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
little longer to live and who according to my Profession can contribute nothing to your Conquests but by my ardent Prayers I shall reckon my self most happy and shall die content if I can but joyn a little by my Pen to those which you daily Atchieve for enlarging the Empire of the Church by the Conversion of Hereticks which by most soft and efficacious ways you procure And if by my Writings and particularly by this I can make it known to all the World as I hope I may that I am as true a Catholick as a good French Man and that I will die as I have lived SIR Your Majesties Most Humble most Obedient and Faithful Subject and Servant LOUIS MAIMBOURG A TABLE OF The Chapters and of their Contents CHAP. I. The design and draught of this Treatise and the Principle upon which it moves THE true Church is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ The definition thereof It s unity in the multitude of particular Churches which make but one Episcopacy and one Chair by the communion they have with a chief Church which is the center of their Vnity Antiquity is to be followed against Novelty in Doctrin that is contrary to it Vpon this Principle it is proved in this Treatise against the new Opinions what Antiquity hath believed of the first Foundation and Prerogatives of that chief Church which is the Church of Rome Page 1. CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome That St. Peter hath been at Rome A Refutation of the Erroneous reasons that some Protestants alledge for overthrowing that Truth St. Luke hath omitted a great many other things which notwithstanding are true The true Chronology which agrees with the progress and coming of St. Peter to Antioch and Rome against the wrong Chronology contrived to subvert it There were Christians at Rome when St. Paul arrived there All Antiquity hath believed that St. Peter was at Rome The Extravagance of those who have said that the Fathers were mistaken in taking the Country of Rome or Romania for the City of Rome Page 15 CHAP. III. That the Church of Rome hath been founded by St. Peter that he was the first Bishop of it and that the Popes are his Successors in that Bishoprick THAT truth acknowledged by all Antiquity In what sense Bishops sit in St. Peter's Chair and are his Successors and how Popes are in another manner Page 31 CHAP. IV. Of the Primacy of St. Peter and that he hath been established by Jesus Christ Head of the Universal Church THE true interpretation of these words Thou art Peter and upon that Rock will I build my Church How the Church is built upon Jesus Christ upon the confession of his Divinity and on the person of St. Peter His Primacy of Jurisdicton over all Believers proceeds from the confession of Faith which he made for all the rest All Antiquity hath acknowledged that Primacy of St. Peter and of all his Successors in the Bishoprick of Rome Page 37 CHAP. V. Of the Rights and advantages that the Primacy gives to the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops WHAT the Council of Florence decided as to that The superintendence of the Pope over all that concerns the Government and good of the Church in General The right he hath of calling Councils for the Spiritual and presiding in them That appeals may be made to his Tribunal and that he ought to judge of greater causes An illustrious instance of that Supreme Authority of the Pope in the History of Pope Agapetus of the Patriarch Anthimius and the Emperor Justinian The prodigious Ignorance of Calvin in Ecclesiastical History The System of his Heresie quite contrary to the Doctrin of Antiquity What are the Prerogatives of Popes that are disputed amongst Catholicks Page 51 CHAP. VI. The state of the Question concerning the Infallibility of the Pope WHether or not when he defines without a Council and without the consent of the Church he may err p. 72 CHAP. VII What Antiquity hath concluded from that that St. Peter was reproved by St. Paul WHether St. Peter was blame-worthy His action is called an error by St. Austin The opinion of St. Jerome refuted by that holy Doctor He compares the Error of St. Cyprian with that of St. Peter The History of the Error of Vigilius in regard of the three Chapters and his change compared by Pelagius II. with the Error and change of St. Peter The Schism of the Occidentals founded upon the constitution of Vigilius According to Pope Pelagius for quenching that Schism the Holy See is to be followed in its change as believers were obliged to imitate St. Peter in that which he made from evil to good St. Paul believed not St. Peter to be infallible It was before the Council of Jerusalem that St. Peter was reproved by St. Paul The true interpretation of that passage I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not p. 77 CHAP. VIII What follows naturally from the great contest of Pope Victor with the Bishops of Asia DIfferent customs in the Church concerning the celebration of