Advice to the Reader.

THis Treatise being written two years since, and several Copies thereof dispers'd among divers persons of Condition; it was deemed the conjuncture of the present Affairs might render the Publication of it necessary for the benefit both of the Church and the State: But it is thought fit to advertise, that the Author of this Piece having made use in it of some Memoires concerning Infallibility, which he had before prepar'd; these Notes happening to fall into the hands of a person of small Iudgment, he caused them to be printed under the Title of A Defence of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, &c. adding of himself a great many impertinent and indiscreet particulars, which have exceedingly disfigur'd these Memoires.

IT does not suffice that our Divines have represented to the Church the Exorbitances of the New Heresie of the Iesuites in what concerns Religion and the honour of God, to whom they would equal a mortal man by a most sacrilegious impiety; the faithful servants of the King find themselves oblig'd likewise to elevate their voices, and to represent those pernicious Consequences as to what regards the safety of his Sacred Person, and the good of his Estate.

The Apostle S. Peter establishes for the two principal parts of Piety, the Fear of God, and the Honour which is due to Kings: Deum timete, Regem honorificate. If these Divines have satisfied the first of these obligations, by the just aversion they have stirr'd up in all pious persons to the pernicious adulation of the Iesuites, which they have discover'd to be no less then a kind of Idolatry: it were but reasonable that others should satisfie the second, by inspiring all those who bear any love or affection to their King, with the horrour which they ought to have of a Doctrine which may prove to funest to his Person, and is in danger of ravishing from him the most august and supreme Quality that he has receiv'd from God, which is to depend on him alone in Temporals, and to be independent of all other Powers upon the face of the Earth.

True it is, that his Majesty has already been advertis'd of it, and has clearly perceiv'd by that light and vivacity of spirit which all Europe admires in a Prince so young, of what pernicious Consequence this novel Doctrine was which they would introduce into his State, and the advantage which they might take to establish their pretensions, who design nothing more then to reach the Heads of Kings, and even subject them in Temporals.

It were fit therefore that all the world knew as much, that those who are not sensibly touch'd with the prospect of an Error so prejudicial to Religion, (as falsly imagining it to concern the Divines onely) may at least be affected with the consideration of the prejudice which it may bring to the State, and to the sacred and inviolable rights of the Crowns of our Kings.

But since the address which has been made use of by the Partisans of those corrupt Opinions has been to infuse it into the minds of the people masked under the vizor of Religion and respect to the Pope, and to decry the opposers of it as enemies to the holy See; it is necessary we should defeat their artifice by discovering it to the world, and by teaching them to distinguish (as our fathers have done before us) the Apostolical See from the Court Politick of Rome, which are things totally different: For that which we are to understand by the Apostolical Seat is, that Spiritual Authority of the Head of the Church which Iesus Christ gave to S. Peter, residing in the Pope, and which all Christians are oblig'd to acknowledge and reverence, by an inseparable union with it, as the very center of the Communion of the Church. But the Court Politick of Rome is nothing else but that Swarm of Courtiers who are about the Pope's person to advance their fortunes, and thrust themselves into Church-Dignities; and the person of Popes consider'd not as Popes, but as Men, who being as obnoxious as others to their Ambition and other humane passions, suffer themselves to be often transported by the adulation of their Courtiers, to attribute to themselves, without reason, Rights and Prerogatives which God never gave them, and that are equally prejudicial to the Sovereignty of Kings, the repose of the People, the tranquillity of the Church, the good of the Catholick Religion, and, in fine, to the true and solid grandeur of the holy See it self.

In this sense it is we shall speak of the Court of Rome in the present Treatise, as so many great persons and Saints have already done, by opposing themselves to their unjust pretensions, without at all thinking they did thereby in the least violate the respect which they ow'd the Pope as Head of the Church; to which they, on the contrary, believ'd these Opinions must needs be most disadvantageous. And we have so much the more liberty to doe it now, since the moderation of the present Incumbent speaks him very far from these ambitious thoughts.

Now amongst all these illegitimate Usurpations of the Court of Rome thus considered, there has none of them proved more funest to Christian Princes, the Church, and even to Popes themselves, then that by which some of them have been transported to domineer over Kings, to make themselves their Superiours and Judges in the administration of their Kingdoms, and by pretending of a right, when they fansied it for the cause of Religion, to depose them of their Empires, and give their Estates to others, or to abandon them to the first Usurper who had power to make himself Master.

It's impossible to describe those horrid Confusions which this pretence of theirs hath brought forth in Italy and in Germany for so many Ages together, the Warrs it has kindled, the Bloud it has made to be spilt, the Provinces it has rendred desolate, the Cities it has ruin'd, the Scandals and Disorders which it has filled the Church with: But one of its worst effects is, that it has render'd the holy See (which should as well be the centre of the love of Catholicks, as of the Unity of the Church) odious both to Kings and People, by making them to look upon the Vicar of Iesus Christ not as a common Father, full of tenderness for all his Children; but as a Temporal Prince, that would trample all other Princes under his feet, and render himself absolute Master of all the Kingdomes of the Earth. This is one of the main causes which has made so many people revolt against the Church of Rome, and the most usual pretence which they have taken to hinder many Christians from paying that observance to Popes which they are oblig'd to render them, by confounding it with these odious excuses. For having once anticipated the People with this erroneous opinion, That one could not acknowledge in the Pope that real Authority which Iesus Christ has given him, without owning that also which these Sycophants attribute to him over Temporals and States; they have by an hateful Schism kept them from acknowledging the Pope as Head of the Church, for fear lest they should be bound likewise to own him for their King and Master.

It concerns the Church therefore to take away this color from Schism, which is the greatest of all mischiefs, by separating the Spiritual power of the Sovereign Bishop, as it has been instituted by Iesus Christ, and acknowledg'd by all Catholicks, from this false and exorbitant power, which Ambition and Flattery would adde to it, repugnant to the spirit of Iesus Christ and the Doctrine of the Apostles.

And therefore we must needs confess, that the Zeal of the Parliaments of France for the maintenance of the Sovereignty of Kings against the enterprises of those who, subverting the Order of God, would have it to depend upon this Spiritual Jurisdiction, is no less advantageous to the Church then to the State; and that, on the other part, there is nothing more prejudicial to them both, then that low and fleshly prudence of these Theologues, who think to exalt the divine Grandeur of the prime Minister of the new Law, which wholly consists in the love to eternal good things, and in the despising of the things of this World, by secular and temporal advantages which God did never annex to him; or that seek to enlarge their fortunes by this pretended Zeal for the enlargement of the Authority of the Pope.

'Tis known to the whole World, that the Iesuites have within these hundred years been the chief defenders of these ambitious pretences, and that their Society has employ'd the most renown'd of its Writers to disseminate this Doctrine every-where: It is this which has been taught by In his Book of the King, and his Institut. Iohn Mariana, Tom. 3. disp. 1. q. 12. puncto 2. Gregorie de Valentia, Tom. 4. par. 3. tr. 4 par. 411. Alphonsus Salmeron, In his Truth defended under the name of Francis des Montaignes, p. 70. Ludovicus Richome, Of Iustice and Right, tom. 1. tr. 2. disp. 19. Louys Molina, In his Controversies, tom. 1. of the Pope, l. 5. c. 6. and in his Book against Barclay. Robert Bellarmine, In his Sermons of Saints, Sermon of the Charity of S. Peter, pag. 70. Iohannes Osorius, In his Amphitheatre of honour, lib. 1. ca. 12. Carolus Scribanius, In his Letter to a French Friend, approv'd by the general Aquaviva, pag. 11. Andrew Eudemon, Moral Instructions, tom. 2. l. 4. c. 19. Iohannes Azor, In his Treatise of mitigation towards the Catholicks of England. Robert Parsons, Tom. 5. of Censures, disp. 15. sect. 6. num. 7. p. 270. and in-his Book intituled, The Defence of the Catholick Faith, &c. l. 3. c. 22. and 23. and l. 6. c. 4. and 8. where he teaches prodigicus things against the life of Kings, as this detestable Position, Rex talis post depositionem incipit esse tyrannus titulo, quia non est legitimus Rex; nec justo titulo regnum possidet: Ergò extunc poterit tanquam omnino tyrannus tractari, & consequenter à quocunque privato poterit interfici. Francis Suarez, In par. disp. 87. resp. ad 3. rat. & tom. 2. in c. 2. disp. 169. c. 4. n. 43. Edit. Antuerp. an. 1621. Gabriel Vasquez, Of Iustice and Right, l. 2. c. 1.33. dub. 2. and in other Books, one of which is intituled An Apologetical Dispute for the Power of the high Priest. Leonardus Lessius, In his Book Heretic Chauvesouris, or Vespertilio, concerning the excellency of the Iesuites Order, pag. 158, & 159. Iacobus Gretserus, In his Controversie of England 1. edit. p. 108, 125, 127, 136. and 2. edit. p. 122, 140, 142, 152. Martinus Becanus, Of Apostasie and Schism, c. 30, and 31. Antonius Santarellus, In his Treatise of Controversies in particular, c. 6. q. 10. Vincentius Filiutius, Tractat. 2. disput. 2. q. 5. art. 102. Stephen Bauny, &c.

On the contrary, it is well known what extraordinary care the Parliaments of Paris and the Universities of France have taken to repress the Authors of these pernicious Opinions; the one by their Arrests, and the other by their Censures.

It's above an hundred years since, that the Parliament of Paris gave a famous Arrest upon this Subject, the 4 of December, 1561. against a certain Bachelour in Divinity, who had put it into his Thesis, That it was in the Power of the Pope to excommunicate Kings, to give away their Kingdoms, and to absolve their Subjects of their Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity. This Proposition was declar'd seditious; the Bachelour being not to be found, it was order'd that the Bedel of the Sorbon vested in a red Hood should disavow it before a President of the Court, and the chief of the Faculty of Divinity; and that during four years space there should no publick Disputation be permitted in the College where it was defended. This whole affair is twice told us in the Bibliothec du Droit, under the words Interdictions, p. 4478. and Effigies, p. 1110. And Bouchel, who is the Author of this Bibliotheca, in reciting of this History adds this Remark; The plain truth is, that within these fifty years past there is come a certain new Sect to be planted amongst us, called by the name of Jesuites, who maintain Propositions quite contrary to ours, to the very ruine of the State.

The same Parliament testifies its zeal for the Interests of the King and Crown upon several other occasions; as when it condemn'd to the fire the 8 of Iune 1610. the Book of the Iesuite Mariana, intituled, De Rege & Regis institutione; and that after the same manner Iū. 26. 1614. it treated that of Suarez, intitul'd, Defensio Fidei Catholicae.

But there was never any thing more celebrious upon this subject then that which pass'd 1626. in the censure of Santarel. This Iesuite had written a Book of Heresie, Schism, Apostasie, &c. printed at Rome 1625. permissu superiorum, in which (following the common sentiments of his Society) he taught, That the Pope might punish Kings and Princes with temporal pains, depose and deprive them of their Kingdoms and States for the crime of Heresie, and for other causes; as when they were culpable of any fault, if he find it expedient; when they become negligent of their duties; when they are incapable to govern, and their persons burthensome to their Kingdoms: He adds, That the Apostles were not subject to the secular Princes but de facto onely, not de jure; and in summe, that since the Pontifical Majesty had been establish'd, all other Potentates were become but his Vassals.

So soon as ever this Book appear'd in France, the Sorbon, knowing that the Doctrine was invented and publish'd for the universal destruction of Civil Polity, and particularly the Monarchy of France, which was at that time governed by the most Christian, most clement and just King Lewis the XIIIth, that in treading the steps of their Ancestors, she might testifie her zeal and affection as well towards this Religious Prince, as towards the whole most Christian Kingdom, and at the same time satisfie that which all honest men requir'd of her; resolv'd to examine the two Chapters of this Book of Santarel, 30, and 31, where this matter was treated of: And on the 1 of April 1626. having first heard the Deputies report, and consider'd the several Opinions of all the Doctors, she condemn'd the Positions (being the common Opinion of the Iesuites) for a novel, false and erroneous Doctrine, repugnant to the Word of God, and that renders odious the dignity of the Pope, opens a gap to all Schism, derogates from the Supreme Authority of Kings, (which depends on God alone) disturbs the publick tranquillity, tends to the ruine of Kingdoms, States and Republicks, debauches Subjects from that Obedience and Submission due to their Sovereigns, inciting them to Factions, Rebellions, Seditions, in summe, to commit Parricides against the persons of their natural Princes.

This Censure approved by the whole Body of the University of Paris, and the rest of the Universitics of France, was authoriz'd also by a famous Decree of Parliament of the 13. March 1626. which declared the Propositions contain'd in this Book of Santarel false, scandalous and seditious, as tending to the subversion of Sovereign Powers, ordain'd and establish'd by God, and to the stirring up of Subjects against their Princes, withdrawing their Obedience, inducing them to attempt against their Persons and States, disturbing of the publick peace; and order'd that the Book should be torn and burnt, and that the Iesuites should be oblig'd to disavow and detest it, and to approve the Censure of the Sorbon.

This vigorous resistence of the Parliament and Sorbon has of late render'd the Iesuites a little more reserv'd in producing to the world this pernicious Doctrine. But as they never abandon what they have once undertaken, they have invented a way of establishing it after a more dextrous, but more dangerous, manner: for daring no more to propose it grossly and in terminis, they work more subtily to introduce the Principles on which it depends by necessary consequence; wisely judging, that if once by their artifice they can but deceive the vigilancy of our Magistrates and the Sorbon, they shall easily make the People swallow it when-ever they please, and that as a Truth indubitable, which they will shew by a necessary consequence from what they have already made pass for a most Catholick Verity.

This is that which the Iesuites have done in maintaining that famous Thesis of the 12 December 1661▪ as a Catholick Truth repugnant to the Greek Heresie concerning the Primacy of the Pope, namely, That Jesus Christ hath given to all Popes (whenever they shall speak è Cathedra) the same Infallibility himself had, as well in matters of Right, as in those of Fact.

And that we might not imagine there were any great mystery in this condition, When they should speak out of their Chair, Cùm loquerentur ex Cathedra, they expresly declare, that this Condition does not concern the Pope's speaking in the head of a General Council: And in proposing for example, for one Constitution made ex Cathedra, the two Constitutions on the Five Propositions, they give us clearly to understand, that they do not pretend, that to the end the Pope should speak from his Chair, it were necessary for him to assemble so much as a Council of the Bishops of his Province, as the other Popes did; or that he should consult the College of Cardinals, as they have since done, (enterprising nothing (how inconsiderable soever) but by the advice of their Brethren, De consilio Fratrum;) but that 'tis sufficient for him to speak in his Bulls, or from the Constitutions and Decrees which use to be pasted up on the Gates of S. Peter and in Campo de Fiori; this being the onely solemnity which at Rome they pretend does render them sufficiently authentick, and that without so much as thinking it necessary they should be receiv'd and publish'd in the Provinces.

See now to what a height the Iesuites pretensions are come. All that the Popes say in their Bulls and Constitutions, as well on matters and questions of Fact as those of Right, is to be look'd on as indubitably true as if Iesus Christ had himself avow'd it; the Pope's Infallibility being still the same, (according to their reckoning) on these occasions and incounters, as that of the Son of God himself.

