assembled by order of the Cardinals to consult about that matter were all unanimously of the Judgment of the University of Paris and he affirmed that besides the Universities of France it was also the Judgment of the famous University of Bologna 1 June from which they had Letters and of that of Florence who had given it in writing under the Hands of sixscore Doctors Six days after the Process that was brought against Gregory and Benet having been proved and made out in a judicial manner the Council past a definitive Sentence whereby it declares Pietro de la Luna and Angelo Corario heretofore called Popes Benet XIII and Gregory XII obstinate Schismaticks and Hereticks convicted of enormous Crimes of Perjury Impiety and of Collusion to deceive Believers and to keep up the Schism which so long had rent the Church and as such deposes them from the Papacy This the Council did pursuant to the Decree whereby it had before determined that that Council represented the Church universal and that it was the only supreme Judge upon Earth to whom the Judgment of that Cause belonged though it was most certain that one of these two Pretenders was the true Pope After wards they chose Alexander V. who was acknowledged by the Universal Church except those two wretched Remains of Obedience who held out still for the two Antipopes and that Pope approved all the Decrees of the Council even a moment before his Death which was most holy and precious in the sight of God I have heretofore proved according to the Judgment of almost all the Churches of Christendom of that of Rome in particular nay and of the Universal Church represented by the Council of Constance which was but a continuation of this that it ought to be reckoned without contradiction lawful But since on the one hand it hath pleased some Doctors beyond the Alpes to doubt of it and that on the other I decline all dispute in this Treatise I will only stick to matter of Fact which cannot be contested to wit that this Council of Pisa hath been one of the greatest Assemblies that was ever seen in the Church For there were in it five and twenty Cardinals four Patriarchs six and twenty Archbishops an hundred fourscore and two Bishops either in person or by Proxy two hundred fourscore and ten Abbots amongst whom were all the Heads of the Orders the Generals of the Carthusians and of the four Mendicant Orders the great Masters of Rhodes of the Holy Sepulchre and the Teutonick Knights the Deputies of the Universities of Paris Tholouse Orleans Anger 's Montpellier Bologna Florence Cracovia Vienna Prague Cologne Oxford and Cambridge and of some others and those of the Chapters of above an hundred Metropolitan and Cathedral Churches above three hundred Doctors of Divinity and of the Law the Ambassadors of the Kings of France England Poland Bohemia Sicily and Cyprus of the Dukes of Burgundy and Lorrain Brabant Bavaria of the Marquess of Brandenburg Lantgrave of Thuringe and of almost all the other Princes of Germany besides that the Kings of Hungary Sweden Denmark Norway and in a word those of Spain except Arragon shortly after adhered to that Council and by consequent all these Prelates all these Doctors all these Orders all these Universities all these Kingdoms all these States that 's to say in a word almost all Christians in the beginning of the fifteenth Century when that Dispute was started concerning the Superiority of the Council or of the Pope believed conform to the Belief of Antiquity That a Council is above the Pope But you are to take notice of somewhat more particular and convincing still When five years after the Council of Constance was opened for continuing that of Pisa as it had been decreed in that Council which was rather interrupted than concluded the Dispute concerning the Superiority of the Pope or of the Council was started again with greater Heat than before For some Cardinals being arrived from Scaffhausen whither the Pope who had escaped from Constance had retired attempted in full Assembly where Sigismund the Emperour was present to prove that the Council was dissolved because John XXIII who had abandoned it being owned for true Pope by all that were present was above the Council which could have no Authority without him Then was there a general murmuring in the Assembly and many of those who had greatest Authority and Reputation by reason of their Dignity and Knowledge Et iis responsum fuit alacriter per plures de ipso concilio viros magnae authoritatis scientificos scilicet quod Papa non esset supra Concilium sed sub concilio facta est illie contentio magna hinc inde Niem in vit Joann J. Gers Serm. coram Concil undertook to refute them and to prove on the contrary That the Council was superiour to the Pope conform to the Sermon that the famous John Gerson had made to the Council a few days before wherein he had made it out in twelve propositions That a general Council representing the Universal Church is above the Pope not only in the doubt whether or not he be true Pope but also in the Assurance that is to be had whether he be lawfully chosen or not Etiam ritè electi as they did undoubtedly hold John XXIII to have been Wherefore that Question both before and after the Sermon of Gerson having been examined in the Conferences of Nations according to the Order appointed by the Council a Report of it was made in the fourth Session Act. Concil Constan t. 12. con Ed. Paris Anton. tit 22. c. 6. §. 2. where nine Cardinals and two hundred Bishops were present with the Emperour Sigismund the Ambassadors of the Kings of France England Poland Norway Cyprus Navarr and many Princes of Germany and there seeing it had been already declared in the preceding Session that the Council subsisted and still retained all its Force and Authority tho the Pope had withdrawn himself it was by common Consent thus concluded and defined That the Holy Council lawfully assembled and representing the Church Militant hath received immediately from Jesus Christ a Power which all and every one even the Pope himself are obliged to obey in all that concerns the Faith the extirpation of Schism and the general Reformation of the Church of God in its Head and Members And to the end that it might not be said what some have said since without having carefully read the Council of Constance that that is only to be understood during the time of a Schism it is added to the Decree in the following Session That whatever Pope refuses to obey the Decrees not only of this Council but also of any other that shall be lawfully called ought to be punished if he amend not The Council afterward exercises its sovereign Authority over Pope John XXIII acknowledged by them for true Pope by the Church of Rome and by all Christian
