular, by that reason which proves that the whole is greater and more noble than any of its parts? And by what Philosophy does he pretend to make us acknowledg, that from the presence of a Pope in a Coun­cil, it follows that that Pope is not obliged to submit to the De­crees that may be made in it, even contrary to his own Judg­ment, when they are carried by the plurality of Voices, whether it be of individual Persons or of Nations? That is the very thing in question, to wit, if a Council whether the Pope be there or not, is above the Pope: How will he make out his proof?

Besides, it was not concluded in that Assembly of the Nations, that no Decrees concerning Reformati­on could be made before the E­lection of a Pope, but only that before that time, they should not all be made, and especially such as moderated the Power of the [Page 326]Pope, and confined it to just li­mits, it being very reasonable that he should be present at those de­liberations wherein he was so much concerned. The truth is, not to speak of the other Decrees of Reformation that were already made in the Council, there was a very considerable one made rela­ting to the Pope in the nine and thirtieth Session, before the E­lection of Martin V. who was not chosen till after the one and four­tieth.

It is appointed by that Decree that the Popes being so much the more obliged to make the light of their Faith conspicuous, by how much they are raised in Dignity above all others, shall for the fu­ture make in presence of those who have elected them, and be­fore their Election be Published, their Confession of Faith accor­ding to the Form prescribed to them by the Council in the same Session. That, without doubt was a pretty important Reformation, [Page 327]seeing thereby was revived what heretofore had been practised, and what King Childebert demanded of Pope Pelagius I. to inform himself of his belief, because it was thought that that Pope had too much favoured the Eutichyans, who had surprised him by their Artifices.

The Council then might have made the other Decrees of Refor­mation before the Election of the Pope: but they were willing they should not be made till after that the Pope was elected; and the manner how they appoint that Re­formation to be made, is so far from favouring M. Schelstrate, that it infers a conclusion quite contra­ry to what he pretends, and ma­nifestly proves that the Pope, even when not questioned, is inferiour to a Council.

Statuit & decernit.And indeed the Council wills and ordains in the fourtieth Sessi­on, that the Pope, either with the Council, or with the Deputies of the Nations, do reform the Church [Page 328]in the Head and Members, as to the Points that were to be given him, and that he make that Refor­mation before the dissolution of the Council. Was there ever a more authentick act of supreme Authority than this? When there was no more Schism, after the union of the three obediences, as M. Schelstrate owns. The Coun­cil ordains, that an undoubted Pope, such as certainly he that was to be elected must be, do reform the Church in the Head and Members; but it will have it to be done with consent of the Council. Any Bishop may do as much: the difference is, that he shall not be President of the Assembly, where he shall give his Vote as all the rest do. Now if the Council will not in Body set about that work, it refers it to the care of the Pope in conjunction with the Deputies of the Nations. He doth not act then in that Reformation but by the authority of the Council that deputes him; and all the advan­tage [Page 329]that he is to have over the rest, is that he shall be the first Deputy at the Head of all the others.

In fine, they prescribe to him both the Articles upon which they would have the Decrees of Refor­mation made, and the time where­in they should be expeded. If that be not to ordain, prescribe, command, and consequently if these be not evident marks, and Authentick acts of Authority and Superiority; I know none in the World. What will M. Schelstrate then say now with his long dis­course about the five Nations a­greeing that the Reformation should not be made 'till after the Election of a Pope?

But once more: What does he mean with the great mystery he makes of this, that after much de­bate in the Assembly of these Na­tions, concerning the manner how the Decree should be made, whe­ther by obliging the Pope with these Deputies to make the Re­formation [Page 330]formation before his Coronation,Postea fuerunt factae diversae formae decre­ti ad h. c: Tandem dictum fuit, quod Pa­pa electus ligari non poterat. or after, it was at length, said Pa­pa electus ligari non poterat, that when a Pope is chosen he cannot be bound? Does he by that then pre­tend, that we are obliged to be­lieve, that a Pope lawfully elect­ed, as St. Silvester was, is not ob­liged to subscribe to the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council, as that of Nice was: And that when such a Council hath decided the consub­stantiality of the word, and for­bidden Priests to marry, the Pope is not bound by these Decrees as well as the rest of Christians are, and that he is still at liberty to believe of the one what he thinks fit, and to act in regard of the other as he pleases?

But does he not see, that to have the true meaning of those words they are to be applied to the Subject in question: to wit, whe­ther it should be put into the De­cree that the Pope who was to be chosen,Ante Coronationem Pape, & Administra­tionem aliquam. should be obliged to make the Reformation before his Coro­nation, [Page 331]nay and before he could have any part in the Government of the Church, and to give good security for it, as the German Na­tion demanded? Whereupon they had reason to say that a Pope could not be obliged to a thing so unbe­seeming the Pontifical Majesty, nor so tied up as to deprive him of the Power he hath, by Divine Right, to Govern the Church, by virtue of his Primacy, from the very instant that he is Canonically elected Successor of St. Peter.

Thus ought these words to be understood in relation to what goes before, and not that the Pope is not obliged to any thing. The truth is, in the Decree that was made after that Conciliariter, in the fourtieth Session, The Pope was not obliged in that manner, as the Germans had proposed, never­theless he was bound in another most reasonable manner, if I may say so, that is to say, he was obli­ged to reform the Church in the Head and Members, with consent [Page 332]of the Council, or with the De­puties of the Nations, before the end of the Council. But if M. Schelstrate will still be opinio­native and pretend that the Nati­ons understood something else by these words, Quod Papa electus li­gari non poterat; there need no other answer to be made unto him, but that we must not stick to what hath been said in the Assembly of the Nations, as he doth, but to what hath been defined Conciliari­ter, in the Session, as we have just now mentioned.

I am apt to believe now that M. Schelstrate will be fully satisfi­ed with me, seeing I have exactly answered Point for Point all that he hath said upon his Manuscripts unknown to the whole World for near three hundred years, and which at present, he thinks fit to object to us, as most Authentick Pieces, in the dissertation he hath made against the Declaration of the Gallican Church, and against the perpetual Edict of the King, [Page 333]who, as Protector of the Church, and of her Canons, makes it to be observed in all his Territories; and in fine, against the Council of Constance received by all Christen­dom, and especially by France, which looks upon and reverences it, as its Palladium, the prop, support and defender of its li­berties.

This being so, there remains no more but in a few words to con­clude what I have hitherto said of the superiority of a Council over the Pope. I made it out in the be­ginning that all Antiquity believed it, without the least dispute as to that Subject, as there happened about the time of the Council of Pisa. Then I clearly shew'd what that Council, and the two follow­ing of Constance and Basil even approved by the Popes Alexan­der V. Martin V. and Eugenius IV. determined on that Subject in fa­vours of Councils. As to the times that have succeeded these three Councils, it is certain that [Page 334]all those great Men, those Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, those Universi­ties and Learned Doctors of all Nations, who, as I have said, have taught that Popes are not Infalli­ble, have by consequent maintain­ed that an Ecumenical Council, which cannot be doubted but to be Infallible, is above the Pope. But in a particular manner it is a Doctrin which the more renowned Doctors of Paris have always taught; I say, of that learned Uni­versity the ancientest and most fa­mous of all others; of whom if I should make a List, with the quo­tations of their Opinions, it would easily fill up a whole Book.

It is enough for me to mention here what the great Cardinal of Lorraine, fearing that some term might be slipt in the Council of Trent that might be interpreted against that Doctrine of all France, caused his Secretary to represent to Pope Pius IV. in the year 1563. These are the proper terms that he put into his instructions concerning [Page 335]that Point. I cannot deny but that I am a French Man, and have been bred in the Ʋniversity of Paris, where it is held that the Pope is subject to a Council; and they who teach the contrary there, are looked upon and noted as Hereticks — The French will sooner lose their lives, than renounce that Doctrin — It would be folly to think that there is one Bishop in France, that ever would consent to the opinion contrary to that truth.

The truth is,Edit. Card. Borom. 9. Jan. 1563. Pallabicin. Hist. conc. Trid. l. 19. c. 12. n. 10. &c. 13. n. 2. The Legates of the Council being instructed from Rome, that they should endeavour so to bring it about, that in the Ca­non concerning the Pope the terms of the Council of Florence should be used, by putting into it that the Pope hath received the Power of Governing the Universal Church,Ibid. n. 7. inesse summo Pontifici potestatem re­gendi Ecclesiam universalem, the Bi­shops of France opposed it, and were followed by most of the Fa­thers of the Council. Not that these words, regendi Ecclesiam uni­versalem, [Page 336]signifie any thing else but that general Jurisdiction of the Pope, which reaches all the parts of the Church, in what concerns the Publick good of all Christen­dom, that he may see to it, ac­cording to the Canons, as the Council of Florence expresses it, so as we have made it appear. But they would not have these words Ecclesiam universalem, so much as abused, to insinuate thereby that the Pope is above the Church uni­versal, taken altogether assembled and represented by an Ecumenical Council.