Now how little so ever one knows of the Fundamentals of Santarellism, that is to say, of the Doctrine which affirms the Pope has power to depose Kings, it must needs be acknowledged that it is establish'd by this Thesis of the Iesuites, and that it is after a sort made more pernicious and criminal then ever it has hitherto been. For the defenders of this Doctrine, so prejudicial to Kings, were contented to establish this temporal power in Popes, by shewing that they themselves did attribute it to themselves by several Bulls and Decrees; and that so we were bound to believe them, as being infallible in matters concerning Faith. But there was none of them that yet durst deny but that Popes might fail and be mistaken in the exercise of this power, because none of them did ever think them infallible in Questions which concern'd the Fact; whereas the Iesuites now presume on both: They render Popes absolutely Masters of Kings, in attributing to them (who by so many Bulls have defin'd their Superiority over the Temporalty of Kings) the very same Infallibility with Iesus Christ, even in matters of Right; so as they leave a King whom a Pope had deposed no place of appeal, or so much as to complain that the Pope might be mistaken in the matter of Fact, upon which they had judged him worthy of so severe a punishment: since by this new Doctrine of the College of Clermont he is equally infallible, whether he judge in general, that he has this power to depose Kings, which is the Question de jure; or in particular, that such a King merits to be so us'd, which is the Question de facto. We must therefore clear these two points; One, that the Infallibility of the Pope in matters of Right is, according to the Iesuites, the establishment of his Power over Kings; the other, that his Infallibility in matters of Fact takes away all means from the Kings they please to depose, to complain of so rigorous a Sentence.

For the first, 'tis an easie matter to convince all the world of it: nor ought we to imagine it a Consequence held onely by those who profess themselves enemies to the Iesuites Doctrine, and which the Iesuites disavow; 'tis a Consequence which they themselves derive from it, which they every-where acknowledge must needs follow, and which does so indeed naturally and of necessity. For Popes (as Iesuites themselves have learn'd us,) have so many waies decided that they have power to degrade Kings, and dispose of their Kingdoms when-ever they judge it for the interest of Religion; that if to be Catholick one is oblig'd to consider all that Popes say in their Chair, that is, by their Bulls, as Decisions of infallible authority, and Oracles pronounc'd even by Christ himself, Kings, their Ministers and Parliaments, must either renounce the quality of Catholick, or else tamely acknowledge that Kings are Sovereigns independent in respect of their own Subjects and other Princes, but nothing so in regard of the Pope, but that he has power to make them descend from their Throne, and to resolve them into their simple Originals; so as exercising a Royalty superiour to theirs, it may be said of his Empire as an heathen Poet said of that of God, Omne sub regno graviore regnum est.

All this is an infallible consequent of Infallibility, as the Iesuites well prove. For who can chuse but believe that Popes have the power to depose Kings, if once he be persuaded that their Decisions are so many Articles of Faith; when it shall be shew'd him that Gregory the VIIth has decided it in express terms in a Council held at Rome, Anno 1067, according to Onuphrius, Baronius, and all the Iesuites, Quòd Papae liceat Imperatores deponere; quòd à Fidelitate iniquorum subditos potest absolvere? Whence In Apol. pro potest. sum. Pontif. part. 2. sect. 3. fol. 396. Planè tenendum est hanc doctrinam non esse ambiguam, ità ut utrumque opinari liceat; sed omnino certum, ità ut absque injuria fidei negari non possit. Primò igitur id probo, Quia hae Propositiones in terminis definitae sunt in Concilio Romano, Quòd Papae liceat Imperatores deponere, quòd à Fidelitate iniquorum subditos potest absolvere. Atqui definitio facta à summo Pontifice cum Synodo ad Fidem pertiner. Lessius the Iesuite concludes (supposing the Principle of Infallibility) That this Doctrine is no problematick Doctrine, but a constant Truth, not to be deny'd without violation of our very Faith. We must absolutely believe (says he) that this Doctrine (viz. that the Pope may depose Kings,) is an undoubted truth, and not such as we may believe what we please of; but such an one as is intirely certain, not to be contradicted without wounding our Faith. And this I prove, first, Because these Propositions are defin'd in proper terms in the Roman Synod under Gregory the VIIth, where it is affirm'd, that the Pope may depose Emperours, and absolve the Subjects of wicked Princes from their Oath of Allegiance and Fidelity. Now a Definition made by a Pope in Council is matter of Faith.

This is clear now without mincing, nor can it be more expresly declar'd that the power to depose Kings is a necessary consequent of Infallibility; so as those Iesuites must needs be very impudent who shall after this dare to affirm, that they are their Enemies who derive this sequel from their Doctrine.

The Iesuite Cardinal Bellarminus sub nomine Sculkenii adversus Widringtonum. Haereticum est dicere Pontificem, ut Pontificem, & ex jure divino, non habere potestatem Principes seculares suo Principatu exuendi, cùm id bonum spirituale sive ingens Ecclesiae necessitas requirit. Probatur Conclusio. Ista sententia est haeretica cujus contradictoria est de Fide: Sed Pontificem habere potestatem deponendi Principes est de Fide: est enim definitum & conclusum à Gregorio VII. in Concil. Rom. Quòd Papae liceat, &c. Bellarmine, under the feign'd name of Sculkenius, writing against Widrington, proves in the same manner by this Gregorian Decree, that the Pope's Superiority over Kings is an Article of Faith, 'Tis an Heresie (saies he) to affirm that the Pope, as Pope, and ex jure divino, has not the power to depose Secular Princes of their States, as oft as the publick good or some urgent necessity of the Church does require it. I prove this Conclusion. An Opinion becomes heretical when its contradictory is de Fide: But it is de Fide that the Pope has power to depose Princes; since it has been defin'd and concluded by Gregory the VIIth in a Roman Council, where it saies expresly, That the Pope may depose an Emperour.

Now who can deny this Conclusion that holds but the Principle, which is, That what has been defin'd and concluded by a Pope is de Fide? Is not this Argument of the Cardinal invincible, supposing the Maxime to be true? By consequent then, who can doubt but that, according to the Iesuites opinion and the truth it self, the power of deposing Kings is in the Pope a certain Consequence of his Infallibility?

The same Gregory the VIIth has so often decided the same Point, that no man questions his pretence of making it an Article of Faith; as may yet be seen in the Bull of the Deposition of the Emperor Henry the IVth, made likewise in Council, where, addressing his speech to S. Peter and S. Paul, he thus expostulates.

Now therefore exert and vindicate your power, O great and most holy Princes of the Apostles, that all the world may take notice and acknowledg, that if you can bind and loose in Heaven, you can also on Earth dispose of Empires, of Kingdoms, Principalities and Marquisates, in summe, of all mens goods and fortunes whatsoever, by taking them away from those who deserve them not, and by bestowing them on others.—For if you judge things Spiritual, shall we believe you have not the power to judge of Temporal and Secular? Let all the Kings and Princes of the Age learn what your grandeur is and your power, and not dare to despise the Commandments of your Church: and be sure to leave such prompt and lasting marks in the judgment which you exercise against Henry, that his ruine be not attributed to the fate of arms or fortuitous accidents of War, but to your sole and almighty power.

In consequence of this he denounc'd to the Emperor, as from God, that he should never win battel. But if Popes are infallible according to the Iesuites in actions past, 'tis certain, at least, that they are not in those which are to come. For never did Prince gain so many, remaining Victor in more then 50 pitch'd Battels, and having at the very first slain the person whom his Holiness had design'd to make Emperor in his place.

I could recount a number more of Passages relating to the same Pope, where he argues for the same Doctrine, as visibly founded in the Scripture, and annex'd to the Papal dignity. For 'tis not imaginable that he should pretend onely this right over Emperors, because the Popes had so much contributed to the re-establishment of the Western Empire. On the contrary, 'tis perspicuous that his pretence was over all Kings, and that it was built on that Supposition of his, viz. that the power of the Keys contain'd in it the Temporal Superiority, which made him set upon the Crown he sent to Rodulphus, Usurper of the Empire, this Latin Verse, Petra dedit Petro, Petrus Diadema Rodulpho. To shew that he believ'd he had power to dispose of Kingdoms by a right pretended to be given S. Peter by Iesus Christ himself. 'Tis likewise on the same basis he threatned Alphonsus King of Arragon, to stir up his Subjects against him, if he gave him not speedy satisfaction concerning a certain affair: As, according to Cardinal Bellarmine, he brav'd Philip the Ist King of France, to shew that he exempted none.

But nothing does so evidently discover that one cannot acknowledge the Pope to be infallible, but that at the same moment we must acknowledge him likewise above Kings in Temporals, as that famous Decision of Pope Boniface the VIIIth has done in the Bull Unam Sanctam, approv'd by Leo the Xth in the Council of Lateran; and the use which the favourers of the Roman Court make of this Bull to establish its pretensions.

There this Pope defines, That both the one and the other Sword appertains to the Church, and to the Pope: That the Temporal Sword is subordinate to the Spiritual, and the Temporal Authority to the Authority Spiritual: That if this Spiritual power deviate from the right, it must be judg'd by the Spiritual authority: That this power was bestow'd on S. Peter and his Successors: and That whoever resists this Subordination of Power, resists Order, in establishing two Principles like the Manichees. Whence he concludes, that it is necessary to Salvation, that every humane power should submit it self to the Bishop of Rome.

Cardinal Bellarmine, a Iesuite, in his Book against Barclay concerning the Power of the Pope, proves by this Bull, that Kings are subject to the Pope in Temporals; and this Doctrine is certain and most indubitable. Now that it is (saies he) a thing constant and evident, that the Sovereign Bishop may for just causes be Iudge of Temporals, and sometimes depose Temporal Princes, we prove by the Extravagant Unam Sanctam de majoritate & obedientia, which shews us that Sword is subordinate to Sword; that is, that the Temporal Authority is below the Spiritual: and that if the Temporal neglect his duty, it shall be judged by the Spiritual. And for fear it should be objected, that Clement the Vth seems to have revok'd this Bull by the Extravagant Meruit de privilegiis; he prevents the Objection by saying, that Clement the V•h did not revoke the Bull of Pope Boniface, but advertis'd onely that this Bull of Boniface had defin'd nothing new, and had onely reviv'd the ancient obligation which men have to obey and submit themselves to the Apostolicall See, in the manner he had before declar'd, and which this Bull does observe; that is to say, as well in Temporal things as Spiritual.

Alexander Carrerius of Pavia, in a Book intituled De potestate Primi Pontificis adversus impios Politicos, Of the power of the Sovereign Bishop against the impious Politicians, (which is the name he gives to the French, and particularly the Parliament,) proves by the same Bull, that the Superiority over Kings in Temporals is an Article of Faith. This Power of the Pope (saies he) over the Temporals of Kings is confirm'd by the testimony of Jeremiah;Jer. 1.10. See I have this day set thee over the Nations and Kingdoms to pull down and to destroy, &c. as 'tis also decided by the Extravagant Unam Sanctam; where 'tis said, that if the Temporal power deviate from the right, it shall be judged by the Spiritual, declaring that every humane creature is subject to the Bishop of Rome, and that this is necessary to Salvation. Therefore Boniface writ to Philip King of France in these terms: Know that you are subordinate to us both in the Temporal and Spiritual; and we do hold and declare them Hereticks who maintain the contrary. For there are three marks whereby to distinguish matters of Faith. The first is, When the Decrees of a Synod are couched in these terms, If any one affirm such or such a thing, let him be accursed. The second, when it saies that those who maintain the contrary shall be Excommunicate ipso facto. And the third, when those of the contrary opinion are reputed and held for Hereticks.

In fine, Cardinal Baronius having in a certain place mentioned the very Bull, concludes, that none do deny this Determination of Boniface, unless such as are excluded from the Church: Haec Bonifacius, saies he, cui assentiuntur omnes nisi qui ab Ecclesia excidit. And very well argu'd it were, if to be a member of the Catholick Church it were necessary to believe the Pope infallible; since there is nothing more trifling and absurd then those Subterfuges which some Authors retire to, to put themselves under covert from this Bull, because they would fain support the Pope's Infallibility, but dare not maintain his Temporal Sovereignty in France.

The chief of these is Doctour Duval, who, in his Treatise of the Power of the Pope, avows that Boniface the Eighth did establish his Superiority over the Temporalty of Kings through the whole body of his Bull; but saies, that in all the Bulls there is nothing save the Conclusion which is of Faith, and that the Conclusion of this in particular imports onely, that every creature is subject to the Pope: which is true (saies he) as it relates to Spirituals.

Certainly, if the Authority of Kings had need of so pitiful a Reply, one would conclude it built on a very weak foundation, Nullas habet spes Troja, si tales habet.

For what appearance of Reason is there in this learned Doctor's Solution?

1. How does he pretend we should believe that a Pope, who makes a Bull onely to establish his Superiority over Temporals, (which is the thing contested, and not over the Spirituals, which no body does dispute) and that he who speaks throughout his whole Bull of this Superiority in Temporals, should in the last line form a Conclusion different from the Principles which he has establish'd, and that we are onely to regard this last line?

2. The word subesse indifferently signifying a subjection in Temporals as well as in Spirituals, is it not clearly express'd and determin'd to Temporals by all that precedes it?

3. How shall we ever comprehend what a Bull means but by the way it was then understood when it was made, as well by those who oppos'd it, as those who defended it? and do not we know the troubles which then disturb'd all France and the Church caus'd by this pretence of the Pope, maintain'd by his Partisans, and contested by all the French?

4. In fine, has not Boniface himself explain'd his own words by another Bull shorter then this, which he sent to King Philip in these terms, Scire te volumus, quòd in Spiritualibus & in Temporalibus nobis subes; aliud credentes, Haereticos deputamus? Whence Carrerius, as we have already seen, concludes well, (supposing the Pope infallible) that those who disagree concerning the Pope's Superiority over the Temporals of Kings are Hereticks.

And the French of those times, without amusing themselves with Monsieur Duval's Sophistry, answered after another manner, and sufficiently testified, that the opinion of Infallibility was not so much as known in France. See an Act of the whole Kingdom against these Bulls of Boniface VIIIth, as 'tis inserted in the first Tome of the Liberties of the Gallican Church.

Of You, Sir, our most Noble Lord, by the Grace of God King of France, the people of Your Kingdom supplicate and desire, (because it behoves them so to doe) that You preserve the Sovereign Freedom of your Kingdom, which is, that You own and acknowledge no Sovereign on the Earth over Your Temporals, but God alone; and that You give all the World to understand, that Pope Boniface does manifestly erre, and commit a most notorious mortal sin, in sending You word by his Letters and Bulls, that himself was Sovereign of Your Temporals, &c. and those who should believe the contrary, he esteem'd as Hereticks. Also that You cause to be declared, that we are bound to hold the Pope himself an Heretick, and not You, good King, and all the liege people of Your Kingdom, who have ever believed and do believe the contrary.

The same Protestation is to be seen in several Acts inserted in that Collection which Mons. du Puy has made of the difference between King Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface; where you'l see how Pope Boniface's Bulls were then explain'd, and what was the opinion of France touching Infallibility.

'Tis in vain to strive to make any other replies to these kind of Popes Decrees, then such as the French of that Age did before us. For as there's nothing to which the Court of Rome aspires with greater passion then to this Temporal Empire; so neither is there any thing which the Popes have establish'd with so much industry.