Innocent X. He alone hath the right of calling Councils for Spiritual Affairs and to preside in them personally or by his Legates I say he hath that right without speaking of matter of Fact which is under debate in respect of some Councils and cannot prejudice his Primacy For though he hath not presided in the first Council of Constantinople which perhaps neither did he call and that it be most certain that he did not call the fifth nor presided in it though he was at Constantinople where that Council was held yet it is not to be doubted but he might have done both the one and the other if he had pleased seeing that in the Letter which the Patriarch Entychius wrote to him for obtaining of that Council Concil 5. Act. 1. he prayed him to preside in it and that he onely presided therein upon his refusal For thus it is in the Original praesidente nobis vestrâ beatitudine and not residente nobiscum as the Minister Junius hath corrupted it by a correction made of his own head against the clear sense of the following words Besides is it not past all controversie that the Pope presided by his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon as he hath done in almost all the others which have been held since For I speak not here of the great Council of Nice nor of that of Ephesus because as I conceive I have elsewhere proved by invincible Arguments not onely against our Protestants but also against the sentiments of some Catholick Doctours that the Popes by their Legates presided in them nay and that they called them as to what relates to the Spiritual Authority which they have over the Bishops as the Emperours to whose rights Kings and Christian Princes have succeeded may call Councils in regard of Temporals by that sovereign power which they have received from God over their Subjects in virtue whereof they may oblige their Bishops to assemble in a certain place either within or without their Territories there to treat of matters purely spiritual wherein they meddle not but as protectours of the Church in causing the Decrees and Canons of these Councils which strike not at the Rights of their Crown to be put in execution It is certain then that the Popes as Heads of the Church have right to call general Councils and to preside in them Moreover seeing the Pope in that quality Concil Sardic Can. 3.4.7 Gelas Epist ad Epis Dardan Innoc. Epist ad Victric St. Leo. Ep. 82. Cap. Car. Mag. lib. c. 187. Hincmar ad Nicol. 1. Flodo Hist Eccl. Rom. l. 3. Gerson de Protestant Eccl. Cons 8. is without dispute above every Bishop of what Dignity soever he may be and above all particular Churches and Synods Appeals may be made from all these Bishops and Synods to his Tribunal It belongs to him to judge of greater Causes such as those which concern the Faith and that are doubtfull universal Customs the deposing of Bishops and some others which I have observed elsewhere the decision whereof belongs and ought to be referred to him In that manner the Inferiour Judges appointed by Moses according to the advice of Jethro Exod. 18. judged of causes of less importance and the greater were reserved to that great leader of the People of God Hence it is also that the Pope hath right to judge yet always according to the disposition of the Canons of the causes of Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs This appears clearly by the judgment in the case of St. Athanasius Athan. Apol. 2. Theodoret. l. 2. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Sozom. l. 3. c. 81. Paul Patriarch of Constantinople Marcellus Primate of Ancyra Asclepas Bishop of Gaza and Lucius Bishop of Adrianople whom Pope Julius restored to their Sees from which they had been illegally Deposed and by the case of Denis Patriarch of Alexandria who being accused Athan. de sent Dionys defended himself in writing before the Pope in a word by an infinite number of other instances in all ages of the Church which may be seen in my Treatise of the judgment of the causes of Bishops I shall onely mention one which wonderfully sets off that supreme Authority of the Pope After the death of Epiphanins Liberat. c. 10. Patriarch of Constantinople the Empress Theodora one of the wickedst Women that ever was and above all a great Eutychian in her heart and a great enemy to the Council of Chalcedon prevailed so far by the great power that she had got over the mind of the Emperour Justinian her Husband who could not resist her Artifices that Anthimius was made Patriarch though he was Bishop of Trebizonde by that means possessing at the same time two Episcopal Chairs against the manifest constitution of the holy Canons without any Precedent and without lawfull dispensation Besides that naughty man was both a frank Heretick and great Cheat. For though he was not onely Eutychian but also the head of those Hereticks Justin Nov. 42. Niceph. l. 17. c. 9. yet he always professed that he might deceive the Emperour who at that time was a good Catholick that he received the Doctrine of the four Councils but without ever condemning Eulyches who had been condemned by the holy Council of Chalcedon That occalioned a great deal of scandal and trouble in the East and seeing when matters were in this state Concil Constant sub Men. Act. 1. St. Agapetus the Pope was come from Rome to Constantinople whither Theodatus King of the Goths had obliged him to go that he might endeavour to obtain of Justinian the peace which the Goths demanded The Monks of Syria and many other zealous Catholicks presented him Petitions against that Intruder and Heretick This without doubt is one of the most illustrious marks and one of the strongest proofs of the Authority of the Holy See and of the Primacy of the Pope that ever was seen in the Church The Emperour who loved Anthimius and thought himself obliged in honour to protect him as being his Creature solicited on his behalf and by his earnestness in the Affair made it apparent that he intended to maintain him Theodora who was more concerned still than the Emperour in the preservation of her Patriarch employed all her Artifices and spared neither offers prayers nor threats to shake the constancy of a Pope whom she saw resolved to make use of the power which he had received from Jesus Christ for the good of the Church The Empire was then in a most flourishing state the Emperour shining in glory After the defeat of the Vandals in Africa Constantinople in great splendour Anthimius most powerfull through the favour of his Prince and the Grandeur and Majesty of the Patriarchal See of the Imperial City where he thought himself too well fixed to fear that he could be turned out Rome on the contrary being no more the Seat of the Empire since it was fallen under the Dominion of the Herules and
of Scripture which teacheth us Nec rationem habere ullam exempli quod hic vel ille decessor meus c. that God permits that men should for a time be ignorant of that which afterwards he discovers to his Church Perspicite an decessores nostri id satis intellexerint quod de indissolubili matrimonii vinculo disquirimus Who knows then now said he but that God may manifest by our means what others have not known touching the indissolvable Bond of Marriage Wherefore have no respect to Examples and don 't tell me what this man or that man of my Predecessors have determined about this matter in a like Case Confider only whether these Popes have understood rightly or not what they have decided concerning this matter of Marriage which we examine There is a Pope who doubtless will never be accused of having failed in maintaining the pontifical Authority that nevertheless frankly confesses and in very plain terms that he and his Predecessors may have erred in Decisions that they may have made concerning points relating to the Faith So that from all that I have hitherto said upon that Subject it may evidently be concluded That great Saints of the ancient Church Bishops in all parts of Christendome in the East in the West and in Africa full and general Councils ancient Popes who have either presided in or consented to these Councils in a word that all Antiquity hath believed that the Pope deciding by his pontifical Authority without the consent of the Church is not