And therefore, to remove all ambiguity, and to prevent the wresting of these words to a sense contrary to the Superiority of a Council, they said, that instead of Regendi Ecclesiam universalem, it ought to be put into the Canon, Potestatem regendi omnes fideles, & omnes Ecclesias; that the Pope hath the Power of Governing all Belie­vers and all Churches: which is to be understood of all, not Assem­bled [Page 337]in Council, but taken several­ly and in particular, none of them being exempted from the Juris­diction of the Pope in what re­lates to the publick good, the ge­neral Government, and the cases limited by the Canons. So careful even to a scruple, have our An­cestors been, to stand upon their guard on that side; that no attack in the least might be made against the ancient Doctrin always invio­lably observed in this Kingdom. And it is most remarkable, that at that time when the Doctors of Pa­ris most strenuously maintained that Doctrin, after the Councils of Con­stance and Basil, against those that strove to invalidate their Decrees,Innoc. VIII. Litter. ad Theol. Paris. 7. i [...]. Sept. Ann. 1486. Innocent VIII. sent them a Brief, wherein he makes their Elogy, and amongst other things magnifies the greatness of their zeal which they expressed for maintaining the ho­nour and rights of the Holy Ro­man Church, and for defending the Catholick faith against the Here­sies, which they incessantly confu­ted.

After all, that I may end where I began to handle this question, I shall conclude with the testimony of another Pope, whom the Au­thors who will have it, as M. Schel­strate will, that Popes are above Councils, can never reject. And that is Pius II. who when he was no more but Aeneas Sylvius Picolo­mini, Clerk to the Council of Ba­sil, whereof he hath given us the History, maintained with all his might, as well as the Doctors of Paris, that the Authority of a Ge­neral Council is Superior to that of a Pope. But when he himself was promoted to be Pope, he thought, for a reason that may ea­sily be guessed at, that he ought to make known to the World, that he had changed his Opinion, and that then he thought the quite contrary of what before he had maintained with all the heat that a Man ought to have who is well persuaded of the Justice of the Cause whereof he undertakes the defence.

And that he solemnly did by a Bull, wherein he retracts; and in that Recantation, that he might declare that he followed another Opinion, he would not stiffle the manifest truth, concerning the na­ture of the Opinion which he for­sook, and of the other that he embraced. For in this manner he speaks in his Bull, hinting at the Conferences and Disputes that were had with Juliano Cesarini Cardinal of St. Angelo, who stood up for the interest of the Pope as much as he could, and yet for all that agreed in Judgment with the Council wherein he presided.Tuebamur antiqaam seutentiam, i le novam defendebat: Extolle­bamus generalis con­cilii autoritatem, ille Apostolicae sedis potes­tatem magnopere com­mendabat. He defended, says that Pope, the Anci­cient Doctrin, and he took the part of the new. We extolled the Autho­rity of the Ʋniversal Council, and he magnified extreamly the Power of the Apostolick See.

This now is plain dealing.Pius II. in Bull. re­tract. That Pope, who was willing to change his Opinion with his condition, which after him Adrian VI. did not declares fairly and honestly [Page 340]in his Bull, that the Doctrin where­of he had formerly undertaken the Defence, concerning the Superi­ority of a Council, is the Doctrin of Antiquity, and that the other is new. And that is all I would be at, I need no more to gain my cause: For all that I have preten­ded to in this Treatise, is to shew what Antiquity hath believed con­cerning the Points in hand. So that after so authentick a Declara­tion of Pope Pius II. I have ground to say, as to this Article, what I have already oftener than once said in relation of the others, with Pope Celestin I. writing to the Bishops of the Gallican Church, Desinat incessere novitas vetustarem.

CHAP. XXVI. The state of the question, touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal.

I Have, if I mistake not, made it clearly appear in all the pre­ceding Chapters of this Treatise, how far the Ancient Church hath believed that the Power over Spirituals which Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter and his Successors, as Heads of the Universal Church extended. I am now to shew, whether, according to the Judg­ment of venerable Antiquity, they have also any Power over the Temporal of any person whatso­ever, and especially of Kings and other Sovereigns, by virtue of the primacy that by Divine right be­longs to them.

Heretofore there have been some so passionately concerned for the Grandieur of the Apostoli­cal See, or rather so blindly devo­ted to the Court of Rome, that differs much from the Holy See, that they have dared to publish that the Pope representing the person of Jesus Christ, who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Universal Monarch, who hath an absolute Power over all Kingdoms, from which he may even depose Kings, if they fail in their duty, as these Kings may turn off their Officers who behave not themselves as they should. And this is called the direct Power which Boniface VIII. thought fit to take to himself in his Tuae unam Sanctam, that his Successor Clement V. was obliged to recal.

That is not the question here: For I cannot think that now a days there is any Man who hath the boldness to maintain so palpable and odious a falshood. But there are a great many beyond the Alps, [Page 343]who by the Philosophical distincti­on of an indirect Power which they have invented, teach that the Pope may dispose of Temporals, depose Kings, absolve Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they have taken to them and trans­fer their Dominions to others, when he judges it to be necessary for the good of Religion, because, say, they since he hath the inspe­ction over every thing that con­cerns it, so hath he Power to re­move, destroy, and exterminate every thing that may annoy the same; and by that clinch they cun­ningly enough come home to their Point though they would seem to forsake it. For a Pope will al­ways take the pretext of the wel­fair of Religion, when he has a mind to undo a Prince, as all these Popes have done who after Gregory VII. deposed Emperors, and since them Julius II. who transferred the Kingdom of John King of Navarre to Ferdinand King of Arragon, because that King [Page 344]would not declare against Lou­is XII. whom this Pope perse­cuted.

Now seeing that Opinion which the Gallican Church, and all our Doctors have always reckoned very dangerous and inconsistent with publick tranquillity, hath still vouchers amongst some Modern Doctors, especially beyond the Alps: I must now make it appear, according to the method which I have followed in this Treatise, what the Doctrin of Antiquity is, as to that, and that the Ancients have always believed, that neither the Pope, nay nor the Church, have received any Power from Jesus Christ, but only over things meerly Spiritual, and wholly di­stinct from Temporals; that there­fore Kings and Sovereign Princes, according to the appointment of God, are not Subject, as to Tem­porals, either directly or indirectly to any Ecclesiastical Power, as de­pending upon God alone who hath established them: And that they [Page 345]cannot be Deposed, upon any Pretext whatsoever, by the Au­thority of the Church, nor their Subjects absolved from the Oath of Allegiance and Obedience that they owe them. This I shall brief­ly and solidly prove by matters of fact which cannot be denied.

CHAP. XXVII. What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have Taught us as to that.

THERE is nothing in the Church of God more An­cient than Jesus Christ and his Apostles. Now they are the first that have Taught us that the Church and the Popes have nothing at all to do with Temporal affairs. I shall make no long Discourses here for proving of that truth, which is so conspicuous at first glance, that we need no more but [Page 346]Eyes to read the words that ex­press it, without any necessity of a Commentary to explain them.

Don't we read in the Gospel that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, John 17. and by consequent of his Church, and his Vicar upon Earth is not of this World?Matth. 22. That we must render to Cesar the things that are Cesars, and to God the things that are Gods? That afterward Jesus Christ submits himself, and his Vicar also to the Emperor, by commanding St. Peter to pay the Tribute that was due to him for them both? That he takes not the Crown from Herod, Matth. 17. who did what he could to rob him of life, which hath given occasion to the Church in one of her Hymns to say. Non eripit Mor­talia quia Regna dat Coelestia; He deprives not Kings of their Tempo­ral Kingdoms, since he came into the World to give us the Kingdom of Heaven? John 6. Is it not clear that he fled into the Desart; when they talked of making him a King?Luke 12. Who would not so much as judg of [Page 347]a difference betwixt two Brothers concerning their Succession? And that he positively told his Apostles oftner than once, that he would by no means have them like the Kings of the Gentiles who bear rule over their Subjects,Matth. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. and far less have any Dominion or Jurisdicton over Kings?