Cardinal Bellarmine summs up no less then 18 since Gregory the VIIth to our times, who manifestly attributed to themselves this right (as they call'd it) of deposing Kings, and chastising them temporally, even to the privation of their States; viz. Victor the IIId, Urban the IId, Paschal the IId, Gelasius the IId, Calixtus the IId, Alexander the IIId, Innocentius the IIId, Honorius the IIId, Gregory the IXth, Innocent the IVth, Boniface the VIIIth, Clement the VIth, Paul the IId, Iulius the IId, Paeul the IIId, Pius the Vth, Gregory the XIIIth, and Sixtus the Vth.

He counts to 16 or 17 Kings and Emperours against whom Popes have pretended this right of Sovereignty as a debt due to them; amongst which there are 5 French Kings, Philip the Ist, Philip the Fair, Lewis the XIIth, Henry the IIId, and Henry the IVth.

Baronius mentions also the Excommunication of a world of Germans, who are not yet well agreed concerning the Pope's Power: by which it appears that they alwaies pretended to make it an Heresie when at any time they were the strongest party.

Nor is there any thing more frequent in these Bulls then their menacing Kings and Princes to deprive them of their States, in case of Disobedience. Which universally betraies that Passion which the Court of Rome has to infuse this belief into the minds of the People.

But if one could forget those other enterprises of Rome against our Kings, which are founded upon this pretented Superiority, as this Superiority is upon Infallibility, since France has so universally hindred their effects; yet we cannot but remember that which made us lose Navarre, because the wound is yet bleeding. Ferdinand had no other pretext to swallow it up from Iohn d' Albret, Great-Grandfather to Henry the Great, besides a Bull which he obtain'd of Iulius the IId against the King and Queen of Navarre, importing Privation of their Kingdom for having assisted Lewis the XIIth, whom it call'd Schismatick, and as having denied passage to the Army which Ferdinand King of Arragon would have sent into France to assist the King of England in the conquest of Guienne.

I know very well that Cardinal du Perron, to render this Doctrine of the Power of Popes over the Temporals of Kings less odious to the French, tells us, that the real cause of the loss of the Kingdom of Navarre was the breach of the Alliance which the King of Navarre had with Ferdinand King of Arragon, which Ferdinand pretended to have been establish'd on condition, that if the Kings of Navarre should violate it, the Kingdom of Navarre should again revert to the Spaniards, who had render'd it by deed in Writing to the race of Albret; and that Pope Iulius's Excommunication was neither the true Cause, nor real Pretence, but a certain tail of a Pretence, which though Ferdinand had made no use of, he had notwithstanding pretended that the Kingdom of Navarre appertain'd to him, and consequently possess'd it.

But I know as well too, that there is nothing worse founded then this answer, as Mons. du Puy has made appear by most invincible proofs in his Treatise of the Right of the King to the Kingdom of Navarre.

For he does there prove by the Spanish Historians themselves, that Ferdinand during the Usurpation, and whiles he liv'd, had onely the Title by the Pope's Excommunication to justifie his Arms. He shews how Ferdinand having swallow'd up this Kingdom 1512, and being press'd by the King of Navarre 1513 to doe him reason, defended his possession by no other right but by that of the Excommunication; and that in the two most authentick Acts on this subject, one whereof is the Will and Testament of Ferdinand, by which he bequeaths the Kingdom of Navarre to his Daughter Iane Queen of Castile, and the other of the Union of that Kingdom to that of Castile, it is expresly signified, that Iohn d' Albret and Catharine his Wife had been depriv'd of it by the Pope, for having adher'd to the Schism of the French Kings against Pope Iulius the IId; and that the Pope had given him this Kingdom to dispose of as he pleas'd. I omit the other proofs. Which sufficiently shews that the Pope's Bull was no tail of Pretext, but indeed the onely and sole Pretence of that unjust Usurpation which continues to this very day.

In the second place, there is nothing more absurd then to say that the Spaniards had never rendred the Kingdom of Navarre to the race of Albret, but with this written Caution, That if their Successors should violate the Alliance, the Kingdom should revert to the Spaniards. For Iean d' Albret (on whom was the Usurpation) was the first of Albret's race who possess'd the Kingdom. How then could it be said that the Spaniards had render'd it to Albret's race, who before never enjoy'd it? And supposing we did take the word render'd for given; it is no less false that the Spaniards (were they of Arragon, or Castile) gave this Kingdom to the race of Albret, who in no sort held it of the Spaniards but by the Marriage of Catharine, who succeeded King Francis Phoebus his Brother, and Francis Phoebus to Elianor his Grandmother, wife of Gastion de Foix, and sole superviving Daughter of Blanch Queen of Navarre, which Lady had espous'd Iohn King of Arragon the Father of Ferdinand, who being born of another Venter had nothing to doe with Navarre: So as this pretended Caution can be no other then a mere impertinent Fable without any foundation, since the Spaniards having neither render'd nor given the Kingdom of Navarre to the race of Albret, they could never appose any caution or condition either in rendring or bestowing it.

Thirdly, The Spaniards themselves could never yet produce any Treaty of Alliance between the Kings of Arragon and those of Navarre where this Condition was appos'd: though, besides all this, it be beyond the power of Kings to annex any such Condition, since they are not so Masters of their Kingdoms, as to transfer them to any others then those who are their legitimate Successors.

Fourthly, In fine, 'tis plainly false that ever Iohn d' Albret broke any Alliance with Ferdinand; but, on the contrary, Ferdinand it was who invaded Navarre in the month of Iuly Anno 1512, and who made himself master of Pampelona, the capital City of that State, before there were any French in Navarre; which compell'd Iohn d' Albret to throw himself into the arms of Lewis the XIIth, with whom he was before but in ill intelligence, to endeavour to maintain himself against this unjust Usurper, who four months before this Treaty of Iohn d' Albret with Lewis had obtain'd a Bull of Excommunication of the Pope against the King of Navarre, as falsly representing, that being joyn'd with the King of France excommunicated by the holy See, he deny'd the English free passage to enter into Guienne.

It is therefore evident that it is onely this pretended Power which the Flatterers of the Pope have of late Ages attributed to him, to dispossess Kings, and make Donations of their Kingdoms to him that can obtain them, which has cost our Kings the Kingdom of Navarre; since Ferdinand had but this pretence onely to invade it; and all that the Spaniards would add to it since, was never so much as in their heads, because it was out of all probability. And it is still true, that this right is annex'd (by all those who defend it) to this Infallibility.

We see likewise that ever since this, Popes have alwaies favour'd the Usurpation of Navarre, as a mark of the Power which they pretend to have for the deposing of Kings. This is evident by their shunning as much as possible the qualifying our King with the Title of the King of Navarre; as in the Bulls of Cardinal Barberin's Legation 1625, wherein the King being but simply styl'd King of France, it was ordain'd by Parliament, that it should be declar'd by the Pope, that the quality of the King of Navarre had been omitted by inadvertency in the said Bulls, and that till that were rectified the Arrest of Verification should not be delivered, and the Bulls continue without execution in France.

But what they could not then obtain by the wise resistence of the Parliament, they have now found an Expedient to obtain by the credit which the Iesuites have at Court: for finding they had there wrought so great an aversion against the Iansenists, that there was nothing more desir'd then their condemnation; they believ'd they could make it be purchased with the loss of the Quality of King of Navarre: nor were they at all mistaken in their expectation. For Pope Innocent the Xth address'd his Bull to the King by a Breve, wherein he onely styles him King of France; and all who lov'd the State saw with grief that they receiv'd this Breve so injurious to the King with open arms. You see how well the Roman Court knows how to profit on occasions and take her advantage, she never lets any escape which she does not manage with a singular address. But this Breve will one day prove one of its most memorable examples: since under colour of ruining the poor Iansenists, she has open'd a gap to establish two of the most considerable points of her Grandeur, and which have indeed been the most contested in France: The one is, That the Pope alone may decide Poins of Faith with an infallible Authority; the other, That he may give Kingdoms away at pleasure, as Iulius the IId gave that of Navarre to the Spaniards.

By all these proofs 'tis evident that the Superiority of Popes above Kings in Temporals is an inseparable Position of Infallibility, as to the pretence of all those Theologues who are married to the Interest of the Court of Rome, especially the Iesuites: 'Tis also clear that the subtilty of those who have made as if they would separate them hath so little basis, that it were an unworthy and dangerous prevarication in those who are oblig'd to maintain the Supreme Authority of their Prince, but to reduce the Right of Kings, which is certain and indubitable, to so shallow and trifling a defence.

So as the onely means of hindring the establishment of this pernicious Consequence is, to stop that so dangerous a Principle; and above all, not to permit the Iesuites the impudence of making it an Article of Faith, and the carrying it even beyond all sorts of bounds, and to an Infallibility in Questions de facto; which is, in summe, to have given the fatal blow to the ruine of the Royal Throne.

This is easie to prove. For Popes being once establish'd superiour to Temporal Princes in Temporals, as we have shew'd they cannot fail of obtaining, if once we allow them infallible in Questions de jure; what defence remains there to a Prince against the stratagems of this Power, but the pretence of its being possibly miss-inform'd, and that it was mistaken in the grounds on which it proceeded to despoil him of his State?

But what means is there of opposing that pretence against a person who shall be in possession of the same Infallibility with Iesus Christ in matter of Fact? What Christian is there who should dare oppose to Iesus Christ that he is mistaken? and what were there more easie for a Pope then to ruine this defence; since for that he had onely to declare by a Bull that he has well examin'd the Prince's Cause, and that he deserves to be Excommunicated and Depos'd, to oblige all the World to believe that he did merit it indeed?

Nor let any pretend that 'tis not in these kinds of Facts that Popes are infallible: For both the Principles and Reasons of the Iesuites tend to it: And the benefit of the Church (which is the sole foundation of this Imagination) will rather incline to believe, that God is bound to make the Popes as infallible in affairs so important as the subversion of Kingdoms, the consequences whereof are so terrible to Religion it self; as in the judgments which they make, whether there are or are not Errours in a particular Book, which is of it self but of very little consequence.

Now if the Iesuites, without any reason, and from an humane apprehension and fear, should except these Facts, they would not in the least diminish of the pernicious subjects of their Doctrine; because the spirits of those who are once imbu'd with their Opinions would easily break through these weak restraints, in which they made believe they would keep them, and maugre these groundless exceptions carry their corrupt principles to all their natural consequences. So as there is nothing able to oppose the funest effects of this Doctrine, which subjects Kings to a forein Power, whiles they permit this double Infallibility of Fact and Right to subsist, from which 'tis impossible to divorce it.

I very well know that there are some who seek several pretexts to charm the vigilance of Kings and their Ministers, that so they may not perceive how this Doctrine of Infallibility is prejudicial to States.

One of these Pretences is, the affirming that this Infallibility relates to Faith and Doctrine onely, which are things Spiritual, and that have nothing of common with the Temporals of Kings, and the rights of their Crowns.

But there is nothing more unreasonable then this adulterate Colour. For 'tis true, that indeed this temporal is not of Faith it self, nor is the Doctrine the immediate Object of Infallibility: But one cannot without Heresie deny that it may not be the subject and matter of Faith; since 'tis an Article of Faith establish'd both by Gospel and the Apostles, that we ought to pay Tribute to Caesar, which is a temporal thing; and that we owe Obedience to Temporal Princes, not onely to escape the punishment which they may inflict on us if we transgress, but because we are in Conscience also oblig'd to it. Non solùm propter iram, sed etiam propter Conscientiam. So as to persuade Kings that their Temporal is so far remote from Faith, that it can be no matter of Faith, is to dissolve and break the most sacred bond which unites their Subjects to their Empire, to wit, that of Conscience and Religion. Faith is in it self a thing intirely spiritual and divine; but that does no way hinder things humane and temporal from being very often both the subject and matter of it. Warre is a secular thing; yet 'tis matter of Faith to know whether a Christian Prince may make warre: And the Anabaptists erre in matter of Faith, when they maintain that it is unlawful. The power which Magistrates have to put Malefactors to death is a temporal thing; and yet it belongs to Faith to decide whether Iesus Chirst has left this power to Christians or no: and the same Anabaptists, who deny it, are esteem'd Hereticks by the Church. Usury is a temporal thing; yet is it matter of Faith to resolve whether or no it be a sin. In like manner the Power of Kings is temporal; but it concerns Faith to determine whether the power of the Keyes, which Iesus Christ has given to S. Peter, does extend to the breaking of that Obligation and Tie which Subjects have to their Sovereign, by absolving them from their Oaths of Allegiance. It concerns the interpretation of the words of I. Christ, and by consequent has relation to Faith: It imports the extent of the power that Iesus Christ has given the Pope, as his Vicar; which we can know nothing of, but by divine revelation preserv'd in the Scriptures, and by Tradition; and by consequence it is matter of Faith.

It is no way then to be doubted, but the Question whether the Pope have any right to punish Princes with temporal pains, and to devest them of their States, by virtue of that Authority pretended to be given to S. Peter, is no concernment of Faith; and therefore 'tis in earnest a mere mockery, to persuade Kings, that the Pope's Infallibility does not extend to them, whenas in truth there are none whom it so nearly concerns as they; since Popes having so often decided this Right to be theirs, if once the people be suffered to hold them infallible as to what they determin touching Faith, none can hinder them from acknowledging also that they do not erre in their explication of the words of the Gospel touching the Primacy of S. Peter, as of an Empire and Monarchy which extends it self even over the Temporals of Kings.

But, besides this, the question is not of what the thing is in truth, but what 'tis in the opinion of the Iesuites, and that the strive to infuse into the World; seeing from thence it is the ill effects proceed which this unlucky Doctrine may produce: Errour and Superstition being infinitely more capable then either Truth or Religion to engage an abus'd people to Insurrections and disorders more nefarious. Now the Iesuites, as we have already seen, maintain that this Infallibility of the Pope reaches even to the making their Sovereignty over Princes an Article of Faith. It is of Faith (say Bellarmine and Lessius) that the Pope may depose Kings, because Pope Gregory the VIIth has decided it, and that the Decision of a Pope is a point of Faith.

It were to take away all humane Reason, to hinder men from thus arguing; and by consequent to sleep on the point of a Precipice, to suffer the Doctrine of Infallibility to creep into a State, from whence it is impossible but the other must needs spring.

For having once permitted the people to be season'd with this Opinion, and that they are but accustom'd to receive all that Popes pretend in their Bulls, as well concerning matters of Right as of Fact, as if Iesus Christ himself had pronounc'd it; if a Pope please to apply the Infallibility acknowledg'd to be in him, for the determining (as they have frequently done) that by virtue of the power which Iesus Christ has given him to bind and loose whatsoever is on Earth, he has power to depose Kings and absolve their Subjects from their Fidelity, and that such a King merits to be depos'd; it is not to be thought 'twill prove so easie a matter to defend ones self from these Fulminations, by altering the minds of the people in a moment, and persuading them that he whom they took to be then so infallible, is now no such thing, or is not at least in that matter; that is to say, that he is infallible when what he affirms does not concern us, but ceases to be so when it imports us he should not be so. This were to make an ill estimate of the mindes of men, and of the force which custome has over them, to suffer one's self to be dazzled with these vain confidences.