at all infallible CHAP. XVI The state of the Question touching the Superiority of a Council over the Pope or of the Pope over a Council IF I proceeded in this Treatise by way of Discourse and Argument I might soon conclude and not fear that any Objection could be brought against my Conclusion for if Antiquity hath believed as I think I have demonstrated that the Pope is not Infallible and that he may be deceived in his Decrees it 's most evident that it hath also believed by necessary consequence that the Tribunal of the Universal Church which without contradiction is infallible and represented by a general Council is above that of the Pope But because for avoiding of Dispute I only alledge evident matters of Fact against which all the Arguments in the World can never prevail for in fine can one by dint of Argument make that which has been never to have been I shall only relate what the Ancient Church hath believed touching that famous Question Seeing the State of the Question ought plainly and without Ambiguity to be proposed for avoiding perplexity to the end that people may at first agree about the thing that is in question and that it may not be said as it oftentimes happens after much jangling and dispute without concluding any thing that the thing was understood in a quite different sense than it was proposed in Take therefore the state of the Question as follows It is enquired Whether after that a Council is lawfully assembled the Pope who without contradiction is Head of it presiding in it in person or by his Legates or not being present nor presiding therein either the one way or t'other as it hath happened oftner than once and is to be seen in the second Oecumenical Council of an hundred and Ann. 381. fifty Bishops Ann. 553. and in the fifth of above an hundred and sixty Whether I say that Council considered in its Membets united either under the Pope who has Right to preside in it or failing of him under another President is above the Pope and hath sovereign Authority over him so that he is obliged to submit to its Decrees and Definitions to approve them and consent thereunto as all others are though he be in his own particular of a contrary Judgment or whether the Pope is so above all the other Members of that Council united together be he there or not that if he approve and confirm not by his Assent and Authority the Decrees and Definitions thereof That Council has no Authority neither over Him nor over Believers In this precisely consists that Question which hath not been moved in the Church but since the Council of Pisa some two hundred and forty Years ago Ann. 1409. And the reason why it was never spoken of before is because it was not at all doubted in the Ancient Church but that a Council was above the Pope I shall make it out by matters of Fact against which no Reply can be made CHAP. XVII That it is the Holy Ghost which in the Definitions of Faith pronounces by the Mouth of the Council ANtiquity hath always believed as it is believed at this day That the Council held at Jerusalem concerning the Legal Observations to which many amongst the converted Jews pretended that all who embraced the Faith of the Gospel were tied hath been a pattern to all Oecumenical Councils which have been since celebrated in the Church for the supreme Decision of other points of Controversie which have often divided Christians inâ—o very different Opinions and when the matter in question had been well examined the Decree that pass'd in that Council proceeded from the Holy Ghost which was uttered in these Words Visum est spiritui sancto nobis It hath ever since also been believed that when other Councils after an exact Enquiry into the Truth defined what was to be believed or what was to be done it is the Holy Ghost that speaks in their Decrees and that it may truly be said as it was said at Jerusalem It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to this Assembly This hath been expressed by St. Leo in these terms Sanctorum patrum canones spiritu Dei conditi totius mundi reverentia consecrati St. Leo Epist 84. ad Anast Thessalonic which have been received with so much Applause in the whole Church when he saith in one of his Epistles That the Canons of the holy Fathers have been made by the Spirit of God and that they are consecrated by the Veneration of the whole Earth Now it is certain that St. Peter depended upon the Holy Ghost as well as St. James St. John St. Paul St. Barnaby the Elders and other Brethren who were present in that Council and if after that he compelled by his Example the Christians to Judaise as Cardinal Baronius hath thought he had been much more to be blamed for having disobeyed the Holy Ghost and the Council than when St. Paul rebuked him openly before the Council as I have made it clearly out by the Testimony of the Fathers and of Pope Pelagius II. So that it ought to be concluded that the Pope who is no less inferiour to the Holy Ghost than St. Peter to whom he succeeds is obliged to submit to his Judgment against his own to obey and consent to his Decisions and consequently to those of the Council who neither speaks nor decides
the Iconoclaste Before that saith the same Author Popes were Subject to the Emperors and durst neither judg nor resolve of any thing that concerned them Imperatoribus suberant de iis Judicare vel quicquam decernere non audebat Papa Romanus Thus the Ancient Popes behaved themselves and so much they believed of their Pontifical Authority which does not at all reach the Temporal And to this you may add Onuphr Pavin in vit Greg. VII ex edit Gresser pag. 271. 272. that in the eight first Ecumenical Councils there is nothing to be found but what speaks the compleat submission that is due to Emperors and Kings but nothing that can in the least encroach upon or invalidate the absolute independence of their Temporal Power Now if in some of the Councils which succeeded the Pontificat of Gregory VII Kings have been threatned to be deposed and if an Emperor hath been actually deposed that was not done by the way of decision and though a Council had made a decision as to that yet it must only have been an unwarrantable attempt upon the Right of Princes and could have been of no greater Force than the Bulls whereby it hath been often enough offered at to dispossess them of their States but which have always been condemned and rejected as abusive For after all there will be reason everlastingly to say that which all Antiquity hath believed that the Church her self infallible as she is which the Pope according to the same Antiquity is not hath not received from her heavenly spouse the gift of Infallibility but as to matters purely Spiritual and wholly abstracted from the Temporal and the Kingdom of the World wherein Jesus Christ who hath said my Kingdom is not of this World would never meddle CHAP. XXX What hath always been the opinion of the Gallican Church and of all France as to that The conclusion of this Point and of the whole Treatise HItherto I have made appear what hath been the Judgment and Doctrin of Jesus Christ of his Apostles the Fathers Ancient Popes and of the Councils that is of all venerable Antiquity concerning that Power at least indirect which some would attribute to Popes Now seeing the most Christian Kingdom above all other States of Christendom hath always stuck close to the Ancient Doctrin of the Church which is the solid foundation of their Liberties Therefore it was that all the Bishops of