May not we see in the Epistles of the Apostles an express com­mand given to all sorts of Men without exception, Every Soul, Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. to be Subject to Sovereign Powers? That the Powers that are are ordained of God? That whosoever resists them, resists the Ordinance of God, and draweth upon himself Eternal damnation?1 Pet. 2. That all without ex­ception must be subject to their King, for so is the will of God; and that we must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Consci­ence sake?Rom. 13.

This shews the falsity of the di­stinction of Buchanan and of his impious followers,Buch. I. De Jure Reg­ni apud Scotos. who to answer those that objected to them the [Page 348]express command of God made to us in Scripture of obeying our Princes, whoever they be, and the example of Primitive Christians, who, according to the Law of God, were always Loyal to the Emperors, tho Pagans, Persecutors and Enemies of their Religion, have had the boldness to say that that was only fit in the first Plan­tation of the Church, when Chri­stians were too weak to take up Arms against Princes, and to shake off their yoke. They are to know that it was for fear of offending God, and of bringing upon them­selves Eternal damnation that they were Subject and Loyal to the Emperors, and not for fear of their wrath and of the punish­ments which with so much courage they slighted, when it was put to them to go to Martyrdom, or to deny the Faith.

Buchanan ought at least to have read the fourscore and seventh Chapter of the Apology of Ter­tullian, that he might have learnt [Page 349]this truth from that great Man, that it was only to obey the com­mand of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles, that the Christians of his time were Loyal to their Prin­ces, and not at all because of their weakness, and inability of acting, and of rising in Arms against them, to deliver themselves from their cruel and tyrannical Government. If we would, saies he,Si hostes exertos, non tantum vindices oc­cultos, agere vellemus: deesset nobis vis nume­rorum & copiarum? — vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, in­sulas, castella, castra ipsa &c. sola vobis relinquimus Templa— cui Bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam impares copiis, qui tam libenter tru­cidamur; si non apud istam disciplinam m [...] ­gis occidi liceret quam occidere? revolt by openly declaring our selves your Ene­mies, could we want Forces and a great number of good Troops, we who fill your Towns, your Isles, your Forts, your Camps, your Armies, in a word, all, but your Temples? And though we were not equal in number, yet what is it we might not undertake, and with what courage and zeal could not we fight you, we who suffer our selves to be inhumanly put to death with so much Joy, if we had not learnt in the School of Christ, that we had better suffer our selves to be Massacred, than to kill Men in Rebellion, and in waging War against our Princes who persecute us? It [Page 350]was not then propter iram, but propter conscientiam, to satisfie their Conscience, and obey the Law of God, that these Primitive Christi­ans inviolably kept their Allegi­ance which they owed to their Emperors, though they were infi­dels and wicked.

This is it which we have plain­ly declared to us in the Gospel, and in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul. Whereupon the true Divines, who in their Discourses are not conducted by the bare light of Human Philosophy, which many times degenerates into Sophi­stry, but by the Principles of Scrip­ture, that cannot deceive, have in all times made this truly Theologi­cal Argument, to which no Philo­sophical subtlety can be objected.

It is most evident by these clear and express passages of Scripture, that Kings are ordained of God, and that the Allegiance and Obe­dience that Subjects owe to them, is of Divine Right.

Now neither Popes nor the Church can destroy and overthrow what God hath fixed, nor dispence with that which is of Divine Right, as manifestly appears in what concerns the essential parts of the Sacraments, as for instance, of Marriage, of which it is said, Quod Deus conjunxit, homo non se­paret.

Therefore neither Popes nor Councils can ever depose Kings, nor acquit their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance.

And this is the more convin­cing, that the contrary opinion has not so much as the least appearance of any rational ground in Scrip­ture. For of all the passages that are cited for maintaining it, there is not so much as one that is inter­preted by the Church in Councils, nor by any of the Holy Fathers, in that most erroneous sense that they put upon them. Wherein these Modern Authors who in that manner do interpret them, act directly contrary to the Decree [Page 352]of the Council of Trent, fourth Session, and against the Confession of Faith enjoyned by Pius IV. which will have Scripture never to be interpreted but according to the sense that Holy Church gives it, and according to the common Interpretation of the Fathers. These new Doctors in that most dangerously follow the conduct of Hereticks, who for maintaining their Errors, interpret as they please, and not as the Church plea­ses, the Scriptures, that they may wrest them to their sense.Bellar. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Suarez. l. 3. de Prim. Sum. Pont. c. 3. l. 6. de form. Jur. fidel. c. 4. Becan. Anglico contr. c. 3. qu. 3. This ap­pears manifestly in those two pas­sages, upon which Bellarmin, Sua­rez, and after them Becanus and all the others, who, as these, have copied or abridged them, chiefly ground their opinion.

John, Last.The first passage is that where Jesus Christ saies to St. Peter, Feed my Sheep, Feed my Lambs. Is there so much as one of the Ho­ly Fathers, who hath understood these words of the Power which St. Peter hath received over the [Page 353]Temporal of Princes? There is none of them who hath not ex­pounded them as they ought to be, of the Spiritual Pasture which Popes are bound to give to Believers, by Doctrin, Example and good Go­vernment, and never one of these Doctors and Masters in the Church ever let it enter into his Head to wrest them to a Temporal meaning, as these new Divines have done. And more,Ambres. l. de dig. Sa­cer. c. 2. Chrys. hom. 79. in Matth. c. 24. August. de Agen. Chri­stian. c. 30. Tractat. 47. in Joan. in Ps. 108. & alii. most part of these Ho­ly Fathers having said, what is most true, that Jesus Christ applies these words in the person of St. Peter to the whole Church in general, and to all its Pastors in particular, if the new sense that these new Do­ctors give to them were to be fol­lowed, it must be said, that all Bi­shops and all Curates had right to dispose of the Temporals of those who by their bad Doctrin, or scan­dalous deportment do injury to the Spiritual good of their Church­es. And as to that comparison which they make betwixt the Shep­herd in respect of the Wolf, which [Page 354]he may dispatch omni modo quo po­test; and the Pastor of the Church in regard of a Prince who may have fallen into Heresie; it is not only a base Sophism contrary to the rules of right Logick, but also impious and detestable, which leads Men in a full career to Parricide, and for which the Books that con­tain it have been justly condemned to the fire.

The second passage is taken out of St. Matthew, Chapter sixteenth, where the Son of God saies to St. Peter, That whatever he shall bind upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever he shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whence these new Rabbies con­clude that the Successors of St. Pe­ter have Power to dissolve the ob­ligation that binds Subjects to their Prince, by the Oath they have made to him, and by the tie of Allegiance which binds them in fi­delity to him. Is it not strange that Catholicks should take this liberty of wresting the sense of [Page 355]Scripture to what they list, with­out any respect to the common in­terpretation of the Fathers, to which the Council of Trent ob­liges them? For of all the Holy Fathers who have expounded that passage, there is not so much as one to be found who hath so un­derstood it: all of them have in­terpreted it of the Power that that Apostle received of loosing and absolving Penitents from their sins. Nor do the Popes themselves ex­pound it otherways,Paul. 1 Ep. [...]0. ad procem. Fran. Ad [...]i. Ep. 1. ad Ca­rol. Magn. as it may be seen in the Epistle of Pope Paul I. to the French Lords, and in that of Adrian I. to Charlemagne.

To absolve Men from their sins, is it to absolve them from their Al­legiance? And that whatever, which signifies only any sort of sin and censure, and some obligations that are not of Divine Right; can that Power, I say, be extended to ths Temporal, and to the duty that Subjects owe to Kings? To persuade us of the contrary, we need only read the words that go [Page 356]before these. I shall give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, saies Jesus Christ, and not, of the Kingdoms of the Earth, for depo­sing of Kings. And those that fol­low comprehend the use of the Power of the Keys that he giveth him, for opening the Kingdom of Heaven, by forgiving Men their sins, or for shutting it, by not ab­solving them,John 20. as he in another place expresses himself, speaking to all the Apostles after his Resurre­ction.

But that we may not swerve from the words in question, we need no more but read the Eigh­teenth Chapter of the same Gospel of St. Matthew. There it is to be seen that Jesus Christ repeats them to all his Disciples, and gives them the whole Power that they import, by saying to them: Verily I say un­to you, that whatever ye shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever ye shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. If these words comprehend the sense that [Page 357]the new Authors give them, and that their meaning is also of the Temporal, it must needs be said that all the Bishops who are the Successors of the Apostles, nay and all Priests who have the Power of binding and loosing, may depose Kings, and dispence their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, which is the highest extravagance. Or else, let these Gentlemen tell us by what Authority of the Church or Holy Fathers they find that when they were said to St. Peter, they have a different meaning from that which they ought to have when they were spoken to St. Peter and to all the Apostles.