Those Opinions which do by little and little establish their authority in the minds of men, are weak and tender in their infancy and beginning; nor is it then so difficult a matter to extirpate them: but when once time has rooted and confirm'd them, they get dominion of Reason, and discover a tyrannous look against which it dares not so much as lift up its eyes. Capable they are to precipitate it into all manner of excess, and make men violate the rules of very Nature, and the most sacred obligations of civil Society; especially when they happen to be Opinions which possess the spirit by the way of Religion. For men being once persuaded, (and with reason) that they ought to prefer Religion before their lives, their goods, and whatever else they injoy, if in that they chance to be prepossess'd by an errour of dangerous consequence to the Civil state, they maintain and defend it to the utmost. Nulla res multitudinem efficaciùs regit quàm Superstitio. The League, the Guelphs and Gibelines are sanguinary examples of it: so as there is not a more mistaken and wicked policy, then that of those who, minding onely the present Age and their own interest, suffer these Opinions to root themselves; without considering that it is infinitely more easie to hinder their establishment, then to stop their accurs'd effects when once they are confirm'd.

The next Pretence is, to make the world believe that there is no such great reason to apprehend even the Opinion it self of the Pope's Sovereignty over the Temporals of Kings; because, say they, Popes can exercise in so few Instances, that they seldom happen; as in case a Prince fall into a formal Apostasie from the Faith and the Church, to embrace a false Religion. But 'tis in vain these Authors endeavour to excuse this pernicious Doctrine by this false Colour; since those whom they would defend loudly disavow them, as not induring that any should prescribe such narrow bounds to this Temporal Monarchy.

On the contrary, there is nothing (with these Divines) so ordinary, as the Occasions for which they give the Pope this right to depose Kings; so as there is not one in Europe whom they may not justly depose, according to their Maximes, had they but as much power in effect as they conceive themselves to have in right.

Is there any thing more frequent then not to pursue the Pope's intentions in making Warre or Peace? It suffices the Pope (according to the Iesuites) to dispossess a King, whenever he shall conceive Peace or Warre necessary for Religion. This is what Bellarmine teaches in express terms, in his Book against Barclay, cap. 19. And what (saies Barclay) if the Emperour refuse to draw his sword at the command of the Pope, or draw it against his will? I answer, (saies Bellarmine) that if the Emperour will not draw his sword at the command of the Pope, or draw it against his will, and it shall be requisite for the Spiritual weal, he shall force him to doe it by the spiritual Sword; that is, by his Censures, to draw the material Sword, or to sheath it again: and if the Emperour be not concern'd with these Censures, he shall absolve his Subjects from their obedience, the necessity of the Church so requiring, and even take away his Empire from him. 'Tis thus he shall make him know that the Sword is subordinate to the Sword, according to the Bull Unam sanctam; and that they both belong to the Church, though not after the same manner.

We see likewise in Odorious Raynaldus, tom. 18 ad an. 1458. num. 36. Novum Legarum mittit, ut si ad Pacem redintegrandam dissentientes inducere non posset, propositâ anathematis poenâ, illos ab armis juberet Pontificis nomine absistere, ac finitimorum Regum arma conjungeret in eum qui jussis non pareret. Raynaldus, Continuator of Baronius, a famous example of this manner of proceeding in Popes. For he reports, Anno 1458. n. 36. That Calixtus the IIId, desiring to hinder the Warre 'twixt the King of Navarre and the Prince de Viana Heir of that Kingdom, sent them a Legate with order, if he could not reconcile them to Peace, to dispose them as from the Pope to lay down their arms, by menacing them with an Anathema, and arming their neighbour-Kings against him that should disobey. Is not this to subject Kings in the noblest right of their Crowns, which is to conclude Peace or Warre as themselves think fit?

Nor is there any thing more ordinary with the most Catholick Princes, then to have Alliances with Princes either Hereticks or Infidels. The example of Iohn d' Albret, depos'd from the Kingdom of Navarre by Iulius the IId, declares again that this pretence is sufficient for a Pope to depose Kings; since this King had not been sold, but on pretence of an Alliance which he was accus'd to have contracted with Lewis the XIIth, whom this Pope pretended to be a Schismatick, because he was in warre with him for Temporal interests.

'Tis a thing of no great consequence to molest a few Monks in the possession of their Privileges; yet was that enough to depose a King, and deprive him of his State. For so it is that Bellarmine explicates the Privilege of S. Medard of Soissons, falsly-attributed to S. Gregory, and conceiv'd in these terms. If either King, Prelate, Iudge, or other Person whatsoever, shall violate these Decrees of our Authority Apostolical, or but contradict, disquiet or trouble the Friers, or shall ordain any thing contrary hereunto; let him be depriv'd of his Dignity, of whatsoever quality he be, separated from the Communion of the Faithful, and condemn'd to eternal pains in the judgement of God.

Though there was never any thing more false then this Privilege, as all knowing persons understood; and albeit it had been true, one might say that it only contain'd a menate of God's displeasure, very frequent in those Ages, and not a severe sentence of downright Deposition: yet did this serve the Iesuites turn in favour of Popes, to establish them a right of dispossessing Princes and Iudges upon like occasions; and they extort this very interpretation from Gregory the VIIth, who takes in the same sense certain expressions somewhat resembling them, of this Saint, concerning the Hospital of Autun.

The interpretation of the words of S. Gregory (saies Bellarmine de Potest. Roman. Pontif. in Temp. c. 40.) is not mine, but of another Gregory, equal in Dignity, and not much inferiour for Sanctity. For S. Gregory VIIth, in his Epistle to the Bishop of Mets, which is the 21 of the 8 Book, cites this place of S. Gregory, to shew that the Emperour Henry was justly depos'd. S. Gregory (saies he) declares that Kings are fallen from their dignity, when they have the boldness to violate the Decrees of the Apostolical See, writing in these terms to an Abbot nam'd Senator; Si quis verò Regum, &c.

So although one may, and with great reason, destroy that foundation which is alledg'd from S. Gregory; yet one cannot doe it against the testimony of Gregory the VIIth, who was no whitless infallible then he, if all Popes be infallible; and, by consequent, it must be acknowledg'd, that by the Doctrine of Infallibility Popes have right to pronounce Kings to be fallen from their Dignity, as often as they molest Monks and Religious men in the injoyment of the Privileges that have been given them by the holy See: à fortiori therefore may it suffice to dispossess Chancellors, Presidents, Councellors and other Magistrates, when they have given any judgment or sentence prejudicial to their Privileges.

But Innocent the IIId, in the chapter Novit. de judiciis, has open'd a door that leaves no considerable errour of Princes, for which the Pope may not depose them, at least if they persist in them. For he pretends, that granting he had no right to meddle in Secular affairs, yet he was to judge of all such wherein there might be any mixture of sin; Ratione peccati, cujus ad nos pertinet (saies this Pope) sine dubitatione censura, quam in quemlibet exercere possumus & debemus. And as in all contests there is commonly some sin on the one side or the other, especially when there is Warre, there being none of either part just, according to the Divines; so by this means the Pope becomes sovereign Arbiter of all the Secular differences of Christian Princes. Now menaces of Deposition and Privation of all Dignity alwaies march with the judiciary Sentences of Popes against those who do not obey them; and so, unless Kings were impeccable, or blindly resolv'd to obey whatever the Roman Court shall ordain them, it is hard if they ever want a pretext to depose a King when they have a mind to undertake, and have strength enough to execute it.

It must then be acknowledg'd, that if once Infallibility be establish'd, the Pope will alwaies find reasons enough to dispossess a Prince, which if he do not put in practice, it must be when he wants either will or power. But were it reasonable that Kings, who are establish'd by God, should suffer Maximes to be introduced, according to which the acknowledgment of them for Kings by their subjects should depend upon the will of another? Does not Christian Prudence and Policy oblige them to banish from their States all the seeds of Division and trouble, and not onely to consider the present, but enlarge their vigilance for the time to come? It is true, that by the Grace of God, he who now sits on S. Peter's Chair is so wise and moderate, that we can expect from him nothing save actions of goodness and sweetness towards all Christian Princes; but we have no assurance that it will alwaies be so; and the past examples shew us sufficiently how easily things change at the Courts of Princes in a little time, which changeing so often their Princes, change also their Interests with them. I will onely recite what I find recorded in the History of King Henry the Great, so judiciously written by my Lord Bishop of Rhodes.

This Prelate remarks, that the League (which took birth from the time of Henry the IIId, and which, with reason, he styles A powerful Faction which thought to introduce the Spanish dominion in France, and which strove to subvert the order of the Succession of the Royal Family under the most specious pretence in the world, viz. the maintenance of Religion) would needs at first sustain it self by the authority of the holy See, which they carried to Rome, and presented to Pope Gregory the XIIIth, to obtain his approbation; but he never would consent to it, but as long as he liv'd did altogether disavow it. Had Henry the IIId any reason for all this to be confident that Rome would never joyn with these Factious persons, who desir'd nothing more then to dethrone him themselves? If he did believe it, he was strangely abus'd. For the same Bishop acknowledges, that Gregory the XIIIth was no sooner dead, but Sixtus Quintus, who succeeded him, approv'd of the League, and fulminated terrible Bulls against the King of Navarre and the Prince of Conde, declaring them Hereticks and Apostates, &c. and, as such, obnoxious to the Censures of the Church, and the pains denounc'd in the Canons; depriv'd both them and their Descendents of all lands and dignities, rendred them incapable to succeed in any Principality whatsoever, especially that of the Kingdom of France, absolving their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, and forbidding them to obey them.

Notwithstanding this Prelate notes, that Sixtus the Vth was shortly after displeas'd with the League, and could never be brought to furnish any thing towards the expence of the War, which plainly abortiv'd the greatest part of their enterprises. But Urban the VIIth, holding the Seat but 13 daies after Sixtus, Gregory the XIVth succeeded him, who being of a vehement spirit, and by inclination a Spaniard, ardently embraced the party of the League, prodigiously lavishing the Treasures which Sixtus Quintus had amass'd, to levy an army of twelve thousand men, which he put under command of Count Hercules Sfondrati his Nephew, and accompany'd it with a Monitory or Bull of Excommunication against the Prelates who follow'd Henry the Great, which he sent by Marcellino Landriano his Nuntio, with a world of mony to be distributed to the Sixteen of Paris, and amongst the Heads of the Caballs in every great City. To which this Bishop addes, That the Parliament of Tours, (that is to say, that party of the Parliament of Paris which was at Tours) having receiv'd intelligence of the Monitory, caus'd it to be torn in pieces by the hand of the common Hang-man, and decree'd seisure of body against the Nuntio; and that on the contrary those of Paris annull'd this Arrest, as being given (saies he) by people without authority, ordaining, that they should obey his Holiness and his Nuntio.

These Examples produc'd by a famous Bishop, and one whom we cannot doubt to have been most affectionate to the holy See, makes us judge, that a Wise Politician will never neglect betimes to suppress these strange Opinions, which both the Parliament and Sorbon have so often pronounc'd so pernicious to States, as tending to the subversion of Sovereign Powers ordain'd and establish'd by God, and to the stirring up of Subjects against their Princes, under pretext that the present state of the Court of Rome would appear very far from such like enterprises. It belongs also to the wisedom of a King so illuminated as ours is, and affection'd to the prosperity of this Kingdom, not to confine his cares within such narrow limits as the present Age. His own so wonderful Birth, and that of a Dauphin which God has so early bless'd his Marriage with, should make him hope that his Race (which is that of S. Lewis) shall reign to the end of the World over this great Monarchy: 'tis this which yet obliges him farther to extend the thoughts of his Royal providence beyond the bounds of common prudence, to prevent the source of those evils which may possibly happen in the Ages long to come, and to permit nothing which may one day shake a Throne upon which all his Descendents ought to sit hereafter.

And truely it were highly necessary that great Kings should labour for themselves and their Successors to establish their Authority, since they have to doe with the most crafty and able Politicians in the world, who perpetually watch all occasions of more and more amplifying that of their Master; who with infinite diligence manage the least occasions of advancing them; who take for well-grounded all that escapes and is let pass, changing as soon Favours into Right; who are not repuls'd at every resistence which sometimes opposes their undertakings, but, giving place for a while, are by the next opportunity ready to make fresh assaults; which often succeeds, either by change of some Minister of State, or the humour of our Nation, whose vigour being but of a short continuance, yields that with the greatest facility to day, which she never resolv'd to agree to yesterday.

We have an Example of this in that possession which the Pope's Nuntio's have gotten, of receiving the Attestations of the Life and manners of those persons who are nominated by the King to Bishopricks and Abbies. The late Mons. du Puy has compil'd a Treatise concerning this subject, where he shews, That by the Ordinance of Blois, Anno 1576, by advice of the States General conven'd at Paris 1615, and by the Assembly of the Notables Anno 1627, this information ought to be made by the Ordinaries, as conformable to the Council of Trent, Sess. 22. ch. 2. and Sess. 24. ch. 1. That notwithstanding those of Rome had alwaies striven to put the Nuntio's in possession of this Right; That they had vainly attempted it when Henry the Great prosecuted his Absolution there; That they had begun to usurp this possession during the late King's Minority; and that by little and little they had reduc'd things to such a point, as to oblige all those who were nominated to have recourse to them, till in the year 1639. it happen'd that the Sieur Hugues de l' Aratut, nominated to the Bishoprick of Cominges, making his Information before the Ordinary, and the Pope refusing to admit him, the late King of glorious memory resolv'd to oppose this violence and stop its course; so as the affair having been sent to the Parliament, there was an Arrest given the 12 of December 1639, by which 'twas ordain'd That these informations concerning Life and manners should for the future be made by the Diocesan Bishops of the places, and not by the Nuntio's. Notwithstanding the Nuntio's have still continued to maintain their pretensions in despite of this Arrest, nor is there a person of them that does yield obedience by his addressing to the Ordinary; because those who are dispos'd to doe it apprehend (and not without reason) lest their Bulls should be denied them.

Well known is that famous Arrest given Anno 1648. upon the Remonstrances of the late Advocate-general Mons. Talon against those who would have valid in France the Censures of the Inquisition and Index; in the interim they were never more in reputation then since that time: and it is hard to comprehend how the Clergy of France (which has ever been so generous) could endure it, without once complaining, that the Episcopal Decrees of the Prelates of France have been treated by the Inquisitors of Rome with so much indignity; that they have rang'd them amongst the damned Books which they esteem so disgraceful, without vouchsafing either to clear it with the Bishops before Censure, or to render them any account of what they found amiss therein afterwards.

See but how they bear all things before them with a perseverance indefatigable; and by degrees how the pretences of the Roman Court (which have formerly been so odious among us) establish themselves in the Kingdom, and the ancient Maxims that our Fathers have conserv'd with so much zeal and jealousie are chang'd and come to nothing. 'Tis not alwaies done at once, but sometimes by degrees and insensibly; and to give an Instance of it, we need goe no farther then to that of the Infallibility of the Pope onely.

'Tis certain that in the time of the Councils of Constance and of Basil they acknowledg'd no other Infallibility in the Church then that of the Church Universal, and the General Council which represented it, and that it went for current among all learned men, that the Pope might erre in point of Faith. It is what may be seen not onely in the Works of the greatest persons of those times, as of Gerson, Peter d' Ailly Cardinal of Cambray, the holy and knowing Carthusian Dionysius Rikel, Cardinal Cusa, the Abbot of Palermo, the Cardinal of Florence, Iohn Patriarch of Antioch, Alphonsus Tostatus surnam'd the Prodigy of the world, Iohannes de Parifiis, and of many more; but likewise by the contest which sprung up in those times, Whither a Council were above a Pope, or the Pope above the Council; which was decided in favour of the Council by the Fathers of the Council of Constance and Basil, who maintaining the Preeminence of the Council, made use of this Principle as certain and indisputable, That a General Council could not erre in Determinations which regard Faith and good Manners, and that the Pope therein might erre.