France representing the Gallican Church the faculty of Theology of the great University of Paris so much respected in the World the chief Parliament of France and in imitation of it the rest acting in the Name and by the Authority of the King as Protector of the Canons and holy Decrees have even in this Kingdom maintained the Ancient Doctrin and upon all occasions condemned that pernicious novelty which is contrary to it This I intend briefly to prove The Gallican Church since the settlement of the most Christian Monarchy amongst the Gaules hath always inviolably observed the Rights of the Royalty in her Councils which were so often called by the sole Authority of Clovis and his Successors especially during the first and second race of our Kings And when the Popes would have attempted any thing upon their Temporal the French Bishops have always opposed it with all imaginable force and vigour Of this I shall give you some instances Lotharius Louis and Pepin Sons of Louis the Debonaire instigated by some who had a mind to make their advantage of the dissentions that they had sowed betwixt the Father and his Children Auct Anonym Vic. Ludou Pii rose in Arms against him and found means to engage into their party Pope Gregory IV. Ann. 832. who came in person to their Camp to favour their pretentions The Emperor on the other Hand accompanied with a great part of the Bishops of France failed not to advance with a Powerful Army in May the year following as far as Worms not far distant from the Camp of the Princes his Children Ut si more praedecessorum suorum aderat curâ—tontas necteret moras non sibi occurrendo Immediately he sent them some of his Bishops who exhorted them to return to their duty and who told the Pope in his name that if he was come according to the custom of his Predecessors he much wondered that he had so long delayed to come and wait upon him But when it was discovered that instead of keeping within the bounds of a bare Mediator for reconciling the Children to their Father so as it was believed he was come with a design to Excommunicate the Emperor and his Bishops if they obeyed not his Will and the Princes for whom he thereby manifestly declared himself against the Emperor Then these Bishops without being startled Nullo modo se velle voluntati ejas succumbere sed si Excommunicaturus adveniret Excommunicatus abiret cam aliter se babeas antiquorum Canonum autoritas made it known to him plainly that in that they would no ways obey him and that if he was come to Excommunicate them he should return Excommunicated himself seeing the Authority of the ancient Canons prescribes and ordains the quite contrary to what he attempts The truth is that expression seems to me a little too high but it cannot be denied but that it makes it clearly out to us that the Bishops of France would not at all suffer that the Pope should offer to enjoyn any thing concerning the Government of the State and the Temporal interests which were the Points that occasioned the War and besides that they were very well persuaded that Popes are Subject to the Holy Canons and by consequent to the Councils which have made them Moreover the great clashing that Philip the Fair had with Pope Boniface VIII who openly attacked the Rights of his Crown is very well known and it is also well known what the Gallican Church did for maintaining them and the cautions they took against the Bull unam Sanctam which raised the Popes in Temporals above all Sovereigns It is likewise known what decisions she gave Louis XII for the preservation of his Rights in the difference that he had with Julius II. and what the Clergy of France Assembled at Mante during the League Anno 1591. declared upon occasion of the Bull of Gregory XIV against Henry IV. To the Estates General at Paris 1614 1615. Now if Cardinal Duperron hath in his Speeches said something not altogether consistent with the Doctrin always maintained by the Clergy of France that is but the opinion of one private Doctor who hath oftener than once changed his sentiment and on that occasion transgressed the orders of the Ecclesiastical Chamber of the States General in name of whom he spake and who would have him only represent to the third Estate that it did not belong to them but to the Church to decide that Point of Doctrin concerning the Pontifical Power as it
niteris quod ante nescivimus Hier. Epist ad Pammach Ocean to teach us that which was not known before Pope Celestin I. Exhorting the Gallican Church to repress a sort of People that would have established new Doctrines concludes with these very pithy words Corripiantur hujusmodi non sit illis liberum habere pro voluntate sermonem Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem Coelest Ep. ad Episc Gall. Let such men be corrected let them not have the liberty to say what they please let not Novelty insult over Antiquity And Sixtus III. Animated by the same Spirit that his Predecessour was and following his steps speaks to John of Antioch with the same force writing to him in these terms Let no more be allowed to Novelty Nihil ultra liceat Novitati quia nihil addi convenit vetustati Six III. Ep. ad Joan. Antioch because nothing ought to be added to Antiquity Not but that the Church which makes no new Articles of Faith may declare after many Ages being instructed by the Holy Ghost which successively teaches her all truth that certain matters that have not been before examined whether or not they be Articles of Faith are really such as she hath done upon many occasions obliging us to believe distinctly what was not as yet known to be matter of Faith But that we ought so to stick to that which hath been believed in Antiquity in matter of Doctrine and especially in the four or five first Ages when according to our Protestants themselves there was as yet no corruption in Doctrine that new Doctours may add nothing of their own invention nor establish any Novelty contrary to it This solid Principle being equally received by Catholicks and Protestants I hope to satisfie both in declaring calmly and without dispute by the bare relation of evident matters of Fact what the ancient Church hath believed concerning the establishment of the Church of Rome and the Prerogatives and rights of her Bishops This then is the Method which I shall trace in this Treatise CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome ALL Catholicks who know that the Popes are the Successours of St. Peter agree amongst themselves as to that point but not with all Hereticks For there are some Modern who confidently deny that that Divine Apostle ever was at Rome or that he fixed his Chair either there or in the City of Antioch Calvin l. 4. Inst c. 6. They ground so extraordinary and new an Opinion upon the silence of St. Luke and St. Paul who having been at Rome would not have failed to have spoken of St. Peter and to have found Christians if he had already Preached the Gospel there besides they ground it upon a certain Chronology which they have made as they thought fit of the Acts of the Apostles and which can no way agree with that History of St. Peter and in fine upon the very Epistles of that Apostle who gives us to know that his Mission was into Asia and that he died at Babylon There is nothing that gives a clearer proof of the weakness and delusion of the wit of man than when by that Pride which is so natural to him he shakes off that Authority to which he is obliged to submit and for that end opposes it by his false reasonings that serve for no other purpose but to discover his blindness and vanity Though we had elsewhere no Intelligence of the Voyage to and Chair of St. Peter at Rome yet no man of sense would suffer himself to be persuaded by such inconclusive arguments so easie to be refuted St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts of the Apostles Hath he mentioned there any thing of St. Paul's Journey into Arabia of his return to Damascus and then three years after to Jerusalem of his Travels into Galatia his being ravished up into Heaven his three Shipwrecks his eight Scourgings and of a thousand things else that he suffered shall one conclude from that silence that all is false And though St. Paul had not written of these things himself or if his Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians Galat. 