Now that is a thing they'll never be able to find out.Miss. Rom. An. 1520. Paris. apud Francis. Renaud. Miss. Rom. à Paulo III. nefar. Ann. 1543. Diurn. Monast. Con­grez. Cassin. à Greg. XIII. confir. Venet. ap. Juris. And this is so true, that the Church of Rome her self, sticking to the sense where­in all the Holy Fathers have ex­pounded these words which Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, will not understand them but of the Power which he hath given him of bind­ing [Page 358]and loosing Souls. For in all the ancient Missals, Breviaries, and Diurnals, in this manner was read that Prayer, which is said in the Feastival of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch: Deus, qui Beato Petro Apostolotuo, collatis clavibus animas ligandi at (que) solvendi Pontificium tra­didisti. This perfectly well ex­presses the nature of that Power of binding and loosing, which reaches not beyond Mens Souls and the Spiritual. But in the re­view that was made of the Divine Offices at Rome under Clement VIII. about the end of the last Age, and the beginning of this, they who took the pains of revising and cor­recting them, thought conveni­ent to expunge that so essential a word Animas. Wherefore? Nay it is no hard matter to guess at the cause of it: For it was un­der that Pontificate that the most famous new Doctors wrote with greatest earnestness and zeal for the new Opinion, which gives to Popes, at least the in­direct [Page 359]direct Power over the Temporal of Kings.

CHAP. XXVIII. What hath been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers of the Church as to that Point.

THAT absolute indepen­dence of Kings as to Tem­porals, is Justified by the constant Tradition of the Church since Je­sus Christ, the Apostles and their Disciples, and in all the Holy Fa­thers, who with common consent teach us, that all Christians, with­out exception, whether he be Apo­stle or Prophet,In E. ad Rom. c. 13. as St. Chrysostome speaks, ought to be Subject to their Sovereigns, though they be Pagans and Hereticks, as it is evident they themselves were. As to that Point,De const. Mon. c. 21. or. 17. In cap. 13. Rom. c. 25. let us consult Justin, Athenagoras, St. Ireneus, St. Basil, St. Gregory [Page 360]Nazianzen, St. Ambrose, St. Je­rome, and St. Chrysostome, St. Au­stin in his fifth Book of the City of God, and above all Tertullian in his Apology, where he saies that Kings are under the Power of God alone; In cujus solius potestate sunt, à quo sunt secundi, post quem primi: And that they hold the second place, being the next after God. Is not that plainly enough said, that betwixt God and Kings, it is not lawful to put the Popes as to the Temporal?In Ps. 50. And thereupon it is, that Cassiodorus, and after him Venerable Bede have said, that none but Kings can say to God, as Da­vid did, Tibi soli peccavi, because they have no other Master nor Superior but God alone, who hath right to Judge and punish them. This they learnt from St. Jerome, who interpreting the same verse of David hath these excellent words: He speaks in that manner because he was King; Rex enim erat, alium non timebat, alium non habebat supra se. Hyer. in Ps. 51. he stood in awe of none but God alone, and had no other Su­perior but him.

Hence it is that St. Chrysostome speaking of King Ozias who was severely rebuked by the High Priest,Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae: ille egit, hic exhor­tatur; ille habet arma sensibilia, hic Spiritu­alia. Chrys. hom. 4. dc verb. Isa. openly declares that the Power of Priesthood is confined to the sole Right that God hath given to Popes to admonish, re­prove, exhort, and to make use of their Spiritual Arms when it is ne­cessary, the care of Souls being joyned to their ministery, but not at all that of the Body, that is of the Temporal which God hath re­served for Kings. That is the di­stinction which God hath made be­twixt the two Powers, the one wholly Spiritual, and the other Temporal, both which ought to keep within the bounds that the Master of both hath set to either of them.Apud Athan. Ep. ad solitar. And this the great Osius of Corduba so vigorously represen­ted to Constantius the Arian Em­peror, when he wrote to him that as the Church hath no Power over the Emperor, and that he who attempts any thing upon his Em­pire transgresses the commands of [Page 362]God, so also doth the Emperor, if he take to himself what only be­longs to the Church. It is writ­ten, adds he, Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars, and unto God the things that are Gods.

I know that the Modern Au­thors, having none of the Ancient Fathers of the Church for them, have thought at least that they may make use of the testimony of a great Saint, who tho he be not of the number of those who flourish­ed in the Ancient Church, and therefore are the true evidences of her belief, has nevertheless in a manner as great Authority, as is needful to make his Judgment pass for a truth well confirmed. This Father is St. Bernard, Bernard. l. 4. de con­sider. c. 3. who, upon these words of the Apostles to Je­sus Christ; Here are two Swords, and upon the answer that he made to them, it is enough, saies, that these two Swords signifie the two Pow­ers,Sed is quidem pro Ec­clesiá, ille ab Ecclesiâ exercendus est, ille Sacerdotis, is militis manu. the Spiritual and the Tempo­ral: that the material Sword ought to be employed for the Church, [Page 363]and the Spiritual by the Church; this by the Hand of the Pope, and that by the Hand of the Soldier. Hitherto there is nothing at all that favours their Opinion. But what they found upon, are the follow­ing words, sed sane ad nutum sacer­dotis & jussum imperatoris, that is to say, as they interpret it, accor­ding to the will of the Priest, and by the command of the Emperor.

But it is an easie matter to an­swer them, first that that is a wit­ty thought and an Alegory of St. Bernards invention. For of all the Holy Fathers who have inter­preted the Gospel unto us, there is not so much as one, that hath given to these words, Here are two Swords, that sense, which is not at all literal, which we are not obli­ged to follow, nay and according to the Decree of the Council of Trent, which we ought not to fol­low for fixing a Doctrin that we ought to embrace, seeing it is not conform to the common interpre­tation of the Holy Fathers.

Secondly, We'll tell them that the words of St. Bernard ought to be understood according to those of Cesarius Cisterciensis who flourished in the same twelfth Age; and who, pursuing the same Alle­gory of St. Bernard, saith, that the two Powers, the Spiritual and Temporal,Unus gladius Spiritu­alis est qui Papae col­latus est à Domino; alter materialis, quem tenet Imperator, simi­liter à Deo collatus: hoc duplici gladio re­gitur & defensatur Ecclesia Dei. are the two Swords; that the Spiritual hath been given to the Pope, and the material to the Emperor, and that by these two Swords the Church is gover­ned and defended: it is plain enough that by that the Spiritual Sword is only given to the Pope.

In the third place,Cesar. Cisterc. hom. 2. in dom. 2. advent. if they would have us stick precisely to the words of St. Bernard, we readily grant what they would have: but at the same time we must ask them who hath told them that, ad nutum Sa­cerdotis, signifies according to the absolute will of the Pope? We main­tain that it signifies there, accor­ding to the absolute will of the Pope? We maintain that it signifies there, According to the advice and counsel of [Page 365]the Pope: which is plainly to be seen by the opposition of these words, ad nutum Sacerdotis & ad jussum Imperatoris, which signifie two dif­ferent things, that the Soldiers take Arms by the command of the Em­peror, ad Jussum, and by the ad­vice of the Pope ad nutum. It cannot be said that that is by the command, otherwise St. Bernard would have said briskly, ad Jussum Sacerdotis & Imperatoris; but he makes a distinction, and for the one saies ad Jussum, and for the other ad nutum, by the counsel and advice.

Just so as it is said of the Disci­ples in the Gospel, Annuerunt sociis qui erunt in alia navi; They beckon­ed to their companions that were in the other Ship: that annuerunt, beck­oned does not signifie a command, but an advice, an exhortation. They pray them to come: So that ad nutum which comes from the same verb annuere, means nothing more, but the advice, counsel and exhortation of the Pope, as Ʋr­ban [Page 366]II. exhorted the Emperor and all Christian Princes to cross them­selves, and to take Arms against the Sarasins for rescuing the Holy Sepulchre. And as we see at pre­sent that Pope Innocent XI. ex­horts all the Potentates of Europe to League against the Turk, and sends Money to the Emperor and King of Poland to carry on the War in Hungary against that com­mon Enemy of all Christians. It will not be said for all that, that the Pope commands these Princes to employ the material Sword: all that can be said of it is, that the Germans and Polanders make good use of their Swords in Hungary, and beat the Turks, ad nutam Sa­cerdotis, & ad Jussum Imperatoris; by the counsel and exhortation of the Pope, and by the command of the Emperor and the King of Poland.