So the Council of Basil, minding to establish this Preeminence of Oecumenical Councils in its Synodal Letter published after the third Session, speaks in this manner. This holy Church has receiv'd so great a Privilege of Jesus Christ our Saviour, which he has founded by his Bloud, that we most firmly believe she cannot erre. This is what is agreeable to God alone by nature, and to the Church by privilege. Nor was this gift imparted to the Sovereign Bishop, of some of whom we reade that they fell into Heresie. 'Tis the Church alone which is without spot or wrinkle, which cannot erre in things necessary to Salvation. And afterwards, If the Council might erre (it being certain that Popes may erre) all the whole Church would be in an Errour: Si errare posset Concilium, cùm certum sit Papam errare posse, tota erraret Ecclesia. See the Voice of the whole Church legitimately assembled by the H. Spirit in General Council: For 'tis not to be doubted but that then the Council of Basil was Oecumenical, since Pope Eugenius the IVth acknowledged by an Authentick Bull (recited in the 16 Session,) that the Council was legitimate and General from the beginning of it to that very moment.

But what clearly testifies that no body in those times doubted of the preeminence of a Council above a Pope in things concerning Faith, which cannot be establish'd but on this of the Council's not erring and that the Pope may, is what Pope Eugenius (what time he chiefly strove to set himself above a Council) was notwithstanding oblig'd to acknowledge, That in matters of Faith the opinion of the Council ought to be preferr'd before that of a Pope. This we see in the last of the 3 Bulls, which he revok'd when he rejoyn'd himself to the Council, 1434. in these terms.

Suppose a Pope or his Legate would doe one thing, and that a Council would doe the contrary; we ought to follow not the Sentence of the Council, but the opinion of the Pope, or his Legate who represents him, because the Pope's Iurisdiction is above that of all Councils; unless it happen that the things in controversie concern'd the Catholick Faith, or that they were such as without the determination thereof the whole State of the Universal Church would be in disorder. In such a case there must be had more regard to the opinion of a Council then to that of Popes. Nisi fortè quae statuenda forent Catholicam Fidem respicerent, vel si non fierent, statum universalis Ecclesiae principaliter perturbarent; quia tunc Concilii Sententia esset potiùs attendenda.

This Pope you see acknowledg'd that in things concerning the Catholick Faith, the Pope being of one opinion, and the Council of another, that of the Council was to be chosen. Now this were ridiculous if the Pope were Infallible in Decisions touching Faith; since there is no opinion which we ought to prefer before a man that is Infallible. And therefore Pope Eugenius, what-ever he pretended to place himself above all Councils, durst never arrogate that of Infallibility.

Dionysius Rikel Carthusian, (term'd the Extatick or Illuminated Doctor, as having through all his Works joyn'd an illuminated and inflamed Piety with his profound skill in Divinity) in his Treatise of the Authority of the Pope and Councils, having in several passages spoken highly of that of the Pope, does notwithstanding acknowledge that in Council one cannot dispute the having this advantage above the Pope, That a Council cannot erre in matters which pertain to Faith and good manners, and that the Pope may erre there. The power of a Council (saies he) is in this greater then the Pope's, that Iesus Christ has promis'd to his Church, or the Council (which is her Representative,) an infallible direction and divine assistance which shall never fail. So as a Council can neither erre in matters of Faith, nor in what regards good manners; forasmuch as it is immediately led by the Holy Spirit in the Determination of these things. And therefore the Pope himself is in these things to adhere to the Churche's Determination, that is, to the Decrees of the Council, as to an Oracle, and regulation of the Holy Ghost; whereas the Pope being obnoxious to erre in points of Faith, good manners, and other matters necessary to Salvation, methinks men should not acquiesce in his judgement as the onely certain opinion, because he is not an infallible rule, nor yet a foundation so establish'd, but that it may deviate from the Truth.

This holy Monk saies the same thing in a Sermon upon S. Hilarie; and excepting onely those Authors who are notoriously ingag'd in the Interests of the Roman Court, all the knowing Divines of that Age spake the same Language. I observe onely Pope Adrian the VIth, who having taught the same Doctrine before he was exalted to the Pontificate, did not onely not retract it afterwards, but caus'd his Works to be printed at Rome, in which we may yet reade these words, namely in his fourth Book of Sentences: If by the Roman Church (saies he) you understand him who is the Head of it, 'tis certain (pray mark the term) that this Head of the Roman Church, viz. the Pope, may erre even in things appertaining to Faith, by defending an Heresie by his Determination or Decretal. Si per Ecclesiam Romanam intelligatur Caput ejus, certum est quòd possit errare, etiam in iis quae tangunt Fidem, Haeresin per suam Determinationem aut Decretalem asserendo.

See what this holy and knowing man has written, being then a private person; and what it was he so approv'd when he was Pope: so little did his Advancement blind him, as it has done many others, or make him forget what he ow'd to Truth, to gratifie his new Dignity with advantages which he believed Iesus Christ never imparted to him.

It is not here necessary to alledge the Parisian Doctors opinions, so well known to the World, and to the Iesuites themselves, who term the opinion against Infallibility Sententia Parisiensium: but we must not omit the sense of the whole Faculty in a Body, in this celebrious Declaration of the Faith which she made by order of Francis the Ist, and which was afterwards verified in Parliament; so as in France it held a particular force of a Law and a publick Ordinance: Having therefore receiv'd a command of the King to reduce into Articles the principal Points of Faith attacqu'd by Hereticks, she declares, That General Councils cannot erre in Points of Faith and regulation of good manners. Certum est Concilium Generale legitimè congregatum, universalem Ecclesiam repraesentans, in Fide & morum determinationibus errare non posse. But for the Pope, see what she saies of it all; It is no less certain, that there is one Sovereign Bishop by divine right in the Militant Church, to which all Christians ought to submit, and who has likewise power to conferre Indulgences: Nec minùs certum est, unum esse jure Divino Pontificem in Ecclesia Militante, cui omnes Christiani parere tenentur, qui quidem potestatem habet Indulgentias conferendi.

This different manner of speaking of Councils and the Pope in two Articles which immediately follow, attributing Infallibility to the Council, and none to the Pope, sufficiently states the different sentiments which these Doctors had both of Councils and Popes upon this subject. For I think not my self oblig'd to refute the extravagancies of a certain Writer of these times, who pretends to prove by the Obedience which these Doctors teach is due to the Pope, as if by that we acknowledg'd his Infallibility. By the same argument he may prove, that not onely all Bishops in particular, but that all Abbots, and Abbesses, Priors & Prioresses are infallible, because they are promis'd obedience. But he should have learn'd that in promising obedience to the Pope, men are so far from acknowledging an entire submission of belief to his Decisions, that the Divines say expresly, and amongst others Mons. Duval, Summo Pontifici parendum esse, sive errare possit, sive non: Which signifies but this, That men should not Dogmatize the contrary to what he has decided, and with this caution yet, nisi Error sit intolerabilis, as Gerson affirms.

Such as has been the common sentiment of our Parisian Divines, till Mons. Duval, who would have introduc'd Opinions into the Sorbon totally repugnant to these ancient Maxims: But, as 'tis customary with those who engage in quarrells against what is universally receiv'd, it has hitherto been with much wariness;Duvallius de supr. aut. Rom. Pontif. l. 2. c. 1. For he did in that manner assert the Pope to be infallible in matter of Faith, that in the same breath he likewise taught, 'twas no matter of Faith to believe it: Non est de fide Summum Pontificem esse infallibilem.

He holds moreover, that the Opinion of his not being infallible is neither rash nor erroneous. Non est erroneum, neque temerarium temeritate opinionis, dicere, Summum Pontificem in decernendo errare posse. And speaking concerning the Decision of a Pope against a Doctor of Paris, he saies, That this Definition of Sixtus the IVth is not of Faith, but onely very certain; because, saies he, the Definitions of the Sovereign Bishops have not the certitude of the Catholick Faith, till they be first received by the Universal Church, or a General Council.

And thus, whatever the Doctor's design be and those of his gang to advance the Authority of the Pope, they have been yet oblig'd to acknowledge, that a Divine who should doubt, or not believe what has not been decided but by a Pope, should neither be accus'd of Errour or Temerity, provided he did not contradict the Pope publickly and with Scandal.

Behold here the very first breach which has been made, at least in the Sorbon, against its ancient Doctrine. But in the mean time this has not hinder'd those very Persons who incourag'd this Doctor, and that were ingag'd by Interest with the Court of Rome, to reject this personal Infallibility of the Pope, whenever they had any regard of their reputation amongst learned men. This is evident by Cardinal Perron, who in his Reply to the King of Great Britain, l. 6. p. 1083. expresly acknowledges, that the onely expedient to determine Disputes of Religion with a certainty of Faith is by a General Council.

Were the Service (saies he) taken away from the Original Tongue, and transferr'd into another, all means of celebrating universal Councils, and having any certitude or assurance of matters of Faith, would cease. For there being no certitude of the genuine sense of Scripture by our particular Interpretation, since no Interpretation of Scripture is of private inspiration, and we having no way left us of resolution with certitude of Faith in debates which rise about Religion upon the meaning of Scripture, besides the voice of the Church speaking in General Councils; evident it is that whatever it be which takes away from the Church the means of holding General Councils, takes away from it all means of deciding the Disputes of Christian Religion with certitude of Faith.

Cardinal de Richelieu, in his Book of Controversies, which has been approv'd by the late Mons. Lescot Bishop of Chartres, and divers other Divines exceedingly devoted to the Court of Rome, acknowledges the same thing, Lib. 3. c. 5. p. 424. Since there is (saies he) no Oecumenical Council which injoyns the use of the Images of the Divine Persons; it is evident that 'tis no Article of Faith: supposing that for the Principle, That onely General Councils can frame Articles of Faith.

Thus we see that the Doctrine of Infallibility, which had been promoted by Mons. Duval with some kind of fear and reserve, was abandon'd by the most knowing persons of the Church, and chiefly by those who defended it against the Hereticks; because they would not engage the cause of the Catholick Religion in defence of an Opinion so insupportable: and therefore the Favourites of the Roman Court were then contented that this Opinion should pass for problematick onely. Whence it came to pass that Mons. Duval (who had but just propos'd it in this manner) was all his life in so great esteem at Rome, that he was look'd upon there as the person in the world who had render'd the greatest services to the holy See; and that all the Nuns had order not to doe any thing here without his advice. But finding this tentative succeed so happily, and that the Iesuites (having gain'd the Catholick Universities) had fill'd all mens thoughts with this infinite power of the Pope, which was highly advantagious to them for the withdrawing of them from the Jurisdiction of the Bishops, they no longer remain'd in this moderation. They pretended that it was not enough for the French to permit them to say the Pope was infallible; but so order'd the matter, that no man was suffered to acknowledge him for less. They were contented that Mons. Duval should say that it was no matter of Faith to believe the Pope infallible, because this reserve was necessary at that point of time, for the currenter passage of the Doctrine; but having first begun to distribute it in this manner, they did not long rest there; the design is to make men believe that the Doctrine of the Faculty of Paris (opposite to this Infallibility, which in Mons. Duval's daies was neither an Errour, nor any rash Opinion) is since that time (though the Church never thought of any change) become a manifest Heresie.

This is what the Iesuites have exceedingly farther'd: For 'tis about 5 or 6 years past that Father Theophile Raynaud, a Iesuite of Lions, publish'd a Book with this Title, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , Ipse dixit, to shew not onely that the Pope is infallible, but that it is matter of Faith that he is so, and, by consequent, those that doubt of it Hereticks; and he treats Mons. Duval very ill in his Book, whom in contempt he calls a certain Doctor, for his caution in not so openly venting this false Doctrine as a new Article of Faith. And because they saw this enterprise of theirs was not punished as it deserv'd, growing daily more insolent, they proceeded to that extravagant impiety of their Theses of the College de Clermont, which is now the object of the indignation of all France, daring publickly to maintain, (even in the midst of Paris it self, and in face of the Parliament) That the Catholick Truth which opposes the Heresie of the Greeks concerning the Pope's Primacy is, That Jesus Christ has given to all Popes the very same Infallibility which himself had, not onely in Questions de Jure, but in those also de Facto.

By this 'tis visible to what their boldness may aspire, if not timely prevented and repress'd, and what progress these monstrous Opinions are like to make, to the total destruction of the Liberties of the Gallican Church so precious to our Ancestors, unless we be more vigilant in stopping its carreer.

And in earnest it is very hard it should not be so, if we but consider a little those three Expedients which the abettors of the Court of Rome make use of to establish their Maxims.

The First is, the Company of Iesuites spread over the face of the Universe, and got to be Masters of the greatest part of the Colleges; so as all the World being imbu'd with these Principles from their infancie, as 'twere, Opinions not advantageous to the Church, but the Court Politick of Rome, they are receiv'd with respect, as if they constituted a part of our Religion; so as it is quite against the hair of any other, because the Iesuites accustom those who have once plac'd their belief in them, to look upon men as persons suspected of their Faith, who in this are not of their opinion.

There is the hands of many persons a Treatise of the late Father Eustachius Gault, a very knowing and pious Father de l' Oratoire, nominated by the late King for Bishop of Marseilles, wherein he mentions how dangerous it is for this very reason, lest all the Colleges should in time, and by degrees, fall into the hands of the Iesuites.

The Second means is, the care they take concerning Books; blasting all that they find containing any thing of the ancient Maxims of the School of Paris, suppressing them all that they can; or at least so ordering the matter, as to retrench whatever is not in their favour: as they have done by a large Discourse of Guicciardin, treating of the politick Incroachment of the Court of Rome, which is no more to be found in the late Italian Editions, but conserv'd in the old ones, as may yet be seen in an ancient French Translation of that famous Historian.

In the mean while they give all manner of liberty to such Books as maintain their own pretensions, and that establish the Opinions on which they are supported. It must be acknowledg'd that there's nothing has more advanc'd their Interest: for 'tis almost impossible but the minds and spirits of Students should be fill'd with the sentiments of those Authors which they reade most. Now without speaking of the less considerable Authors, who are infinite, those who would more deeply apply themselves to the Ecclesiastical Science do commonly addict themselves to Church-History and the Councils; and for the first, they goe to seek it in Baronius and his Continuators. This person had doubtless very many excellent qualities, and deserves great commendations for having by his indefatigable labour disintangled an infinite many of things which before lay in a strange confusion: But withall it must not be deny'd that the Zeal which transported him for the Grandeur of the H. See made him commit very many excesses, which might be pardon'd in a person so commendable on some other occasions, but by no means be defended: For how can we possibly excuse him all those fabulous imaginations of his, where he engages himself to make the world believe that Pope Honorius was never condemn'd by the 6th Council; but that what we see of his Condemnation in the Acts of that Council has been maliciously inserted by the order of a most pious Emperour, whom he affirms to have consented to the Falsification of the Originals which he had in his hands?