1. 2 Cor. 2. had never come to our hands would that silence of St. Luke have been of any greater force to prove that that is not true seeing it is really so and was true before St. Paul wrote any thing of it That Evangelist saith St. Jerome hath past over a great many things which St. Paul suffered as likewise that St. Peter established his Chair first at Antioch In Ep. ad Galat. c. 2. and then at Rome And as to the Chronology calculated to refute the two Foundations of Antioch and Rome we maintain that it is false and it is easie to give another fixed by the ablest writers of Ecclesiastical History and Chronologers which perfectly agrees with the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul Take it thus then in a few words The year of our Lord thirty five that Apostle was sent with St. John to Samaria Anno 35. to lay hands upon those whom the Deacon St. Philip had newly converted there Act. 8. v. 20. And having Preached the Gospel to the People of that Province he returned to Jerusalem where St. Paul three years after his Conversion went to visit him in the year thirty nine Now seeing the Church at that time lived in a profound peace St. Peter took so favourable a time to go visit Anno 39. as St. Luke saith in express terms Galat. 1. v. 18. Act. 9. v. 31. 32. all the Believers that the Disciples dispersed through the Provinces during the Persecution of the Jews after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen Act. 11. v. 19. Euseb in Chron. Chrysost Hieron Greg. M. alii had gained to Christ And then it was that being informed that many of these dispersed Disciples had by their Preaching wrought much fruit at Antioch he went and setled his Patriarchal Chair in that great City the Capital of the East as the Ancients assure us From thence seeing he had the care of all the Churches having given necessary orders for the government of that of Antioch Anno 40 41. Anno 42. he returned into Judaea visits Lidda Joppa Caesarea opens a door to the calling of the Gentiles by the Conversion of Cornelius the Centurion and returns to Jerusalem Act. 11. v. 4. where having declared what God had revealed to him upon that Subject he was informed by the relation of those that came from Antioch that the number of Believers increased there dayly And therefore St. Barnabas was sent thither V. 22. who finding that there was a great Harvest there went to fetch St. Paul from Tarsus to assist him in the work V. 25. and both of them laboured in that holy employment for the space of a whole year with so great success Anno 43. that there the Believers who
and of those three Councils These are the proper terms of the Decree of the Pope which we have in the Epistles of St. Cyprian for the Letters of St. Stephen have not come to our hands Si quis à quâcunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est ut manus ei imponantur ad poenitentiam Ap. Cyprian Epist 79 ad Pompeian If any one return to us from what Heresie soever it be let nothing be innovated and let nothing be done but what Tradition authorises that is to say that hands be onely laid upon him to reconcile him by repentance There is nothing more opposite than those two Decrees Qui ex quâcunque haeresi ad Ecclesiam convertantur unico legitimo Baptismate Baptizentur Cypr. Epist ad Jubaian if you take them literally That of Saint Cyprian will have all Hereticks to be Re-baptized from what Heresie soever they return and all that are out of the Church and that it is not enough to lay hands upon them but the Pope by his Eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere Stephanus Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat hoc facientibus graviter succensebat August l. de unic Baptis c. 14. declares that it is sufficient and forbids any Heretick to be Re-baptised This St. Austine confirms when he expresly assures us that Stephen would have no Heretick to be Re-baptized and that he was extreamly offended against all those that did it The truth is Eusebius in his History remarks that the true state of that great Question that was then in agitation was to know Whether those who returned from any Heresie whatsoever ought to be Re-baptized Indeed if one would stick without admitting any explication to the natural sense of these words of Eusebius A quocunque Haeresis genere Erat id tempor is non exigua quaestio controversia excitata utrum oporteret eos qui se à quocunque haeresis genere revocassent lavacro Baptismatis repurgare Euseb l. 7. c. 2. and of those of the Decree of Saint Stephen Si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi ut manus ei imponatur in poenitentiam It will seem at first sight that as St. Cyprian was for having all generally who had been Baptized by Hereticks to be Re-baptized so that Holy Pope on the contrary forbad the Re-baptizing of any who had been Baptized by Hereticks And that is also the errour that some have attributed unto him upon these words Si quis à quacunque Haeresi which they have taken according to the strictness of the Letter But it is to be confessed ingenuously that as Tradition hath always rejected the Monstrous Baptisms of some Hereticks which may be seen in Epiphanius who Baptized in a quite different manner from what Jesus Christ prescribes when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost So that Holy Pope who with St. Cyprian rejected all these false Baptisms would onely that the Baptism administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost by any Hereticks whatsoever should not be reiterated And certainly without necessity of alledging any other proof that in my opinion appears evidently by that testimony of St. Augustine which I have just now cited Stephanus Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat Pope Stephen thought that the Baptism of Jesus Christ was to be reiterated in no Heretick The Question was onely then about the Baptism of Jesus Christ which ordains Baptism to be administred in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost The Romans would have that to stand good by what Heretick soever it had been conferred and the Africans maintained that it was null if it was conferred by Hereticks out of the Church or by Schismaticks And this is the precise state of that great Controversie betwixt the Pope Saint Stephen and St. Cyprian though the Decree of that Pope be not altogether so clearly worded as that of St. Cyprian Aug. l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donat. Now this Decree which the Pope grounded wholly upon the ancient custome of the Church Cypr. Ep. 74. al. and the Tradition of the Apostles having been brought into Africa St. Cyprian and all those of his party which was very considerable opposed it with all their might For besides the African Bishops assembled in three Councils after that of Agrippinus Firmil Epist ap Cypr. Epist 75. Dionys Alexand. apud Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. 