But to prove to these new Do­ctors that that is the true sense of St. Bernard, I'll only object to them the same Saint in the same [Page 367]Treatise of Consideration to Pope Eugenius, wherein doubtless it will not be said that he hath contra­dicted himself, by overthrowing in one place what he hath built up in another. For in this man­ner he speaks to the Pope, upon what our Saviour three or four times told his Apostles, that he would not have them to be like the Kings of the Gentiles, that bear Rule over their Subjects: It is plain, saith that Holy Man, that all Dominion is forbidden to the Apostles. Planum est Apostolis interdicitur domina­tus: ergo tu, & tibi usurpare aude, aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolicus domi­natum, plane ab alter­utro prohiberis, aut si utrum (que) similiter ha­bere voles utrum (que) perdes l. 2. de cons. c. 6. Go then boldly and usurp the Apostleship either by domi­neering, or Dominion by retaining the Apostleship. From one of the two you are excluded: If you think to retain both, you shall lose both. Are these the words of a Man that would have Popes so far to do­mineer over Kings as to depose them, and transfer their Crown to others, seeing he will not so much as have them to have any Dominion?

Not that he finds fault that Eu­genius III. as other Popes have had, should enjoy Lands and Principalities, and those vast de­mains which they hold of the libe­rality of the Kings of France, and which, by the favour of times they have since converted into Sovereign and independent States. Grant, Esse, ut aliâ quâcun­que ratione haec tibi vindices, sed non A­postolico Jure: nec enim ille (Petrus) tibi dare q [...]od non ha­buit potuit. adds St. Bernard, that you have that Temporal Dominion by any other title: but I declare you have it not as Pope, nor by any right of Apostleship; for St. Peter who had no such thing, could not give what he had not. So that Popes as Popes have no other Power but what is purely Spiritual, for binding or loosing Souls, and have nothing to do with the Temporal of the meanest of Christians, much less with that of Kings.

After this, I am not of the mind that the new Doctors will be found of alledging to us the words of St. Bernard, nor indeed, be able to oppose any considerable Authority to that of all the Anci­ent [Page 369]Fathers, since Bellarmin him­self, in the Treatise that he made of the Power of the Pope as to Temporals against William Barclay, produces only for justifying his Opinion, the Authors of the last four or five hundred years. What can all these upstarts do against the Fathers of the Ancient Church? It is enough to send them packing to tell them once more, what Pope Celestin I. said, Desinat novi­tas incessere vetustatem. But be­cause we speak with a Pope; and that the question in Hand concerns the intetest of all Sovereign Popes, let us now see what the Belief of the Ancient Popes hath been as to the same Point.

CHAP. XXIX. The Judgment of Ancient Popes touching the Power over Tem­porals, that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope.

THESE of all Men are evi­dences of greatest Authori­ty, and least to be rejected, seeing the question is about a Power that some would attribute to them, and which they openly declare they have not. I mean Ancient Popes, who for most part were great Saints, and who very well understanding their obligation, have always kept within the bounds of that Spiri­tual Power which they have re­ceived from Jesus Christ, for Go­verning his Church according to the Laws and Canons of Ecumeni­cal Councils, so as the Council of Florence defined it.

The truth is, they were so far from attempting any thing upon the Temporal of Emperors and Kings, tho even Infidels and He­reticks, as to deposing of them, and absolving their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they had taken to them, that they have always openly protested that they were wholly submitted unto them, as most humble Subjects, and have acknowledged, as well as the great Osius, that distribution which God hath made of the Temporal for So­vereigns, and of the Spiritual for the Church, for the Popes and Bishops.

There is nothing more evident than this in Ecclesiastical History: We need only read the Epistle of Pope Gelasus I. to the Emperor Anastasius, wherein he makes that distinction of the two Powers, one Temporal, and the other wholly Spiritual, and both independent one of another: That of Nico­las I. to the Emperor Michael, wherein he distinguishes them, Actibus propriis & dignitatibus di­stinctis, [Page 372]by their Dignities and pro­per Functions, which are of two quite different kinds; and what Gregory II. wrote to Leo Isauricus, a most wicked Arch-heretick and cruel Persecuter of Catholicks, saying to him in one of his Let­ters: In the same manner as the Pope has no Power of inspecting the Palace of Emperors, Quemadmodum Pon­tifex introspiciendi in Palatium poteftatem non habet, ac dignita­tes regales conferen­di: sic neque Impe­rator in Ecclesias introspiciendi, &c. Gregor. II. Ep. 2. ad Leon. Isaur. nor of conferring Roy­al Dignities, so neither hath the Em­peror any right to meddle with the Go­vernment of the Church.

This is enough, to shew that Cardinal Bellarmine hath imperti­nently made use of the example of that Pope against us, because ac­cording to the relation of some Greek Historians, though the La­tins of that time take no notice of it, he by his Authority hindered the Romans his Subjects from pay­ing the Tribute which they owed him. To overthrow this weak Argument there needs no more, but to consider Gregory in the quality of Pope, and then in the quality of the chief Citizen of Rome. As [Page 373]Pope he wrote to that Iconoclast Emperor long and excellent Let­ters, wherein joyning force to af­fection, he admonishes, reproves and exhorts him, he prays him, and threatens him with the Judgments of God; and then, so far was he from deposing him from his Em­pire, that he prevents as much as in him lay, all Italy from revolting against him, and from acknowledg­ing another Emperor, thereby maintaining the People, who were ready to shake off the insupporta­ble yoak of so wicked a Prince, in their obedience.

But when he saw that Leo grew more and more obdurate in his im­piety; that he had attempted two or three times to have him assassi­nated; and that he gathered toge­ther all the Forces of the Empire, to come and do at Rome, as he gave it out in all places, what he had done at Constantinople, in beat­ing down the Holy Images, and putting all to Fire and Sword, if they renounced not the Ancient [Page 374]Religion: Then, having as Pope, declared him Excommunicated, he did, as chief Citizen of Rome, as the rest did, what the Law of na­ture allows, to wit, take the Arms out of a mad Man's Hand, and prevent the giving him money, which he would have used for their ruine and desolation, and after­ward he put himself with the other Romans under the protection of Charles Martel, for the safety of their Religion and Lives, though for all that, this Pope never offer­ed to depose Leo, nor to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance. For he himself and his Successors long after acknow­ledged the Greek Emperors for their Sovereigns, and it was not before the Empire of Constantin and Irene, that the Romans, and with them the Pope, as a Member of that Civil and Politick Body, and not by his Pontifical Authori­ty, seeing that they could no long­er be defended against the Lom­bards by the Greeks, who had [Page 375]abandoned them, submitted to Charlemagne.

This is fully and clearly made out in my History of the Icono­clasts: Wherein it may be seen that the example of Gregory II. which Bellarmin alledges against us, is nothing at all to the purpose. As also more it may be seen there that Pope Adrian I. wrote to Con­stantin Copronymus and to Leo his Son, both great Hereticks, in very submissive terms, as to his Masters and Sovereigns; and that's a thing which the Ancient Popes never failed to do.

Let it be considered with what submission Pelagius I. wrote to Childebert King of France; who would have him send to him a Confession of his Faith. He obey­ed his orders, and told him that according to Holy Scripture Popes ought to be subject to Kings as well as other Men, Quibus nos etiam subditos esse Sacrae Scripturae testantur.

In what manner did Stephen II. implore the assistance of Pepin against the Lombards? I beg of you, Peto à te tanquam praesenti aliter assi­stens provolutus terrae & tuis vestigiis pro­sternens. Steph. II. Ep. 4. ad Pip. saies he, that favour, as if I were in your presence prostrate upon the ground at your Feet.

Can there be terms of greater humility and of a more perfect obedience, than those which the great St. Gregory makes use of in one of his Letters to the Emperor Mauricius, who enjoined him a thing to which he had great aversion, and which in his own Judgment he thought contrary to the Service of God?Ego verò haec Domi­nis iners loquens, quid sum nisi pulvis & ver­mis? — Ego qui­dem Jussioni subjectus, &c. Greg. l. 2. Jud. 11. Ep. 62. ad Mauric. What am I, saies he, who re­present this to my Masters, but a little Dust and a Worm? For my part, who am obliged to obey, I have done what hath been commanded me: and so I have fulfilled my obli­gations on both sides, for on the one Hand I have executed the Emperors order, and on the other I have not failed to represent what the cause of God required.