And yet for all this, because F. Cambefis (a very learned Dominican) thought himself oblig'd, for the honour of Truth and of the Church, to refute this Fiction, which is of most pernicious consequence, (since there is not an Act of General Council which one may not with as much likelihood say to be forg'd) it has pleas'd F. Theophile Raynaud, a Iesuite forsooth, in a Book intituled An Cyriaci immunes à Censura? a most bloudy Satyre against the whole Dominican Order, most outrageously to rend and tear this learned Frier, as if he had perpetrated the hainousest sin in the world, for having shew'n that Baronius engag'd himself into very great Absurdities, in not acknowledging that a Pope had been condemn'd as an Heretick in a General Council.

A strange piece of tyranny it would be, to take away all liberty from Divines that love the Truth, to defend it against whomsoever when 'tis thus wrong'd, and to interpret it a Crime to take notice of the excesses of Baronius, when he endeavors to advance the Authority of the Holy See. He is not then himself, and he sometimes saies such things seriously on this subject, that 'tis hard to reconcile them to sense; as when he attributes a kind of Infallibility to the Pope, which is not well applicable to God himself, viz. that the Pope can make new Articles of Faith, and change them again when they are made. Ut planè appareat, saies he on the business of the Apollinarists, An. 373. n. 22. ex arbitrio pependisse Romani Pontificis Decreta sancire, & sancita mutare. This is prodigiously strange; and yet we find something like this of Baronius in the Preface of F. Sirmondus upon Facundus: For (saies he) this Bishop is not to be blam'd for having maintain'd the three Chapters, since Pope Vigilius was ever more dispos'd to defend them, as it was in truth reasonable, saies the Iesuite:

Sirmondus Lectori.

Nec verò fraudi esse posse (Facundo) trium Capitulorum causam quam defendit: in qua si verum loqui placet, honestius fuerat cum Vigilio cadere, quàm vincere cum Iusiiniano. Quòd si Vigilium perpetuò ducem sequi maluisset, quam Vigilium postquam Iustiniano cedendum fuit cum Afris suis reprehendere, nemo illum de suscepta Capitulorum defenfione, ad quam Vigilius ipse ultro postea rediit, jure accusandum judicaret. And afterwards, Usus est (Vigilius) libertate quam causa concedebat, semper alioquin ad defendenda, ut par erat, & probanda Capitula propensior.

Vigilius ad defendenda, ut par erat, & probanda Capitula propensior. Save onely that he was not blamable but for blindly adhering to Pope Vigilius, in changing his opinion as often as it pleas'd the Pope to change; defending the three Chapters when this Pope defended them, and condemning them when the Pope condemn'd them, undertaking to maintain when the Pope undertook it. After this guise it is F. Sirmond (quatenus Iesuite) would have us conform our Conscience to the Will of the Pope, without troubling our selves with the truth of the thing. But I say, quatenus Iesuite; for as F. Sirmond, 'tis well known to all his Friends, that there are few Divines who have less believed this blind Obedience then himself.

But to return to Baronius: It must be acknowledg'd that his Annals being in other places fill'd with many very good things for the confirmation of Catholick Verities, and the purity of Discipline, contain also very many pernicious Maxims, and false Reflexions as to what concerns the pretences of the Court of Rome: and 'tis that which makes these last to be receiv'd and swallowed, because they are mingled with the first.

The Continuators follow all of them the same spirit, and do but tread in his steps; but without coming near him in that which he did well, they infinitely surpass him in what he did ill. This is truth, especially of the last and most ample, which is Raynaldus. There can be nothing more weak of one part, or more insolent on the other; and 'tis a shame to the Church, that a Writer so little able should presume to compile its History. He is a man without discernment, without the spirit of an Ecclesiastick, without style, without judgment, without sincerity, without credit, and who delivers with an insupportable boldness, and as if they were forsooth so many Articles of Faith, the most indefensible pretensions of the Court of Rome; who alledges Authors the most partial and least worthy of credit, such as Poggius, Blondus, Turrecremata, and the like, as the most authentick Testimonies, and after whom one were oblig'd to condemn the honestest men, and those whose sanctity it has pleas'd God to make known even by their Miracles, as the Cardinal d' Arles; in fine, who upon all occasions, where he wants proofs, overflows with injuries and outrageous declamations, unworthy an Historian, who should never be transported with passion. For all this, he has had the boldness to dedicate his eighteenth Tome, containing the History of Five Popes, and two Councils, viz. that of Basil and Florence, to the French Clergy; and 'tis easily seen by his Epistle, that his design was onely to engage the Church of France, by the glozing Elogies he gives it for its steady obedience to the Holy See, to approve, or, at least, dissemble, all that his Tome contains advantages for the interests of the Roman Court, and prejudicial to the Liberties of the Gallican Church. But the design did not altogether succeed; for having made an offer of his Book to the Assembly of the Clergy 1660, thereby to obtain some Letter of Thanks, and so in time to make it pass for an Approbation of his Book through all the French Churches; the Bishop to whom 'twas referr'd found the Book so repugnant to our Liberties, that he would doe nothing in it: and with this repulse was his unworthy Present repay'd. But the Abettors of the Court of Rome believe with great reason that they have however gain'd a main Point, that there has been nothing positively done against a Work presented to the whole Clergy, Where the Ad an. 1423. n. 8. and in the Table, Verbo Constantiense Concilium. Doctrine of the authority of a Council above a Pope, which is the prime foundation of the Liberties of the Gallican Church, and the first Article of the Pragmatick Sanction, is everywhere styl'd Heretical and Schismatical, though it has been decided for a Catholick Truth by no less then two General Councils: Where the Ad an. 1432. n. 9.12. & ad an. 1433. n. 9, &c. Council of Basil, (so rever'd of all France) is rent and torn the most outragiously in the world, and that in a time when Popes have declar'd it for Oecumenical: Where a In his Letter to the Clergy. trifling Scribbler imperiously presumes to decide a difference upon which the Church would never yet pronounce, making those to pass for Anti-popes who possess'd the Seat in Avignon during the Schism, who are yet the onely ones which France has acknowledg'd; though God himself seems to have been willing that this Question should have remain'd undecided, since he has permitted very holy Persons to maintain the parties of both these Popes; Saint Catharine that of Urban, and S. Peter of Luxemburg that of Clement, from whom he receiv'd even his Cardinal's Hat, as S. Vincent Ferrier, who also adhered to the Avignon Popes: Ad an. 1440. n. 4. Where, by an abominable Lie, they impute to Charles the Seventh, that he knew the Gallican Church had made a detestable Schism by pronouncing an impious Sentence in behalf of Clement the VIIth against Urban the VIth: Ad an. 1438. n. 14 Where the Pragmatical Sanction, which was contriv'd at Bourges, following the Decrees of the Council of Basil, by the French Bishops, which King Charles the VIIth had assembled there, with the Princes, Lords and great Persons of the Kingdom of all degrees and qualities is unworthily styl'd the Opprobrium of the King, because it declares the Pope inferiour to a Council, many waies limits his power, and re-establisheth Canonical Elections.

Ad an. 1436. n. 4. & ad an. 1439. n. 40 & ad an. 1440. n. 2. Where the Mandate de Providendo, Expectative graces, Reservations, Regresses, and other like Abuses, so justly condemn'd by the Council of Basil, and by the whole French Church, are maintain'd as legitimate Rights from this strange pretence of a Bull of Eugenius the IVth, That the Church of Rome does what she pleases with all Church-Dignities, without wrong to any man; because she may alledge this word of the Holy Gospel, Friend, I doe thee no wrong, is it not lawful for me to doe what I will with mine own? and that the same Pope writing to Alphonsus King of Portugal saies, That the free disposition of all Churches appertains to the Apostolical See, and that the Popes dispose of them as best they like, to which even Kings and Princes submit themselves.

Ad an. 1436. n. 10 & ad an. 1439. n. 37 Where the most Sacred Canons of the Church are so subdued to the Pope's will, that he makes a Pope writing to a King of France, to say, That 'tis a ridiculous thing to alledge them to him, or demand of him their observation, as if he knew nothing of them; whereas if he acted aganst the Canons, we are not to believe that 'twas done out of ignorance, but because it pleases him to have it so: That he is so far Master, that according to his pleasure he might not onely interpret, suspend, and mitigate them, but alter and abolish them likewise as pleased his fansy.

The whole Book is stuffed with like excesses, and greater then these too: notwithstanding the fautors of these pernieious Opinions have this advantage, that no body having complain'd of them, they will one day take this silence for a tacit Approbation; beside the gain which they receive, when they who would be learned in the Church-History, studying it in these Books, shall at the same time suck in all these dangerous Maxims.

Nor have they less perverted the other source of Ecclesiastical Science, to wit, the study of the Councils. The last Collector of them, Binnius, being but a small Copier of Baronius, Bellarmine and Suarez, who has stuffed his Notes with all that he thought proper to inspire these new Opinions. And what is altogether prodigious, is, that whereas the King of Spain has never permitted that any man should print in his Dominions any passage of Baronius's Annals prejudicial to his pretences; they have in the Louvre it self printed the Collection of the Councils of Binnius: and that the Iesuites, who have ever had all the government of this Royal Press, have left there in the life of Boniface the VIIIth these outragious words against all France; Philippum pulchrum, Galliae Regem, justè excommunicavit, This Pope did justly excommunicate Philip the Fair, King of France: As much as to say, that all France was Schismatical in that Age, for opposing (as she did) the Excommunication, as judging it very unjust, and appealing to the future Council; and that she yet continues so, for having never since chang'd her opinion.

You see in the mean time what the Iesuites think fit to print in the King's house, under his own nose, and at his charges, that so they may give the Enemies of France the advantage to reproach her for owning in this period the justice of an Excommunication of one of her Kings, against which she has heretofore so vigorously opposed herself.

The Abridgment of the Councils by Coriolanus, printed at Paris, and revised by a Doctor of the Faculty, is yet in some sort worse; all the contrary Maxims to the Liberty of the Gallican Church being set at the Head of the Book, as if they were so many Catholick Opinions.

Nor is there any thing better to be hop'd for from that new Edition of the Councils which they are undertaking now at Paris, if the Iesuites continue Masters; seeing we find well enough by the Plan which Father L' Abbé has caus'd to be printed, that besides all Binnius's Notes, if any thing be added, it shall be rather more and more to ruine the Liberties of the Gallican Church, then to defend them: and in effect we see, that whereas in Binnius the Council of Basil is call'd, Concilium Oecumenicum ex parte reprobatum, a General Council in part reprov'd; Father L' Abbé in his new project totally suppresses this quality of Oecumenick, by simply calling it Basileense Concilium; though he be exceedingly exact in giving the title of Oecumenick to all the other General Councils, and even to those also which as yet France has never acknowledg'd for such; as that of Florence for instance, which he styles Florentinum Oecumenicum sive Universale Concilium, and that of Lateran under Iulius the IId and Leo the Xth, which he calls Lateranense quintum Oecumenicum, seu Universale decimumseptimum. You see how little they respect the judgment of the Gallican Church, degrading the Councils which our Ancestors have ever had in such singular veneration, as that of Basil; and magnifying those which our Fathers would never receive for Oecumenical, as that of Florence, concerning which the Cardinal of Lorrain writ to Pope Pius the Vth, In the Collection of the Memoires and Acts of the Council of Trent, published by Mons. du Puy. That in France 'twas never receiv'd for Legitimate or General, and that all the French would sooner die then affirm the contrary. Much more that of Lateran, which Bellarmine himself durst not assert Oecumenical, as not compos'd but of a few Italian Bishops, who had no other mark but the ruine of our Canonical Elections, and against which the French have alwaies protested, as 'tis to be seen by the History of the Concordate de Mons. du Puy; and, in effect, the Council of Constance having decided that a Council is superiour to a Pope, and the Council of Lateran the contrary, one of the two must necessarily be in an Errour, and, by consequent, one of the two is not Oecumenick: and so all the world avowing, and the Iesuites themselves, that the Council of Constance was General, Father L' Abbé calling it Constantiense Concilium Oecumenicum decimum-sextum, that of Lateran, which is repugnant to it in a certain Decision concerning Faith, has not been so.

But be it what it will, we may judge from hence that the Iesuites design is in this new Edition of the Councils to favour the pretences of the Court of Rome in all that possibly they can; there being nothing she so much desires as to hinder the Council of Basil from being reputed General; insomuch as those of the party have presum'd to falsifie a List of the General Councils at the beginning of the Epitome of Antonius Augustinus's Canon Law, leaving out that of Basil, which this learned Arch-bishop had set down, as may be seen, where, after these words, Constantiense sub Martino V, there is in these falsified Editions, Florentinum sub eodem, which is ridiculous, that of Florence, not having been held under Martin the Vth; but it sufficiently shews what there was in the uncorrupted Copies after that of Constance, Basileense sub Eugenio IV, and then, Florentinum sub eodem.

There are a world of other things in this draught of Father L' Abbé, which ought not to be suffered in France; but above all, 'tis a thing insupportable, that these Disciples of Santarel should dare to treat as Hereticks and persons suspected for their Faith both Priests and Divines, better Catholicks then themselves, for defending onely the Sovereignty of Kings establish'd by God, against those who would subject them to the Spiritual power. Thus this Iesuite injures Roger Widdrington, an English Priest, whom we may believe a very firm Catholick, since some temporal Interests might have else been able to make him quit his Religion, had he not held it by a divine obligation. But because he had several contestations with Bellarmine in favour of Kings, L' Abbé is pleas'd to rank him in the same design with Blondel, and to speak of him in these terms; Non ignoro Davidem Blondellum, Rogerum Widdringtonum, & quosdam alios aut Haereticos, aut de Fide saltem suspectos, &c.

The Third means which the Court of Rome makes use of to establish her Pretensions is, to defend and gratifie all those who favour her, and to decry, yea persecute upon all occasions, those that are any waies averse and contrary. 'Tis so meritorious an action in their judgment to maintain that which they call the Rights of the Holy See, that even those whom otherwise they have no esteem of for any sense of Piety, become recommendable; and 'tis on the other side so great a sin to prescribe Canons for a limit of this infinite power, that whatever Vertue or Piety one might be acknowledg'd to have had before, he becomes wicked and Heretical upon an instant.

I find two memorable examples of both in the 18 Tome of Raynaldus.

The one is of Laurentius Valla, whom he affirms in a certain place to have been an impious fellow, and whom in another place he extolls for having exceedingly praised Eugenius the IVth, who is one of those Popes that endeavour'd to advance his Authority to the utmost.