6. Firmilian Bishop of Cesanea in Cappadocia and most of the Bishops of Asia adhered unto him and had as well as those of Africa decided against the Baptism of Hereticks in the Councils of Iconium and Synnada and of many other Cities of Asia where the Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia Galatia Phrygia and other Provinces assembled for examining that Question which had been the cause of so great a difference Denis Patriarch of Alexandria a Man of extraordinary merit singular learning and great authority Ibid. made it also evident enough by his Writings that they should not offer to condemn that Doctrine which his Bishops of Africa and of Asia maintained to be exactly conform to holy Scripture affirming that as there is but one Faith Cypr. Epist 70 71 72 73 74 75 76. one Church and one Baptism this cannot be administred out of the Church And as Hereticks can neither absolve from sins nor give the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of hands so neither can they Baptise And as to the custome that was objected to them they absolutely denied it to have been the practice of the Primitive Church nor a Tradition derived from the Apostles but on the contrary said that theirs was Apostolical and that their practice being the more ancient had been observed time out of mind in the Church Notwithstanding all these reasons the Pope continued stedfast in the resolution he had taken of causing his Decree to be observed in so far Dionys Alexand. apud Euseb l. 3. c. 4. Firmil ap Cypr. Epist 75. that he cut off from his communion all the Bishops of Asia who would not submit to it And this he did although Denis of Alexandria had written earnestly to him to dissuade him from it representing to him that he might appease him that Pope Cornelius and the Anti-pope Novatian having written to these Bishops to engage them severally unto their party they had in fine all of them condemned Novatian and his Heresie which consisted in this that he maintained that the Church had not power to reconcile those who in time of persecution had fallen off to Idolatry Cardinal Baronius concludes from these words of the Holy Patriarch that the Asiaticks had quitted their opinion concerning the nullity of the Baptism of Hereticks But without doubt that is an evident Anachronism and manifest
declared in relation to the same Controversie in his Epistles to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople one of the chief Authors of that Heresie The Judgment of St. Martin was approved in that Council and that of Honorius so severely censured that the Pope was there anathematised Whether these Letters were well or ill understood it makes nothing to our present purpose The Council passes Judgment upon him and no body ever objected against it in Antiquity This is sufficient to conclude invincibly that the Council is superiour to the Pope But is there any thing more convincing and decisive for fixing of this Truth than what was done in the case of the Donatists who by their Schism troubled all the Church of Africa Optat. Milevit l. 1. contr Parmen Euseb Eccles hist l. 10. c. 5. They applied themselves to the Emperour Constantine who was then in Gallia and desired of him Judges chosen from among the Bishops of the Gallican Church against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage because they would shun the Judgment of the Pope whom they distrusted August Ep. 162. ad Gelor Eleus Ep. 165. ad Generos 166. ad Donatist 167. alib saepe The Emperour nevertheless having protested that it belonged not to him to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters sent them back to the Pope to whom as Head of the Church it belongs to judge of greater Causes Pope Miltiades took for Assessors in this Judgment fifteen Bishops of Italy to whom he joyned three famous Bishops of the Gallican Church Maternus of Cologne Rheticius of Autun and Marinus of Arles whom the Emperour had sent him to be of the number of the Judges that the Donatists might not have cause to say that every thing had been refused them That Cause was solemnly judged in that Council of Rome Donatus Head of the Schismaticks appeared there with ten Bishops of his Party and alledged all that he had to say against gainst Cecilian who appeared also accompanied with ten other African Bishops and defended his Cause and that of the Church so well against the Authors of that Schism that they were condemned They were very willing to be judged by this Council imagining as St. Austin observes Ep. 162. that either they might gain their Cause by Artifices and Calumnies or that if they lost it yet they might still maintain their Party by complaining loudly in all places that the Pope and his Bishops who were prejudiced against them had judged partially The truth is they did so and pressed the Emperour so hard to give them new Judges and in greater number that that good Prince overcome by their extream Importunity Orabida furoris audacia Opt. loc cit which he called extream Fury granted their desine and seeing he passionately desired to restore Peace to the Church and utterly to abolish so fatal a Schism by a supreme Sentence that might for ever put an end to that great Contest he called the great Council of Arles Apud Arelatum eandem causam diligentius examinandam terruinandamque curasse August Ep. 162. Euseb l. 10. c. 5. August Ep. 167. ad Fest which St. Austin calls a full and universal Council because as Eusebius assures us and after him that holy Doctor there was there an infinite number of Bishops of all the Provinces of the Empire Ex omnibus mundi partibus praecipue Gallicanis Concil Arelat 11. Ganls The Legates of Pope Sylvester with the eighteen Bishops who had been at the Council of Rome were present there The Cause of the Donatists was examined there afresh with the Judgment which Pope Melchiades the Predecessor of St. Sylvester had given against them and they were again condemned by a definitive Sentence and without appeal in regard of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal for the Appeal which these Schismaticks who observed no measures brought to the Tribunal of Constantine August Ep. 162. was most unjust as was frankly acknowledged by that Emperour who said that if he at length took cognizance of that Cause to stop the mouth of these Hereticks and arrest the course of their Fury he humbly begg'd pardon of the Bishops whose Authority in what concerns the spiritual he should invade Whereupon St. Austin answering the Complaints that the Donatists of his time always made of Pope Melchiades Quae vox est omnium malorum litigatorum cum fuerint etiam manifestissimâ veritate superati Ibid. as their Ancestors had done jeered them pleasantly saying that they acted like bad Lawyers who having lost their Cause blame their Judges and complain to all men that they have been unjustly condemned when they have even been convicted by the most manifest discovery of the Truth Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicarunt non bonos Judices fuisse restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae Vniversalis concilium ubi etiam cumipsis judicibus causa posset agitari ut si male judicasse