Easter and of the Fast before that Feast The good intelligence betwixt Pope St. Anicetus and St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna notwithstanding the diversity of their customs The Decree of Pope Victor rejected by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and by the other Asiaticks St. Ireneus in name of the Gallican Church opposes Pope Victor None of these Bishops of the East and West believed the Pope to be infallible p. 103 CHAP. IX What ought to be inferred from the famous debate that was betwixt the Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks WHAT was the Judgment of St. Cyprian in that question and what was that of St. Stephen Councils held thereupon on both sides The Decrees of the one and other quite contrary St. Stephen cuts off from his Communion the Bishops that would not submit to his Decree Neither these Bishops nor St. Cyprian did for all that change their opinion and practice It was also permitted long after the death of St. Cyprian to maintain the same opinion and to follow the same conduct The Holy Fathers who held a Doctrin contrary to the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen What the great Council of Arles Nice and Constantinople have decided as to that question All then except the Donatists submitted to the Decrees of these Councils because they were believed to be Infallible which was not thought of Popes p. 111 CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius HIS Letters published in all places wherein he condemns St. Athanasius suppresses the term Consubstantial receives the Arians to his Communion and subscribes the Formulary of Sirmium He is for that deposed by the Church of Rome p. 135 CHAP. XI The instance of Pope Vigilius THE constitution of that Pope for the three Chapters The fifth Council which is Infallible condemns them p. 140 CHAP. XII The condemnation of Honcrius in the sixth Council THE
factam vigorâ— illorum decretorum non valuisse Si illa non valent nec etiaâ—â—apae Mâ—rtini tenuit electio facta illo superstite Si Martinus non fuit Papa nec sanctitas vestra est quae per Cardinales ab ipso factos electa est c. Ep. 2. Juliani ad Eugen. I am obliged said he to him most holy Father to remonstrate to your Holiness that if the Decrees of Constance which the Council of Basil has renewed have no Authority that whereby John XXIII was deposed is of no force If it be so the Election of Pope Martin V. which was made during the Life of John XXIII is null and consequently that of your Holiness seeing you must then have been elected by Cardinals of his Creation who was not Pope By the same reason it is evident that all the other Elections made since Martin V. until the present Pope must be unlawful M. Schelstrate without doubt will answer to that that John XXIII consented to his Condemnation and even ratified it when he was at liberty But he must needs have done so considering the condition he was in and it is enough to read the very Author who is cited that is Leonard Aretin to be informed that the poor deposed Pope went to Florence to cast himself at the feet of Martin V. only because he knew not whither to betake himself Consilio Martini cognito id erat ut Manâ—ouae perpetuo carcere tencretur antequam c. Leonard Aretin Hist ver Italic and that he was informed that it was resolved that if he did it not his Person should be seised and confined to perpetual Imprisonment And besides is it not well known that the Ratification cannot be good if the Act that is ratified be null Bellarmine's Answer has as little force Though saith he Etsi Concilium sine Papa non potest definire nova dogmata fidei potest tamen judicare tempore Schismatis quis sit verus Papa c. L. 2. de Conc. c. 19. the Council without the Pope cannot determine new Doctrines of Faith yet it may judge during a Schism who is the true Pope and provide a true Pastor for the Church when there is none certain In the first place he grants by that that all which the Council determined against Wicleff John Huss and Jerome of Prague and against that damnable Proposition of John Petit is null as having been decided by an incompetent Judge Who dare maintain such a thing Secondly it is absolutely false that a General Council without the Pope cannot make Decrees concerning the Faith Did not the first Council of Constantinople make such against Macedonius concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost And did not the fifth condemn the Heresie of the three Chapters not only without Pope Vigilius but likewise contrary to his Constitution who would have had them not to be condemned Besides it was not the Business of that Council to judge who was the true Pope for the Council of Constance never questioned but that John XXIII was it would only have had him perform the Promise which he made to renounce his Right and freely to lay down for Peace sake tho he was true Pope And in the fourth place if that Council was not then as he called it before but