The other is of an Arch-bishop of Mentz, a person of great worth and Piety, that had some contest with Calixtus the IIId touching Canonical Elections. This Arch-bishop complains that the Pope did not observe the Concordate which Eugenius the IVth and Nicolas the Vth his Successor had made on this subject with the Princes of Germany; and Aeneas Sylvius, who was then Cardinal, and who writ about it to this Arch-bishop's Chancellor, was not able to deny it, since what he saies is, that if the Elections were Canonical, they ought to be confirm'd in virtue of the Concordate, and that they were not to be rejected; unless (saies he) the Pope in Council with his Brethren the Cardinals conceive it fit to put in a Person more advantagious to the Church: as if this last Clause were not a visible infraction of the Concordate, which this Arch-bishop had great reason to complain of; since the right of Elections had no more any thing solid, if the Pope refusing to confirm them had been acquitted, by saying, he onely did it to constitute a more fitting person for the Church in place. Be it what-ever, 'tis certain this Contestation concern'd one onely Point of Church-Discipline, and another in which the Pope was visibly in the wrong. See yet what Raynaldus teaches us Anno 1457. n. 49. That Pope Calixtus the IIId wrote to this Arch-bishop of Mentz upon the complaint he made of the non-observance of the Concordate touching Elections: In mentem nostram cadere non potest, te contra Autoritatem S. R. E. Sedis Apostolicae atque nostrae, aliquid perpetrare; cùm te sciamus Pastorem scientificum, & prudentem, & Dei timoratum, quae sunt contraria offendentibus Autoritatem & potestatem S. R. E. & summi Pontificis; cùm quicumque hoc attentare volens nedum in poenas à jure divino & humano institutas inciderit, sed etiam crimen Haeresis atrociter committeret. I cannot conceive that you should doe any thing against the Authority of the Sacred Roman Church and Apostolical See, knowing you to be a learned and prudent Pastor, and one that fears God, which are contrary to those who offend the Authority and Power of the Holy Church of Rome, and of the Sovereign Bishop; since whoever presumes to commit this attempt incurrs not onely the pains ordain'd by Divine and humane right, but does also commit the most hainous crime of Heresie. Thus a man becomes an Heretick, and (as he saies) a wicked Heretick, how knowing, prudent or fearing God soever he be, if he opposes the Pope in any thing which does purely concern the Discipline of the Church, whatever reason he may have so to doe.

Those of Rome have alwaies pursu'd the same course; and Bellarmine (though one of the most moderate of them) forbears not to speak most outragiously against those who defend the Sovereignty of Kings, and to treat them as Calvinists, Pagans, Publicans, and Parasites of Kings, to the loss of the Kingdom eternal, under pretence of conserving to them their Dignity which is temporal.

Alexander Carrerius, de potest. Rom. Pont. Abeant moderni illi infipientésque Politici, qui invidia & ambitione jus Statûs ad jus Pilati referunt; de quibus Sancti Dei ità prophetârunt, Astiterunt Reges terrae & Principes convenerunt in unum adversus Dominum & adversus Christum ejus. And an Italian Author, who styles them in the Title of his Book impios politicos, addresses these words to them at the conclusion of his Book: Away then with these modern insipid Politicians, who, led with envy and ambition, would derive the Authority of States from that of Pilate; and of whom those Saints of God have thus prophesied, The Kings of the Earth and the Princes are met together against the Lord, and against his Anointed. That is to say, The Pope is Iesus Christ, and all Christian Kings who maintain their Sovereignty against the Usurpations of Rome are the Herods and the Pontius Pilates.

This publick decry yet in the Books of these Writers is nothing so considerable as the particular and clandestine traverses that the Court of Rome excites upon all occasions whatsoever against those whom she believes not favourable to her Interests.

By that it is she stops the mouths and stays the Pens of almost all Learned persons, who cannot really possess themselves of that Title, that they are not inwardly persuaded of the Hypocrisies of these ambitious pretensions; but they chuse rather to be silent, then to speak of it: Because there are but a very few persons so in love with Truth, as, in resolving to maintain it, will endure to be tormented and barretted all their life-time, and to be torn in pieces when they are dead. They see that Kings and their great Ministers take not for the most part that care to protect those who maintain and defend their Right, by some testimony of their acknowledging it, as the Court of Rome does to persecute them, or at least to deny them all kind of favour. They must be touch'd with an extraordinary Zeal, and very disinteress'd, to surmount all these considerations, and to sacrifice themselves for the Interest of their Prince and Countrey, without any hope of advantage, or, to speak more properly, with reason to apprehend all sort of disadvantage by it. All those principally who are ty'd to any Community are thereby oblig'd to a silence, which they believe to be just, as holding themselves responsable for the conservation of their Body. And 'tis true, these vast Bodies have stricter bonds which tie them to Rome, and are more expos'd to Persecution, because they have more places which expose them to seisure; to which one may adde, that almost all the Religious and Communities have their Generals resident at Rome, who will never permit that the Divines of their Orders should undertake to teach things which would not be well receiv'd there, and from which there may lie a grudge against the whole Order.

They are therefore Private persons onely who are fit upon these encounters to engage for the Truth: but then it is necessary that they be furnished with Light to know it, with Zeal to love it, with Steadiness, not to fear the ills it may produce, and with Sincerity and Disinterest, that so they may have no occasion to be in danger of being thwarted. And when there were onely this last, how rare a thing it is to be found! Well therefore has Iohn Major, that renowned Doctor of Paris, long since observ'd, That it was not to be wonder'd at, if they were fewer who declared for a Council then for the Pope, since Councils met but seldom, and gave no Benefices, whereas the Pope does, and thence 'tis (saies he) men flatter him with an omnipotent power, as well in Spiritual things as temporal: Hinc homines ei blandiuntur, dicentes quòd solvere potest omnia, quadrare rotundata, & rotundare quadrata, tam in Spiritualibus quàm in temporalibus. Hence it proceeds that the Liberties of the Gallican Church and the ancient Maxims of the Sorbon are now-a-daies hardly vindicated but by secular persons, such as We that have less relation to the Court of Rome then Ecclesiasticks have; whereof the wisest of them are rather satisfied to approve them in their heart, without defending them in their Books: such power have fear and interest upon the spirit of those who should be more free from them by the Sanctity of their Profession.

But if there be persons disinterested, so as not to be touch'd by these temporal considerations, it often falls out that having little judgment and less science, their Piety it self engages them into these new Opinions; because they are publish'd in the World under this artificial veil, That 'tis, forsooth, to violate and wound Religion to contest the Pope's Infallibility and temporal Sovereignty over Kings.

Those in the mean time who have no relation to it but this pretext, without any mixture of humane interest, may easily be disabus'd, if once they but consider that the most pious of all our ancient Doctors, as the illustrious Gerson (wihtout mentioning Dionysius the Carthusian, and the blessed Cardinal d' Arles) have oppos'd with greater vigour those ambitious pretences of the Court of Rome, and that they have judg'd that, on the contrary, 'tis the sincere Zeal for the Catholick Religion which ought to oblige all judicious Divines, courageously to resist this temporal Superiority over Kings and Infallibility, as two inseperable Maxims one from the other, either of them capable to raise very great mischiefs to the Church. For in effect, what is there more opposite to the real benefit of the Catholick Religion then this Doctrine of the Pope's Superiority over Kings in Temporals, which is a necessary consequence of Infallibility, and of the power which they give him to depose them? Is not this to render Religion abhorr'd and suspected of all Princes, as the Sorbon has judiciously remark'd in the Censure of Santarel, to give them cause to believe that 'tis impossible they should have Subjects at the same time good Catholicks and faithful to their King? What Infidel Prince indeed would permit men to preach Faith in the Countries under his obedience, if he knew that all those who embrace it think themselves by that dispens'd with for obedience to him farther then another Sovereign pleases, who can at any time cause them to take up arms against their lawful King? Were this for example a proper expedient to incline the Americans to receive our Faith, to say to them, as some Spaniards did, that the Pope had bestow'd their Country on the King of Castile? And however Barbarians as they were, had they not reason to reply, as they did, That they knew no such thing as a Pope, but that if there were, he must needs be a wicked man, to give away that which was none of his own? Were not this also to dispose Heretical Princes not to suffer Catholicks in their States, when they shall behold them but as so many subjects to another Prince, who has power to command them to depose him in the Country where they live? And do not we know, that 'tis this has so imbitter'd the King of England against the Papists, and the almost sole cause of the disturbance which they suffered in King Iames's time, as being to this day the greatest obstacle to the progress of Religion in that Kingdom?

In fine, what Catholick Prince would be willing that his Dominion, which he takes so much pains to preserve both in Peace and War, should continually depend upon the judgment of one sole Person, who may be possess'd perhaps by his Enemies, or transported by his proper passions? For 'tis a weak confidence to resolve they will give the Pope no occasion to Excommunicate or deprive them of their Kingdoms. What occasion had Iean d' Albret given, that for all this was despoil'd of his Estate? Really one cannot offer a greater injury either to the Church or Pope himself, then this attributing of so odious a power to him: And the Church will have reason to say to these preposterous defenders of her Interests, as Iacob said to his Children Simeon and Levi upon the Sack of Sichem; Gen. 24.30 Turbâstis me, & odiosam fecistis me Chananaeis & Pherezaeis habitatoribus terrae hujus, You have troubled me, to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the Land. Besides, in celebrating the first Advent of the Son of God himself, she testifies, that all the Kings of the Earth, and even the most fierce of Tyrants, had no reason to have been jealous of the coming of this new King, for that he who gives to his the Kingdom of Heaven, ravishes not from Princes the Kingdoms of the Earth: Non eripit mortalia, Qui Regna dat coelestia. But our Popes take it for an honour done them, when men attribute to them praises quite contrary to what the Church gives Iesus Christ; and Kings are in danger of their Empires, since they can take from Princes both their States and Kingdoms.

But doubtless, when they shall have consider'd how unfortunate these pretences have prov'd to them, and how odious they still are, they will easily themselves acknowledge the truth of these excellent words which the Advocate general Mons. du Mesnil has, in those Memoirs of his upon the procedures of Rome against the Queen of Navarre, inserted amongst the Liberties of the Gallican Church.

Whilest the Popes of Rome pursu'd the footsteps of Charity and Christian Humility, confining their power to the Spiritual Government establish'd by God in his Gospel, without arrogating to themselves a magisterial, temporal or worldly Dominion; so long they received universal reverence and sincere obedience from all men: But no sooner did they or any of them exalt themselves by assuming an Authority not onely as Peers, but Superiours to Kings, but they became in danger of losing their own Authority, and that too which they would have usurped from others, and have created trouble both to the Kingdom of God and of his Church.

Certainly those Popes who shall but consider these Christian and pious Reasons, will never suffer themselves to be surpris'd with the Flatteries of those about them; and will understand that 'tis not the Interest of the Holy See which these Sycophants look after, but their particular profit. Nor do they alwaies dissemble their low and unworthy pretences; nor are they afraid sometimes to sooth the Pope, as one would do the Turk or great Mogul, by those profusions of mony which he spends on his Courtiers. Let the Italians (saies that Italian Carrerius) lift up their heads above all Nations of the Earth, for that singular grace and favour which God has done them in bestowing on them a spiritual Prince, namely the Bishop of Rome, who has chased great Kings and mighty Emperours from their Thrones, to set others in their places; to whom so many potent Kingdoms pay'd tribute so long, as never any thing has been seen like it; and who divides such riches amongst those of his Court, as never any King or Emperour hath done before. But these so lofty Elogies in the eyes of these base and interested spirits appear but Sacrilegious to those who truely honour the grandeur of the Spiritual Authority of the Pope.

It is the very same in the matter of Infallibility; the politick Theologues thinking to procure a great advantage to the Pope by publishing this Doctrine: never considering that on one side they put a very great obstacle to the re-uniting of Hereticks, who are more scandaliz'd with this pretension then with all those Points of our Faith in which we disagree; and on the other, that by this Doctrine they make the Pope in danger to deceive himself, and expose the Church to Schisms and Divisions. For 'tis this pretence of Infallibility which may induce Popes to neglect to take the legitimate and ordinary waies of deciding Points of Faith, who, by the consent even of Cardinal Bellarmine himself, ought to assemble Councils, and there onely regularly examine Controversies of Religion; which they will hardly ever be brought to doe, so long as they are persuaded that they are Infallible, without obligation to any other forms.

Nor let them alledge how great an advantage it is, the having an infallible Authority in the Church, to which there is so easie an access; as if the verity of things depended upon their commodiousness. Were this so, we must also conclude that Popes are impeccable too, at least in the Government of the Church; for who would question but that were likewise very commodious, for hindring the Damnation of so many persons by these unlawful Dispensations, which persuade them that what-ever the Pope permits is as truely lawful as if God himself had said it? whereas really there is nothing more true then what an Ancient has affirm'd, namely, That the greatest part of Dispensations are nothing else but a more easie descent into Hell with the Pope's permission: Facilis descensus ad inferos cum bona venia Papae.

But as this Impeccability would be exceedingly advantagious if indeed God had bestow'd it upon Popes; so, on the contrary there can nothing be more pernicious then the Flattery of those who goe about to attribute it to him, since it the more imboldens them blindly to pursue their own Passions, without fearing to offend God. And this is what those Cardinals and Prelates (chosen by Paul the IIId for the Reformation of the Church) affirm'd really to have succeeded by means of Coacervavcrunt sibi non-nulli Pontifices Magistros ad desideria sua, non ut ab eis disecrent quid facere deberent, set ut corum studio & calliditate inveniretur ratio qua liceret id quod liberet: Ità quòd Voluntas Pontificis, qualiscunque ca fucrit, sit regula quā ejus operationes & actiones dirigantur. Ex quo proculdubio efficitur ut quidquid libeat id etiam liceat. Ex hoc fonte, Sancte Pater, tanquam ex equo Trojano, irrupere in Ecclesiam Dei tot abusus & tam gravissimi morbi, quibus nunc conspicimus cam ad desperationem fere salutis laborâsse. some Persons, who would needs persuade some Popes that their Wills were a sufficient Rule for their Actions; whence it follow'd, that what they pleas'd was lawful; and hence (say they) have (as from a source and spring) flow'd such an infinity of abuses and intestine maladies as have reduc'd the Church to such a condition, as her recovery seems in a manner to be desperate.

We may affirm the same of Infallibility: It would be an extraordinary Priviledge; but the Scripture having assur'd us that Every man is a Lier, unless some Authority not inferiour to it have exempted us from that Rule, 'tis a great unhappiness to believe one's self Infallible; because there is nothing that we are more propense to then the falling into Errour by presuming we cannot erre. And on the other side it may truly be said, that the likeliest means of rendring Popes infallible were, to persuade them that they are not so; to the end a holy fear may alwaies preserve them in an humble and salutary diffidence of their own sense, and incline them to a diligent research of those waies and expedients which God has established to assure them of his divine Truths.

Paris the 1. of February, 1662. FINIS.

An ADVERTISEMENT upon the following DISCOURSE.

IT has been long said, that in the precedent Discourse there have been laid the grounds of pernicious Consequences, &c. that divers things have been taken out of the Notes upon the Pope's Infallibility formerly made by the same Author: But since there has been nothing alledg'd against what was solidly discussed in these Notes touching the Authority of the Councils of Constance and Basil, it is thought pertinent to adde it here.

A REFUTATION OF Certain Cavils with which some Theologues endeavour to elude the Authority of the Councils of CONSTANCE and BASIL.

THE Sense of the Church upon the point of Infallibility did never more perspicuously appear then in the times of the Councils of Constance and Basil, so venerably esteem'd by all France.

'Tis well known that the Doctrine of the Superiority of a Council above the Pope does necessarily destroy his pretended Infallibility; because all Authority which is inferiour, seeing it may be corrected, 'tis impossible it should be infallible; since an Authority that is infallible cannot be corrected: It follows then of necessity, that if the Pope be inferiour to a Council, he is not infallible. All Divines are agreed upon this consequence; and there is none who maintain the Infallibility of the Pope, but they likewise maintain that he is superiour to a Council.