convicti essent torum sententiae solverentur Ibid. Then to confound them he adds these great Words which plainly decides the Question that we examine and to which nothing can be replied Suppose that the Judges who condemned your Ancestors at Rome had judged amiss was not there still the full Council where that Cause might be again examined with the same Judges who had already judged it that if it had been found that their Judgment was not just their Sentence might have been rescinded I freely confess that I cannot see how it can be better made out that the Pope's Tribunal is subject to that of a full and general Council which may confirm or rescind a Sentence past at Rome as a supreme Court can confirm or rescind the Judgment of an inferiour So when the same St. Austin says in another place speaking of the Pelagians Jam enim do hac causâ duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam inde etiam rescripta venerunt causa finita est August Serm. 2. de Verb. Dom. c. 10. We have Rescripts come from Rome the Cause is ended that 's to be understood that it is ended at Rome whither these Hereticks after they had been condemned in the Councils of Africa appealed to the Pope and thought to have gained their Cause by their Artifice which had once succeeded with them It was not judged supremely but in the Council of Ephesus We must then of necessity conclude that it cannot more clearly he seen than in those Instances which I have now alledged of universal Councils which have judged the Sentences of Popes That it was believed in the ancient Church before Saint Austin and in his Time and after him without the least doubting that a general Council is above the Pope And that 's the thing I was to prove CHAP. XIX That the ancient Popes have always acknowledged and protested that they were subject to Councils BUT that I may farther prove it upon as solid a ground and which ought to be the more plausible and
that the contrary opinion has not so much as the least appearance of any rational ground in Scripture For of all the passages that are cited for maintaining it there is not so much as one that is interpreted by the Church in Councils nor by any of the Holy Fathers in that most erroneous sense that they put upon them Wherein these Modern Authors who in that manner do interpret them act directly contrary to the Decree of the Council of Trent fourth Session and against the Confession of Faith enjoyned by Pius IV. which will have Scripture never to be interpreted but according to the sense that Holy Church gives it and according to the common Interpretation of the Fathers These new Doctors in that most dangerously follow the conduct of Hereticks who for maintaining their Errors interpret as they please and not as the Church pleases the Scriptures that they may wrest them to their sense Bellar. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Suarez l. 3. de Prim. Sum. Pont. c. 3. l. 6. de form Jur. fidel c. 4. Becan Anglico contr c. 3. qu. 3. This appears manifestly in those two passages upon which Bellarmin Suarez and after them Becanus and all the others who as these have copied or abridged them chiefly ground their opinion John Last The first passage is that where Jesus Christ saies to St. Peter Feed my Sheep Feed my Lambs Is there so much as one of the Holy Fathers who hath understood these words of the Power which St. Peter hath received over the Temporal of Princes There is none of them who hath not expounded them as they ought to be of the Spiritual Pasture which Popes are bound to give to Believers by Doctrin Example and good Government and never one of these Doctors and Masters in the Church ever let it enter into his Head to wrest them to a Temporal meaning as these new Divines have done And more Ambres l. de dig Sacer c. 2. Chrys hom 79. in Matth. c. 24. August de Agen. Christian c. 30. Tractat. 47. in Joan. in Ps 108. alii most part of these Holy Fathers having said what is most true that Jesus Christ applies these words in the person of St. Peter to the whole Church in general and to all its Pastors in particular if the new sense that these new Doctors give to them were to be followed it must be said that all Bishops and all Curates had right to dispose of the Temporals of those who by their bad Doctrin or scandalous deportment do injury to the Spiritual good of their Churches And as to that comparison which they make betwixt the Shepherd in respect of the Wolf which he may dispatch omni modo quo potest and the Pastor of the Church in regard of a Prince who may have fallen into Heresie it is not only a base Sophism contrary to the rules of right Logick but also impious and detestable which leads Men in a full career to Parricide and for which the Books that contain it have been justly condemned to the fire The second passage is taken out of St. Matthew Chapter sixteenth where the Son of God saies to St. Peter That whatever he shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever he shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Whence these new Rabbies conclude that the Successors of St. Peter have Power to dissolve the obligation that binds Subjects to their Prince by the Oath they have made to him and by the tie of Allegiance which binds them in fidelity to him Is it not strange that Catholicks should take this liberty of wresting the sense of Scripture to what they list without any respect to the common interpretation of the Fathers to which the Council of Trent obliges them For of all the Holy Fathers who have expounded that passage there is not so much as one to be found who hath so understood it all of them have interpreted it of the Power that that Apostle received of loosing and absolving Penitents from their sins Nor do the Popes themselves expound it otherways Paul 1 Ep. â—0 ad procem Fran. Adâ—i Ep. 1. ad Carol Magn. as it may be seen in the Epistle of Pope Paul I. to the French Lords and in that of Adrian I. to Charlemagne To absolve Men from their sins is it to absolve them from their Allegiance And that whatever which signifies only any sort of sin and censure and some obligations that are not of Divine Right can that Power I say be extended to ths Temporal and to the duty that Subjects owe to Kings To persuade us of the contrary we need only read the words that go before these I shall give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven saies Jesus Christ and not of the Kingdoms of the Earth for deposing of Kings And those that follow comprehend the use of the Power of the Keys that he giveth him for opening the Kingdom of Heaven by forgiving Men their sins or for shutting it by not absolving them John 20. as he in another place expresses himself speaking to all the Apostles after his Resurrection But that we may not swerve from the words in question we need no more but read the Eighteenth Chapter of the same Gospel of St. Matthew There it is to be seen that Jesus Christ repeats them to all his Disciples and gives them the whole Power that they import by saying to them Verily I say unto you that whatever ye shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever ye shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven If these words comprehend the sense that the new Authors give them and that their meaning is also of the Temporal it must needs be said that all the Bishops who are the Successors of the Apostles nay and all Priests who have the Power of binding and loosing may depose Kings and dispence their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance which is the highest extravagance Or else let these Gentlemen tell us by what Authority of the Church or Holy Fathers they find that when they were said to St. Peter they have a different meaning from that which they ought to have when they were spoken to St. Peter and to all the Apostles Now that is a thing they 'll never be able to find out Miss Rom. An. 1520. Paris apud Francis Renaud Miss Rom. à Paulo III. nefar Ann. 1543. Diurn Monast Congrez Cassin à Greg. XIII confir Venet. ap Juris And this is so true that the Church of Rome her self sticking to the sense wherein all the Holy Fathers have expounded these words which Jesus Christ said to St. Peter will not understand them but of the Power which he hath given him of binding and loosing Souls For in all the ancient Missals Breviaries and Diurnals in this manner was read that Prayer which is said in the Feastival of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch Deus qui