a particular Council where a third part of the Church only met it could not lawfully have condemned John XXIII because as all agree none but an Oecumenical Council representing an Universal Church hath that Power and supreme Authority nay and many deny that it can unless in case of Heresie proceed against any Pope much less if that Council held him for a true Pope as the Council of Constance owned John XXIII to have been From all this it follows that the three Reasons alledged by M. Schelstrate in as many Articles to prove against the Clergy of France that one may doubt of the Authority of the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session of the Council of Constance are not only false but also of dangerous consequence to the Church Thus we have dispatched his first Chapter the other two will not long hold out CHAP. XXIV A Refutation of one of the two Chapters of M. Schelstrate THis Writer in one of these Chapters pretends to prove that those Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session are not approved I have already made it out that Martin V. approved them twice solemnly once by ordaining that those who return from Heresie should be interrogated whether or not they approved without Exception all which that Council approves and condemned all that it condemns and another time in the last Session where he declares that he approves and will inviolably observe all the Decrees that have been made in that Council concerning matters of Faith and as he expresses it by a new word Conciliariter Upon which two Objections are raised against us The first from these Words concerning matters of Faith from which M. Schelstrate concludes that the Pope hath only approved the Decrees against Wickleff and John Huss because they alone saith he concern matters of Faith What then will become of the other Decrees that were made for the Extirpation of Schism and for the Reformation of the Church which are the two principal Points for which the Council and the Popes Martin and Eugenius in express terms declare that the Holy Synod representing the Universal Church was called Let him tell me whether those Decrees be approved or not if they be not he must then according to his Principles grant that the Deposition of John XXIII is null that all that followed upon it is invalid and that all the good Laws that were made in that Council for Reformation are of no Authority and oblige no Man And if they be approved it is not to be doubted but that those of the fourth and fifth Session are also approved seeing they were chiefly made for the extinction of Schism For if the Council were not above the Pope even lawfully elected as John Gerson saith and if it had not Power to depose him when that is necessary for the common Good of the Church in case of Heresie Schism or enormous Scandal as it hath happened oftner than once the Council could never have compelled the Pope who was acknowledged to be true and lawful to renounce his Right for peace sake The other Objection brought against us is weaker still than the former Cardinal Bellarmine whom M. Schelstrate hath followed step for step upon that word Conciliariter from which he concludes that these Decrees of Constance have not been approved by Pope Martin V. because the Pope declares Id est move aliorum Conciliorum re diligenter examinata Constat autem hoc decretum sine ullo examine factum à Concilio Constantiensi L. 2. de Concil c. 19. that he only approves those which have been made Conciliariter or as that Cardinal interprets it in the manner as other Councils have made their Decrees the
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
name when he speaks of it at the time when it Persecuted the Christians and so cruelly shed the bloud of so many thousand Martyrs And what is most pleasant the Protestants are pleased to give to Christian Rome the name of Babylon and are not satisfied that Pagan Rome should be so called by St. Peter That being presupposed and all the weak batteries of our Adversaries so easily overthrown I had reason to say that if we knew not by other means that St. Peter had been at Rome yet all the reasons that are objected against it would never persuade a Man of sense of the contrary How must it be then at present when we have an invincible Argument to convince us of that truth which we ought never to abandon even though we could not disentangle our selves from the captious Arguments wherewith they assault us For that can never proceed but from the weakness of our mind and not the defect of the object which when it is once certainly known to be true is necessarily so always What is that invincible Argument then which ought to convince us of this truth It is that which as I have said I shall employ throughout this whole Histarical Treatise I mean Antiquity according to that great Principle which at first I laid down To wit that that which is newly broached if it be contrary to what hath been believed in the Primitive Church