Moreover, if Popes be inferiour to Councils, it follows clearly that they are not onely fallible, but it is also as evident that they have actually erred: seeing Leo the Xth has defin'd the contrary in the Council of Lateran. It is therefore certain, that the Superiority of a Council above a Pope does by necessary consequence involve his Fallibility. Now this Superiority was clearly decided in the 4th Session of the Council of Constance, where the Council declares, Concilium Generale habere à Christo immediatam Authoritatem, cui omnes obedire tenentur, etiam si Papalis dignitatis existat. And thus the Fallibility of the Pope was defin'd by this Decree.

The novel defenders of the Superiority of Popes above Councils exceedingly torture themselves about this Decree of the Council of Constance. For they cannot deny but that Pope Martin the Vth (elected by this Council) did confirm it in all things which had relation to Faith: Now the Authority of General Councils is matter of Faith; which forces them thus to precipitate themselves upon Solutions so ridiculously weak, that it is strange any Divines should be found who durst propose them.

In the first place they affirm, that the Council of Constance is approv'd by Martin the Vth in his quae Conciliariter gesta sunt; but that this Decree was not made Conciliariter, because (say they) it was made without Examen, and therefore was not approved.

'Tis easie to see how dangerous an Answer this is: since if men be once permitted to distinguish in Councils after this manner between Decrees examin'd and not examin'd, the way is open to weaken all their Authority. For how many matters are there which, having been very well examin'd before Councils have been call'd, have no need of being re-examin'd for a long time after, whilst all Prelates and Divines remain agreed concerning them?

But there is no necessity of insisting upon this, since this Solution is founded onely upon manifest Falsities; there being in the world nothing more untrue then the pretence of those Authors, that the Decrees of the 4th and 5th Session about the Superiority of Councils were not of the number of those things which were decreed Conciliariter. For 'tis remarkable that the order of the Council of Constance was, first to propose and examine matters in the particular Congregations of the principal Nations of Christendom, and then they were said to have been decreed Nationaliter. After that they were propos'd again in the publick Sessions; and when they were concluded there, then they were pronounc'd to have been determined Conciliariter. Whereas that which had onely been decreed by the Nations, and not in the publick and general Session of the Council, was never said to be determin'd Conciliariter, but Nationaliter onely. This is the true explication of these two words, as appears by the place it self which these Authors would pervert.

For they have not any thing to alledge on this subject, save what we reade in the conclusion of the Council, which was in the 45th Session. A Cardinal having said, according to the custom, Domini ite in pace, and a Dominican gotten up into the Pulpit to preach; the Embassadors of the King of Poland and Duke of Lithuania asked the Pope in the name of their Masters, That before the Council were dissolv'd, he should cause to be condemn'd in a publick Session, or else declare for condemn'd, the Book of a certain Frier, one John Falkenberg, which notoriously maintain'd divers horrible Errours and Heresies, and which had already been lawfully condemn'd for heretical by the Deputies as to what concern'd the Faith; and which had likewise been concluded by all the Nations of the Council, and by the College of Cardinals: That unless this were consented to, they did protest denial of Iustice in the name of their Masters, and would appeal to the next Council. Which being done, (the Acts added) Our holy Father the Pope replying, said, That he would inviolably hold and observe all and every the things which had been determin'd, concluded and decreed in matters of Faith by the present Council Conciliarly, and that he would never in any kind contradict it: That so he approved and did ratifie all that had thus Conciliarly been done, and no otherwise whatsoever. Dixit respondendo ad praedicta, Quòd omnia & singula determinata, conclusa & decreta in materiis Fidei per praesens Concilium Conciliariter tenere & inviolabiliter observare volebat, & nunquam contraire quoquo modo: Ipsáque sic Conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, & non aliter, nec alio modo.

See here the onely foundation of Cardinal Cajetan's distinction, and the sole reason which he alledges to pretend that Pope Martin the Vth did not approve the Decrees touching the Superiority of Councils, as not done Conciliariter. But by the very same he evidently approves that he has approv'd them: since the Pope includes in his Approbation whatsoever had been determin'd Conciliariter, and excludes but what having been concluded by the Nations, had onely been determin'd Nationaliter, and not Conciliariter, forasmuch as it was not propos'd in the publick and general Sessions of the Council; so as had been the condemnation of Iohn Falkenberg's Book, which he refus'd to ratifie for reasons not known to us. Now it is evident, and no waies doubtful, but the Decrees touching a Council's Superiority were first examin'd and concluded by the Nations, and afterwards establish'd and determin'd in two publick and general Sessions of the Council, that is to say, in the 4th and 5th, where 'tis noted, that these Decrees were first of all deliberated and concluded by all the Nations: Certa Capitula per modum Constitutionum priùs per singulas quatuor Nationes conclusa & deliberata legit & publicavit. And 'tis said at the end of the Session, that the Council had uniformly approv'd and concluded them: Quibus Articulis sive Constitutionibus lectis, dictum Concilium eos & eas uniformiter approbavit & conclusit. Were it not then altogether shameful and most impudent to presume to deny that Martin the Vth had approv'd these Decrees, since he has so expresly approv'd whatsoever was determin'd in the Council Conciliariter? and that 'tis as clear as day, the Decrees were determined Nationaliter & Conciliariter?

In like manner we see that the two latter Annalists of the Church, Spondanus and Raynaldus, to give some colour to this Cheat, change either in the whole or in part the subject and occasion which caus'd Martin the Vth to say, that he onely approv'd that which had been done Conciliariter. For Raynaldus Anno 1418. n. 2. falsly supposes that Martin the Vth speaks these words upon the Fathers of the Council demanding a confirmation of the Acts: Cùm veteri more (saies he) à Patribus Martinus rogatus esset, ut Concilii Acta Apostolicâ authoritate confirmaret, ità ipsum respondisse tradunt Acta; S. D. N. Papa dixit, respondendo ad praedicta, nimirum postulata, quòd omnia & singula determinata, &c. Which is a notorious Forgery, since one need onely reade the Acts to see, that the Fathers of the Council did not ask for a Confirmation of the Acts, and that it was not to answer this demand that he saies what is reported by Raynaldus; but that he might not consent to what was requir'd by the King of Poland's Embassadors concerning the condemnation of Falkenberg's Book: so as it is not to be deny'd but this Historian has committed a shameful Falsification, in feigning the Pope to answer what was never demanded of him, and in adding those two words, nimirum postulata, in Italick Characters, to the word praedicta, to make that agree to the demands of the Fathers of the Council, which has relation onely to the words of the Polonian Embassadors.

Spondanus durst not be altogether so bold with the Truth, nor deny these words of Martin the Vth to have been spoken upon occasion of the Polonian's demand: But he suppresses the protestation of Appealing to the future Council; because that had too evidently shew'd how false that which he imagines is, That it was on design, and in collusion with Martin the V•h, that these Embassadors deferr'd their demand till this last Session, that so they might have an opportunity to observe what Decrees of the Council he did approve by his Apostolical Authority, and what he did not approve; lest if they had mov'd it before, they might have excited some murmure and trouble among the Fathers, by reason of that which had been decided after an ambiguous manner touching the Authority of a Council above a Pope, and their power of reforming the Church both as to its Head and Members, which Pope Martin would not receive nor approve by taking these Decisions absolutely, and in the precise significations of terms. All which is but a pure imagination, without any manner of ground: For besides that the Polonians, who appeal'd from the Pope to the Council, could not be suspected to have conspired with him, since there is nothing which Popes more abhorre then these Appeals to Councils; the answer of Pope Martin the Vth puts no distinction between the Decrees which are found amongst the Acts of the Council, as if he had approv'd the one without the other, but shews on the contrary, that he approv'd all these Decrees, and that he did not deny his Approbation, but as to what did not appear in these Acts as concluded in the Council, for having been determin'd onely by the Nations; such as was the condemnation of this Book of Falkenberg.

It cannot therefore be maintain'd with the least pretence of likelihood, that Martin the Vth did not approve the Decrees of the Council of Constance touching the Superiority of General Councils. And that which makes it yet more evident is, that Pope Eugenius the IVth, though he continually strove to preferre himself above Councils, durst not yet openly oppose those Decrees of Constance, nor reject them as not approv'd by Martin the Vth his Predecessor; but pretends onely that the Council of Basil had abus'd them by applying them to an ill sense, Quòd Concilium Constantiense in malignum sensum pertraxerint; because it had taken occasion upon this Definition to depose him, and to create another Pope.

But towards the latter end of his life the Emperour Frederick and the Princes of Germany, who kept themselves in a Neutrality between the Council of Basil and this Pope, being willing to come to an agreement with him, one of the Conditions of the Accord was, That Eugenius should by a Bull make the same profession which had already been made in Germany by his Legates, concerning the Power, Authority and Preeminence of General Councils, representing the Catholick Church militant. These are the very terms of the Harangue which was made by Aeneas Sylvius in the name of these Princes. Alterum est, ut professio Potestatis, Authoritatis & Praeeminentiae Generalium Conciliorum, Catholicam Militantem Ecclesiam repraesentantium, per tuos Oratores facta, tuis Literis approbetur. To which the Pope consented by his Bull, as 'tis recited by Raynaldus, Tom. 18. ad ann. 1447. n. 15. where he declares, That he embraces and reverences the General Council of Constance, its Decree FREQUENS, (by which this Council took upon it an action of Superiority over Popes, in ordaining them to convoke and assemble Councils every ten years, and disabling their power of retarding this term, but onely to advance it) and all its other Decrees; as likewise all other Councils representing the Catholick Church militant: That he did acknowledge their Power, their Authority, their Honour and their Eminence, as his other Predecessors had done, from whose foot-steps he would not deviate: Concilium autem Generale Constantiense, Decretū FREQUENS, & alia ejus Decreta, sicut caetera alia Concilia Catholicam Militantem Ecclesiam repraesentantia, ipsorum Potestatem, Authoritatem, Honorem, Eminentiam, sicut & caeteri Praedecessores nostri, à quorum vestigiis deviare nequaquam intendimus, suscipimus, amplectimur & veneramur.

But the reflection which Raynaldus makes upon these words of Eugenius shews us what the faith and candor of those persons is: 'Tis a thing (saies he) that deserves observation, that Eugenius by those Letters gives no more Authority to the Decree of the Council of Constance, beginning with the word Frequens, but what Martin the Vth had done before. Now this very Author pretends, An. 1433. that Martin the Vth had not approv'd the Chapter FREQUENS of the Council of Constance; but that on the contrary he had abridg'd it by the Dissolution of the Council of Siena: so as according to this Author the sense of the words of Eugenius were, That he receives, embraces and reverences the Decree FREQUENS, as far as his Predecessors; and that his Predecessor having neither receiv'd, embrac'd nor reverenc'd it, neither did he receive, embrace, or reverence it. Could one offer a greater injury to Pope Eugenius, then to take the words of his Bull in a sense so estranged from Christian sincerity, and think that he would juggle with the whole German Church by so gross a Delusion?

But that which does yet farther ruine all these Sophisms is, that Pope Pius the IId, in the same Bull where he retracts that which he had written for the Council of Basil against Pope Eugenius, formally approves the Council of Constance, and in particular that Decree touching the Authority of General Councils. Cum his (saies he) & Generalis Concilii Autoritatem & Potestatem complectimur, quemadmodum & aevo nostro Constantiae, dum ibi fuit Synodus Universalis, declaratum definitúmque est: Veneramur enim N. Constantiense Concilium, & cuncta quae praecesserunt à Romanis Pontificibus nostris praedecessoribus approbata. So that if it be pretended that Pius the IId would maintain that the Pope were superiour to a Council, one must also necessarily pretend that he manifestly contradicted himself. But it is enough to refute this false Distinction, that he not onely authorizes the Council of Constance in general, but particularly in that which it has defin'd concerning the Authority of Councils.

The Second Reply whereof these modern Authors make use is, That the Council of Constance does not define the Authority of all General Councils, but that onely which it has during a Schism, when there is no lawful Pope in the Church. But this Solution (as novel as the former) is manifestly ruined by the same words of the Council of Constance, which expressly particularize that it defines the Authority of all General Councils, and not onely its own in particular. Item declarat, (saies the Council in the Article immediately following after what I have cited) quò quicunque, cujuscunque statûs & dignitatis, etiam Papalis, existat, qui Mandatis, Statutis, seu Ordinationibus aut Praeceptis hujus Sacrae Synodi, & cujuscunque alterius Concilii legitimè congregati, super praemissis seu ad ea pertinentibus factis vel faciendis, obedire contumaciter contempserit, nisi resipuerit, condignae poenitentiae subjiciatur, & debitè puniatur.

There can be nothing then imagin'd more frivolous then such an imagination, that the Council of Constance spake onely of its own Authority, and not of that of other Councils; since it clearly decides, that the Popes who despis'd the Determinations of any General Councils whatsoever are worthy to be punish'd.

Moreover Pope Pius the IId, in the fore-alledg'd passage, formally acknowledg'd that this Council has determin'd the Authority of Councils in general, and not its own in particular: Generalis Concilii Authoritatem & Potestatem complectimur, quemadmodum & aevo nostro Constantiae, dum ibi fuit Synodus Universalis, declaratum definitúmque est.

In like manner the whole Church in receiving the Council of Constance has uniformly understood, that it has defin'd the Superiority of a Council above the Pope. Therefore France, and the Faculty of the Parisian Divines, which have particularly adher'd to this Council, have likewise alwaies embrac'd this Doctrine, nor have ever admitted any other, as Major affirms in c. 18. Matt. Superiùs (saies he) ostensum est, quòd Augustinus & alii Doctores tenent partem quam insequimur, (nempe Concilium esse supra Papam:) hanc tenuerunt varii Cardinales, & Ioannes Patriarcha Antiochenus, Petrus de Aliaco Cardinalis Cameracensis, Nicolaus de Cusa Doctor vocatus Christianissimus, Ioannes Gerson Cancellarius Parisiensis nunquam satìs laudatus, nostra Facultas Parisiensis à diebus Concilii Constantiensis, in qua plures habebis exercitatos Theologos quàm in duobus vel tribus Regnis, quae sic hanc partem fovent, quòd nulli licuit asserere oppositum probabile. See here what has been the Iudgment of the Faculty of Paris, till Mons. Duval appear'd on the stage.

The Council of Basil (held 12 years after) renew'd these Decrees of the Council of Constance of the second Session, Anno 1432. And because Eugenius the IVth would remove it to Bologna, the Council having maintain'd that it was not in the power of the Pope, (because a Council was above him) Eugenius was fain Anno 1434. to revoke all that which had been done against the Council, and to declare by a Bull, that it had been lawfully continu'd from the beginning till then; whereupon he sent new Legates thither (besides Cardinal Iulian, who had continu'd all the while there) which in the 17th Session swore to maintain the Decrees of the Superiority of a Council, which were yet farther renew'd in the 18th Session.

All this shews that Bellarmine had no reason to affirm that the Superiority of a Council above the Pope was not defin'd till the 33th Session, when Eugenius had broke the Council by adjourning it to Ferrara; it being evident that the Decrees of Constance were there several times renew'd, during the time that the Council was acknowledg'd for Oecumenick by Eugenius himself; and, by consequence, certain it is, that the Decisions of the former Sessions are the Decisions of an Oecumenical Council, representing the Church universal, and approv'd by a Pope.

FINIS.