And in another Letter upon oc­casion of his being informed that [Page 377]the Lombards had put a Bishop to death in prison,De quâ re unum est quod brevitur sugge­ras serenissimus Do­minis nostris, &c. he would have it represented to the Emperors, whom he calls his most Serene Masters, that if he would attempt any thing against the lives of the Lombards, that Nation should have no more King, Duke, nor Count: But because I fear God, saies he,Sed quia Deum timeo, in mortem cujuslibet hominis me miscere formido. l. 7. Jud. 1. Ep. 1. I am loth to have an Hand in any Mans death.

He therein followed the exam­ple of one of his Predecessors St. Martin I. who would never resist, tho it was in his Power, the orders of the Emperor Constans a Monothelite Heretick, who caused him to be carried away from Rome to Constantinople, and from thence into banishment. And although those who would have opposed that violence, called out to him,Nulli eorum accommo­davi aurem, ne subito fierent homicidia. Melius Judicavi de­cies mori, quam uni­uscujusqu [...] sanguinem in terram fundi. Epist. Mart. 1. ad Theodor. that he should not yield, and that he should be well backed, yet he would not listen to them, for fear it might come to Arms and Slaughter be committed, Judging it better, said he, to die ten times, [Page 378]than to suffer the Blood of one single Man to be shed.

These holy Popes who were so afraid lest the least drop of hu­mane Blood should be spilt, were far from deposing Kings and Emperors, and giving away their Dominions to others, under pre­text of the good of Religion, as long after them some of their Suc­cessors did; which was the cause of so many cruel Wars that with Blood and Butchery filled Italy, Germany, and France it self during the League.

In this manner the ancient Popes kept within the bounds of their Power purely Spiritual, rendering the honour and obedience which they owed to Temporal Powers, and especially to their Sovereigns, nay even to their Sovereigns who were hereticks and Enemies of their Religion. This makes it very apparent, what learned Men have so clearly proved, that it is no more to be doubted of; to wit, that these Letters of St. Gregory [Page 379]are supposititious, wherein he or­dains that every King, Prelate, or Judg that shall neglect to preserve the Privileges which that Pope gives to the Abbey of St. Medard of Soissons, and to three other Mona­steries of Autun be deprived of his Dignity, and as a destroyer of the Church, separated from the com­munion of Believers, and from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; that, in fine, he be smitten with all the Anathema's which till then had been thundered against all Hereticks, damned like Judas, and with him sent headlong into Hell, if he do not do penance, and make his peace with the Monks.

Such extravagant terms as these, and so remote from the temper and stile of St. Gregory are alone sufficient to discover the gross im­posture, and the supposition of these pretended Bulls, which some have not been ashamed to make use of, for subjecting the Crowns of Sovereigns to the Pope. That holy Pope behaved himself in a [Page 380]far different manner in relation to Kings and Emperors, as may be seen in all his Epistles.Lego & relego Roma­norum regum & Impe­rat rum gesta, & nus­quam invenio quem­quam eorum ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum, vel Regno privatum. Otto. Fris. l. 6. c. 35. And that wise conduct which his Predeces­sors held, continued still after him until Gregory VII. who, according to the observation of the learned Otho Bishop of Frisinguen, was the first Pope, that contrary to so many good Examples of his Prede­cessors, takes to himself the Power of deposing Kings, warranting himself, as he himself saies in his Letter to Heriman Bishop of Mets, by this, that Jesus Christ gave St. Peter the Power of binding and loosing.Waltr. Naumbourg. Apol. pro Henr. IV. l. 1. c. 3. & 4. To which Waltram Bishop of Naumbourg made the same answer that we make at pre­sent to those who abuse that pas­sage contrary to the interpretati­on of all the Fathers, that that Power was given to loose Men from their sins, and not from the Oath of Allegiance which Subjects are bound by a divine and indi­spensable Law to observe towards their Sovereigns.

It was upon that so weak and ruinous a foundation, That this Pope Gregory undertook against the Ancient Doctrin of above a thousand years, to settle that false and pernicious Opinion which he, the first of all Popes, put into practice, by Excommunicating and Deposing the Emperor Henry IV. For as to what is said to the con­trary of Pope Zachary whom Bellarmine pretends to have taken the Crown from Childerick, and given it to Pepin, is of no force, and must needs proceed from a great ignorance of our History. It was the French Lords, who,Ann. 752. af­ter that they had consulted the Pope, to be informed by him if they might lawfully make that Translation, did in effect do it, upon the Popes answer touching that case of Conscience, whether right or wrong is not the question in Hand. The words of Ancient Authors are express in acquainting us, that it was no more but a con­sultation on the part of the French, [Page 382]that they might Authorise their action by the advice and opinion of the Doctor and Father of Christi­ans. Missi sunt ad Zachariam Pa­pam, Chron. ver. à Pith. Edit. ut consulerent, saith an Ancient Chronicle. They sent to Pope Za­chary to consult him upon the Point. Missi fuerunt ad Zachariam inter­rogando — si bene fuisset an non, Ann. Francor. Me­tens. &c. saies another Author. They sent to Zachary to ask the question if they should do well or ill in de­posing Childerick, and putting Pepin in his place. The Popes advice was only asked, which was not approved by his Successor.

For Theophanes a Greek Author of that time, tells us that Pope Stephen gave Pepin absolution for the sin which he had committed by violating the Oath of Allegi­ance which he had taken to Chil­derick. If that be so, it remains to enquire which of the two Popes was in the right: But it is not my part to examine that questi­on. It is enough at present that I say, to prove that the French ap­plied [Page 383]not themselves to Zachary, as to him who had power to depose their King, that they did not so much as consult Pope John XV. when they placed Hugh Capet on the Throne, instead of Charles, who had abandoned them to close with the Germans.

As to what concerns Leo III. who is said to have transferred the Empire of the West to Charlemagne, it's a mere illusion. I have made it clearly out in the History of the Iconoclasts, that four years before Charlemagne was Proclaimed Au­gustus, he was Master of Rome, and of Italy as King of France, and that he took not that title of Emperor, which he did not at all care for, but because the French Lords and Romans that were his Subjects besought him to do it: And it is certain that the Pope was the first who rendered Ho­mage to him as to his Emperor, and that he had no other part in that Ceremony but the same which the Archbishop of Reims [Page 384]has in the Coronation of our Kings.

It is certain then, as Otho of Frisinguen assures us, that Grego­ry VII. was the first Pope that of­fered to depose Kings. I have made it clearly enough out in my History of the Fall of the Empire, how he formed and pursued so ter­rible an enterprise: But I should be very glad, that it might be taken from a very famous ultra­montean Author, Onuphrius Pan­vinius à Veronese, of the Order of St. Austins Hermits, in the life of that Pope. In this manner he speaks of it.Primus omnium Roma­norum Pontificum Gre­gorius VII. armis Normannorum fretus, opibus Comitissae Ma­thildis mulieris per Italiam potentissimae confisus, discordiâ Germ [...]norum Princi­pum Bello civili laborantium inflammatus, praeter majorum morem, contemptâ Imperatoris Authoritate & Potestate, cum summum Pontifica­tum obtinuisset, Caesarem ipsum, à quo si non electus, saltem confirmatus suc­rat, non dico excommunicare; sed etiam Regno Imperio (que) privare ausus est. Res ante ea secula inaudita. Nem de fabulis quae de Arcadio, Ana­stasio, & Leone Iconomacho circumferuntur, nihil moror. Gregory VII. is the first of the Popes of Rome, who, supported by the Norman Forces, trusting to the great assistance of Money, which he got from the Countess Mathilde a most powerful Princess in Italy, and [Page 385]encouraged by the divisions amongst the Princes of Germany, who were engaged in a Civil War, dared, con­trary to the custom of his Predeces­sors, slighting the Imperial Authori­ty and Power; so soon as he was pro­moted to the Papacy, I shall not only say to Excommunicate, but even depose from Kingdom and Empire, the very same person, by whom, if he was not chosen, he was at least confirmed in his dignity. A thing unheard in all foregoing Ages: For I take no no­tice of the tales that have been spread abroad of Arcadius, Athanasius, and Leo Isauricus the Iconoclaste. Before that, (saith the same Author) Popes were Subject to the Emperors, and durst neither judg nor resolve of any thing that concerned them.