non habet ac dignitates regales conferendi sic neque Imperator in Ecclesias introspiciendi c. Gregor II. Ep. 2. ad Leon. Isaur nor of conferring Royal Dignities so neither hath the Emperor any right to meddle with the Government of the Church This is enough to shew that Cardinal Bellarmine hath impertinently made use of the example of that Pope against us because according to the relation of some Greek Historians though the Latins of that time take no notice of it he by his Authority hindered the Romans his Subjects from paying the Tribute which they owed him To overthrow this weak Argument there needs no more but to consider Gregory in the quality of Pope and then in the quality of the chief Citizen of Rome As Pope he wrote to that Iconoclast Emperor long and excellent Letters wherein joyning force to affection he admonishes reproves and exhorts him he prays him and threatens him with the Judgments of God and then so far was he from deposing him from his Empire that he prevents as much as in him lay all Italy from revolting against him and from acknowledging another Emperor thereby maintaining the People who were ready to shake off the insupportable yoak of so wicked a Prince in their obedience But when he saw that Leo grew more and more obdurate in his impiety that he had attempted two or three times to have him assassinated and that he gathered together all the Forces of the Empire to come and do at Rome as he gave it out in all places what he had done at Constantinople in beating down the Holy Images and putting all to Fire and Sword if they renounced not the Ancient Religion Then having as Pope declared him Excommunicated he did as chief Citizen of Rome as the rest did what the Law of nature allows to wit take the Arms out of a mad Man's Hand and prevent the giving him money which he would have used for their ruine and desolation and afterward he put himself with the other Romans under the protection of Charles Martel for the safety of their Religion and Lives though for all that this Pope never offered to depose Leo nor to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance For he himself and his Successors long after acknowledged the Greek Emperors for their Sovereigns and it was not before the Empire of Constantin and Irene that the Romans and with them the Pope as a Member of that Civil and Politick Body and not by his Pontifical Authority seeing that they could no longer be defended against the Lombards by the Greeks who had abandoned them submitted to Charlemagne This is fully and clearly made out in my History of the Iconoclasts Wherein it may be seen that the example of Gregory II. which Bellarmin alledges against us is nothing at all to the purpose As also more it may be seen there that Pope Adrian I. wrote to Constantin Copronymus and to Leo his Son both great Hereticks in very submissive terms as to his Masters and Sovereigns and that 's a thing which the Ancient Popes never failed to do Let it be considered with what submission Pelagius I. wrote to Childebert King of France who would have him send to him a Confession of his Faith He obeyed his orders and told him that according to Holy Scripture Popes ought to be subject to Kings as well as other Men Quibus nos etiam subditos esse Sacrae Scripturae testantur In what manner did Stephen II. implore the assistance of Pepin against the Lombards I beg of you Peto à te tanquam praesenti aliter assistens provolutus terrae tuis vestigiis prosternens Steph. II. Ep. 4. ad Pip. saies he that favour as if I were in your presence prostrate upon the ground at your Feet Can there be terms of greater humility and of a more perfect obedience than those which the great St. Gregory makes use of in one of his Letters to the Emperor Mauricius who enjoined him a thing to which he had great aversion and which in his own Judgment he thought contrary to the Service of God Ego verò haec Dominis iners loquens quid sum nisi pulvis vermis Ego quidem Jussioni subjectus c. Greg. l. 2. Jud. 11. Ep. 62. ad Mauric What am I saies he who represent this to my Masters but a little Dust and a Worm For my part who am obliged to obey I have done what hath been commanded me and so I have fulfilled my obligations on both sides for on the one Hand I have executed the Emperors order and on the other I have not failed to represent what the cause of God required And in another Letter upon occasion of his being informed that the Lombards had put a Bishop to death in prison De quâ re unum est quod brevitur suggeras serenissimus Dominis nostris c. he would have it represented to the Emperors whom he calls his most Serene Masters that if he would attempt any thing against the lives of the Lombards that Nation should have no more King Duke nor Count But because I fear God saies he Sed quia Deum timeo in mortem cujuslibet hominis me miscere formido l. 7. Jud. 1. Ep. 1. I am loth to have an Hand in any Mans death He therein followed the example of one of his Predecessors St. Martin I. who would never resist tho it was in his Power the orders of the Emperor Constans a Monothelite Heretick who caused him to be carried away from Rome to Constantinople and from thence into banishment And although those who would have opposed that violence called out to him Nulli eorum accommodavi aurem ne subito fierent homicidia Melius Judicavi decies mori quam uniuscujusqu◠sanguinem in terram fundi Epist Mart. 1. ad Theodor. that he should not yield and that he should be well backed yet he would not listen to them for fear it might come to Arms and Slaughter be committed Judging it better said he to die ten times than to suffer the Blood of one single Man to be shed These holy Popes who were so afraid lest the least drop of humane Blood should be spilt were far from deposing Kings and Emperors and giving away their Dominions to others under pretext of the good of Religion as long after them some of their Successors did which was the cause of so many cruel Wars that with Blood and Butchery filled Italy Germany and France it self during the League In this manner the ancient Popes kept within the bounds of their Power purely Spiritual rendering the honour and obedience which they owed to Temporal Powers and especially to their Sovereigns nay even to their Sovereigns who were hereticks and Enemies of their Religion This makes it very apparent what learned Men have so clearly proved that it is no more to be doubted of to wit that these Letters of St. Gregory are