Imperatoribus suberant de iis Judicare; vel quicquam decernere non audebat Papa Ro­manus.Thus the Ancient Popes beha­ved themselves, and so much they believed of their Pontifical Autho­rity, which does not at all reach the Temporal. And to this you may add,Onuphr. Pavin. in vit. Greg. VII. ex edit. Gresser. pag. 271. 272. that in the eight first Ecumenical Councils, there is no­thing to be found but what speaks [Page 386]the compleat submission that is due to Emperors and Kings; but no­thing that can in the least encroach upon or invalidate the absolute independence of their Temporal Power. Now if in some of the Councils which succeeded the Pontificat of Gregory VII. Kings have been threatned to be depo­sed, and if an Emperor hath been actually deposed, that was not done by the way of decision; and though a Council had made a decision as to that, yet it must on­ly have been an unwarrantable at­tempt upon the Right of Princes, and could have been of no greater Force than the Bulls whereby it hath been often enough offered at to dispossess them of their States, but which have always been con­demned and rejected as abusive. For, after all, there will be reason everlastingly to say, that which all Antiquity hath believed, that the Church her self, infallible as she is, which the Pope according to the same Antiquity is not, hath not [Page 387]received from her heavenly spouse the gift of Infallibility, but as to matters purely Spiritual, and whol­ly abstracted from the Temporal and the Kingdom of the World, wherein Jesus Christ, who hath said, my Kingdom is not of this World, would never meddle.

CHAP. XXX. What hath always been the opinion of the Gallican Church, and of all France as to that. The conclusion of this Point and of the whole Treatise.

HItherto I have made appear what hath been the Judg­ment and Doctrin of Jesus Christ, of his Apostles, the Fathers, An­cient Popes, and of the Councils, that is, of all venerable Antiqui­ty, concerning that Power, at least [Page 388]indirect, which some would attri­bute to Popes. Now seeing the most Christian Kingdom, above all other States of Christendom, hath always stuck close to the Ancient Doctrin of the Church, which is the solid foundation of their Li­berties: Therefore it was that all the Bishops of France representing the Gallican Church, the faculty of Theology of the great Univer­sity of Paris, so much respected in the World, the chief Parliament of France, and in imitation of it, the rest, acting in the Name, and by the Authority of the King, as Protector of the Canons and holy Decrees, have even in this King­dom maintained the Ancient Do­ctrin, and upon all occasions con­demned that pernicious novelty which is contrary to it. This I in­tend briefly to prove.

The Gallican Church, since the settlement of the most Christian Monarchy amongst the Gaules, hath always inviolably observed the Rights of the Royalty in her [Page 389]Councils, which were so often cal­led by the sole Authority of Clovis and his Successors, especially during the first and second race of our Kings. And when the Popes would have attempted any thing upon their Temporal, the French Bi­shops have always opposed it with all imaginable force and vi­gour. Of this I shall give you some instances.

Lotharius, Louis, and Pepin, Sons of Louis the Debonaire; instiga­ted by some who had a mind to make their advantage of the dis­sentions that they had sowed be­twixt the Father and his Children,Auct. Anonym. Vic. Ludou. Pii. rose in Arms against him, and found means to engage into their party Pope Gregory IV.Ann. 832. who came in person to their Camp, to favour their pretentions. The Emperor on the other Hand, accompanied with a great part of the Bishops of France, failed not to advance with a Powerful Army, in May the year following, as far as Worms, not far distant from the [Page 390]Camp of the Princes his Chil­dren.

Ut si more praedecesso­rum suorum aderat, cur [...]tontas necteret mo­ras non sibi occurren­do?Immediately he sent them some of his Bishops, who exhorted them to return to their duty, and who told the Pope in his name, that if he was come accor­ding to the custom of his Prede­cessors, he much wondered that he had so long delayed to come and wait upon him. But when it was discovered that instead of keeping within the bounds of a bare Mediator, for reconciling the Children to their Father, so as it was believed, he was come with a design to Excommunicate the Emperor and his Bishops, if they obeyed not his Will and the Princes for whom he thereby manifestly declared himself against the Emperor: Then these Bi­shops, without being startled,Nullo modo se velle vo­luntati ejas succum­bere: sed si Excom­municaturus adveni­ret, Excommunicatus abiret, cam aliter se babeas antiquorum Canonum autoritas. made it known to him plainly, that in that they would no ways obey him, and that if he was come to Excommunicate them, he should return Excommunicated [Page 391]himself, seeing the Authority of the ancient Canons prescribes and ordains the quite contrary to what he attempts.

The truth is that expression seems to me a little too high: but it cannot be denied but that it makes it clearly out to us, that the Bishops of France would not at all suffer that the Pope should offer to enjoyn any thing concer­ning the Government of the State; and the Temporal interests which were the Points that occasioned the War; and besides that, they were very well persuaded that Popes are Subject to the Holy Canons, and by consequent to the Councils which have made them.

Moreover, the great clashing that Philip the Fair had with Pope Boniface VIII. who openly attack­ed the Rights of his Crown, is very well known; and it is also well known what the Gallican Church did for maintaining them, [Page 392]and the cautions they took against the Bull unam Sanctam, which rai­sed the Popes, in Temporals above all Sovereigns. It is likewise known what decisions she gave Louis XII. for the preservation of his Rights, in the difference that he had with Julius II. and what the Clergy of France Assembled at Mante during the League,Anno 1591. decla­red upon occasion of the Bull of Gregory XIV. against Henry IV.

To the Estates Gene­ral at Paris. 1614, 1615.Now if Cardinal Duperron hath in his Speeches said something not altogether consistent with the Do­ctrin always maintained by the Clergy of France, that is but the opinion of one private Doctor, who hath oftener than once chan­ged his sentiment, and on that occasion transgressed the orders of the Ecclesiastical Chamber of the States General, in name of whom he spake, and who would have him only represent to the third Estate, that it did not belong to [Page 393]them, but to the Church, to de­cide that Point of Doctrin con­cerning the Pontifical Power, as it seemed they had done in the first Article of their address.

That was the sole cause of the difference that was betwixt the two Chambers, as that of the Clergy informed Pope Paul V. in the answer they made to his Brief of the last of January one thou­sand six hundred and fifteen.Augebamur enim non mediocriter, cum vi­deremus ipses Catholi­cos, zelo quodam mi­nus prudenti abreptos cognitionem earum re­rum quae ad fidem per­tinent ad se trahere, & de quaestionibus ejusmodi statuere vel­le, quas nisi pastorum suorum vocibus edocti, non debeant attingere. Sed ea molestia è ve­stigio in laetitiam versa est, postquam iidem nostris monitis & justis rationibus adducti, demum agnoverunt, omnem hanc autoritatem penes Ecclefiam, eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi preesse voluerit. 7 Calend. Nartii. We were not a little troubled, say these Prelates, to see even Catholicks transported with an undiscreet zeal offer to take cognisance of matters relating to Faith, and to decide such kind of questions as they must needs first be instructed about by their Pastors before they can meddle with them. But our grief was soon changed into gladness, when these Gentlemen yielding to our Admoni­tions [Page 394]and just Remonstrances, at length acknowledged that none but the Church hath that Authority, and that none but the Pastors have from her received the Power and Right of instructing and gui­ding the Flock. That was the thing in question, and not at all the substance of the Article wherein the Clergy of France agreed, though they judged it not a proper business to be propo­sed in the Estates, especially at that time.

The truth is that Chamber of the Clergy was so far from inva­lidating in the least the substance of the Doctrin contained in that Article, and in all times received in France concerning the absolute independence of our Kings as to Temporals, that on the contrary they oftener than once protested, that they acknowledged that inde­pendence, Manifeste de ce qui se passa aux Estat, Ge­neraux entre le Clergi et le Tiers Estat. 1615 and that it ought to be held for a Maxim, That the King in Temporals can have no other Supe­riour [Page 395]but God alone, Discours veritable de ce qui se passa aux Estats Generaux. and that the Vicar of Jesus Christ hath no juris­diction over matters purely Tem­poral.

So that although the Clergy declared that it belonged only to the Church to handle and decide a Point of Doctrin and Religion, nay and that that was not an af­fair to be consulted about in the Estates:Procés verbal de ce­qui s'est passé en la Chambre du Tiers E­stat. Avis donné au Roy en son Conseil par M. le Prince sur le Cahier du Tiers Estat. yet they avowed that they believed in substance the same thing which the third Estate had proposed, and which the late Prince of Conde a great Defender of the Catholick Faith, most pru­dently represented to the King in Council the fourth of January the same year, and which the Univer­sity of Paris expressed in most significant terms in their Petition presented to the Estates upon the same occasion, the two and twen­tieth of January: To wit,Discours veritable de­ce qui s'est passé, &c. That our Kings depend upon none but God us to Temporals, and that there is no Power upon Earth that [Page 396]can depose them, nor dispence with, or absolve their Subjects from the Obedience and Allegiance that they owe to them, under any pretext what­soever. That was their Doctrin, which they would not have to be weakned or impaired in the Remonstrances which they had caused Cardinal Du Perron to make to the Chamber of the third Estate.

And certainly after so many proofs, one cannot doubt of the Opinion of that learned Clergy, always uniform as to that Point. I might here produce a great ma­ny very convincing Testimonies: but that would not be necessary now, after that famous declarati­on which the Archbishops and Bi­shops assembled at Paris by order of the King in the year one thou­sand six hundred and eighty two, as representing the Gallican Church, have made of their Judgment, concerning the Ecclesiastical Pow­er. This is the first Article of it, [Page 397]whereby they declare, That God hath given to St. Peter and his Suc­cessors the Vicars of Jesus Christ, and to the Church Power over Spi­ritual matters, which belong to Eter­nal Salvation, but not over Civil and Temporal, The Lord having said, My Kingdom is not of this World; and Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesars, and unto God the things that are Gods. And that Apostolical Decree ought to remain firm and inviolable, Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Pow­ers, for there is no Power but of God: The Powers that be are or­dained of God: whosoever there­fore resisteth the Power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. That Kings and Princes then, according to the Ordinance of God, are not subject to any Ecclesiastical Power, and that they cannot be deposed, neither directly nor indirectly, by the Power and Authority of the Keys of the Church; that their Sub­jects cannot be exempted from the [Page 398]obligation that lies upon them to obey them, nor be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance which they have taken to them; and that that Do­ctrin ought inviolably to be observed as not only necessary for the publick Peace, but also useful to the Church; And as being conform to the word of God, the Tradition of the Fathers, and the examples of Saints. This now is a positive Doctrin that saith all; and all that I have written upon this Subject, hath only been to exhibit the convincing proofs of all the parts of that Article, which contains so excellent and solid a Declaration.

As to the sacred Faculty of Theology, it hath never failed on any occasion to evidence its zeal for the true Doctrin, authorising and confirming this, by its De­crees, and Censures of the con­trary opinion, from time to time renewed, especially in the years 1413. 1561. 1595. 1610. 1611. 1620. 1726. And lately in the [Page 399]condemnation of an ultramonta­nean Jacobin, by renewing the cen­sure of the Book of Santarelli. This appears still in a stronger and more Authentick manner,Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis, quod sam­mus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi anto­ritatem habeat, imo Facultatem semper ob­stitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantum modo illam Authori­tatem esse voluerunt. by the six Propositions that were presen­ted to the King in the year one thousand six hundred threescore and three, in name of the Facul­ty; By my Lord De Prefixe Arch­bishop of Paris, Visitor of the Sorbonne.

Take here two of them which relate to that Article.

Esse Doctrinam Fa­cultatem ejusdem, quod Rex Christianissimus, nullum omnino in tem­poralibus habet supers­orem praeter Deum, eam (que) esse suam anti­quam Doctrinam, à quâ nunquam recessa­ra sit.The first, That it is not the Do­ctrin of the Faculty, that the Pope hath any Authority over the Tem­poral of the most Chrishian King; that on the contrary it hath al­ways opposed even those who would have that Authority only indi­rect.

The other, That it is the Do­ctrin of the same Faculty, that the most Christian King hath no other Superior in Temporal affairs but God alone; and than that is the [Page 400]ancient Doctrin of the Faculty from which it will never swerve.

After all, these Decrees of the Gallican Church and of the sacred Faculty have always been power­fully supported by the Edicts of the Kings, and the thundring sen­tences of Parliament, against all such as ever durst in France main­tain and teach that pernicious Doctrin condemned by these De­cisions and Censures,Of 2 Decemb. 1561.4 Januar. 1594. 7 & 10 Jan. 1595. 27 May, & 26 Nov. 1610. 27 July 1614. 2 Jan. 1615. &c. which in this Kingdom are reverenced as pro­ceeding from God, upon whose word they are grounded. So that a Doctrin so well established, and which all France look upon as the chief foundation of our Liberties, can never be shaken, much less overturned by Novelty, which, whatsoever effort it may make, shall never amongst us prevail a­gainst Antiquity, to which we will always stick close, as to the Prin­ciple and solid Foundation of true Tradition.

And therefore also it is that the King, as Protector of the Canons of the Councils received in France, and of the Gallican Church in particular, by his perpetual Edict registred in all the Parliaments, not only prohibits all his Subjects, and all strangers within his Kingdom, to teach or write any thing con­trary to the Doctrin contained in the Declaration of the Clergy of France, but also commands all secular and regular Professors to submit to and teach it.

Wherein it is most evident that his Majesty does no more but what many Generals of Orders do, who, for preserving the uni­formity of Doctrin in their Con­gregation as to Points which they look upon to be of great impor­tance for the good and reputa­tion of their Body, oblige their inferiours to maintain and teach certain Opinions which the whole Order hath adopted against others who dispute them. Much more [Page 402]ought it to be lawful for so great a King, so zealous for Religion, and for the Ancient Doctrin, up­on which are founded the invio­lable rights of one of the most August Crowns of Christendom, and liberties of the Gallican Church, to oblige his Subjects, for preservation of Uniformity of Opinion within his Kingdom, as to Points of that importance, to maintain and teach the Doctrin of the Clergy of France, in all things conform to that of the Ancient Church.

And so much I had to say in this Treatise, wherein, always fol­lowing that Principle which both Catholicks and Protestants equal­ly agree to, I have held a mean betwixt the two extremes that ought to be shunned. One is of those, who, blinded by the hatred which they have conceived against the Church of Rome from which they have separated, would take from the Pope the Prerogatives [Page 403]which Antiquity hath believed were given him by Jesus Christ, as Successor of St. Peter. The other of those, who through a zeal not according to knowledg, nay, and if I dare say with those Cardinals of Paul III. through a too great com­pliance with Popes, attribute to them, what Antiquity instructing us by the Fathers, the Councils, and even by the most Ancient and most holy Popes themselves, have believed they never have received from Jesus Christ.

Seeing the mean is the place of Virtue and Truth: I think one cannot mistake the way when he follows Antiquity for his guide, which placing us with it self in that lovely mean, will make us con­demn our Protestants who are in the first extreme, and abandon those who abandon themselves to novelty, under the conduct where­of they are fallen into the other extremity.

Now if it be said to me that these new Authors, who have fal­len into that which I call the second extreme, have only done so out of the great zeal which they have for Religion: It will be easie for me to answer with the great Pope St. Leo, That many times Men carry on their private interests under a specious pre­text of Piety, Privatae causae pieta­tis aguntur obtentu, & c [...]piditatum quisque suarum Religionem habet velut pedisse­quam. St. Leo Epist. 25. ad Theodos. Imper. and that every one maketh Religion to be the handmaid of his lusts and desires. The truth is, it may very well be, that the lustre of the Purple, wherewith at Rome the three Authors who have most highly exalted the Power of Popes, by raising it beyond all the bounds that Antiquity prescribed to it, were cloathed, may have daz­led the Eyes of that croud of Mo­dern who have followed them, and who for all that, what ever they may have expected, never received a like reward.

But not to Judge of the secret motives of their Heart, which it belongs to God alone to dive into, [Page 405]I had rather Answer with Vincen­tius Lirinensis, one of the most zealous Defenders of the true Do­ctrin: Mos iste semper in Ecclesiâ viguit, ut quo quisque religiosior foret, Vincent. Lerin. l. 1. Commonit. c. 3. eo promptius novellis adventionibus contrairet. It hath always been the custom in the Church, that the more of Piety and Religion any one had, the more ready he was to oppose all new in­ventions in Doctrin.

And to conclude my Work with the excellent words of the same Author, I should be glad that Men would think that in composing it I have had no other design but to discharge the duty of a good Ca­tholick, by doing what he enjoyns me, when he says:

Christianus Catholicus providebit ut Antiquitati inhaereat, quae prorsus non potest ab ulla Novitatis fraude seduci.

The Catholick Christian will have great care to stick close to Anti­quity, which cannot be deceived by the artifice of Novelty.