is false because ancient belief and that descends to us by Tradition especially when we trace it back to the age of the Apostles is always truth it self Now all Antiquity hath believed Blondel de la prim en l'Eglise Chap. 32. p. 823. that St. Peter was at Rome That is so true that Mr. David Blundel the most knowing of all our Protestant Ministers frankly confesses it And he must needs doe so for being a Man of such parts and so well read in the Ancients as appears in his Works he cannot deny but that almost all the Latin and Greek Fathers have asserted it Apud Prudent in peris toph Amongst the Latins Prosper Orosius St. Augustine Saint Jerome Prudentius Optatus Saint Ambrose Lactantius Arnobius St. Cyprian Hippolytus Tertullian and St. Irenoeus and amongst the Greeks Theodoret St. Cyril of Alexandria Apud Euseb l. 2. c. 24. Ibid. Ibid. c. 13. St. Chrysostom St. Epiphanius St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Athanasius Peter of Alexandria Eusebius Origene Clemens Alexandrinus Denis of Corinth Cajus contemporary with Tertullian and Papias a disciple and hearer of St. John Nor shall we mention all the other Writers who in all succeeding ages have constantly asserted the same thing insomuch that no Heretick nor Schismatick ever dreamt of calling it in question before our Protestants who are the Authours of that impudent and unjustifiable novelty which can never pass with a Man of sense in opposition to all venerable Antiquity and to the authority of so many great men who have constantly in all ages given testimony to that truth from our present times up to the age of the Apostles For to say as some have done That all the Fathers and these Learned men have been deceived by an equivocal word taking that part of the lesser Asia Quas omnes provincias aetas nostra Anatoliam vocat Vnde apud Barbaros pars illa in qua Asia Bithynia Galatia Cappadocia prima Rom. id est Romania sive Romaea appellatur Pars vero quae ad austrum est in qua Lycia Pamphylia Cilicia sunt Otto-Manidia id est Familiae Ottomani quibus illa successit quondam dicebantur Dominic Marius Niger Venet. Asiae Pomment 1. de Asia Minore where St. Peter Preached for the City of Rome and which as the Geographer Marius Niger writes was called Rom. or Romania it is a ridiculous extravagance and no less shamefull ignorance It is onely the Turks who since they became Masters of the Eastern Empire have called the neighbouring Countrey to Constantinople especially beyond the Bosphorus Romania or Rom. or Romelia as that Geographer says for others give that name of Romania or Romelia onely to Thrace This being so Can it be affirmed without disgrace that these holy Fathers who flourished many Ages not onely before the Conquest of the Turks but even before the founding of Constantinople have been deceived in imagining that St. Peter was at Rome because it hath been said that he Preached in the Countrey of Rom. See what extravagance they are capable of who to satisfie their passion dare confront their ridiculous novelty with Antiquity of which we may say with Pope Celestine I. Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem CHAP. III. That the Church of Rome hath been founded by St. Peter that he was the first Bishop of it and that the Popes are his Successours therein IT will not be difficult to confirm the truth of this by the same principle of Antiquity to which I confine my self in this Treatise For all the same Fathers almost Cyprian ad Corn. Ep. 55. lib. de unit Optat. Cont. Parm. l. 2. Ambros de Sacr. l. 3. c. 1. Hierom. de Script in Petr. alibi Hegesip apud Hier. de Script Ruffin invect Sulp. Sever. Hist Sacr. l. 3. August contra Petil. l. 2. c. 51. and ancient Authours who assure us that Saint Peter was at Rome say also that he founded that particular Church It is true that many of them joyn St. Paul with him in that function as it is done at present and there is reason for so doing because both of them Preached the Gospel there in different times and both at the same time Consecrated that illustrious Church by their Martyrdom But when they speak as they very often do of the Episcopacy and Chair of Rome they call it solely the Chair of St. Peter without joining St. Paul with him So that it is not to be doubted but that all Antiquity hath acknowledged St. Peter of all the Apostles to have been the first Bishop of Rome De la Primanté en l'Eglise p. 44. as Mr. Blondel confesses So also when Optatus Melevitanus St. Jerome St. Austin and the rest give a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome they place always St. Peter first and bring them down to him that possessed the See in their time to shew the uninterrupted Succession of Popes from St. Peter whose lawfull Successours they are and whose Chair they fill as the holy Fathers and Councils frequently say I know there are some who have said Hilar. in Frag. p. 23. Cypr. Ep. 43. Optat. contra Parm. l. 1. That Bishops being the Successours of the Apostles are in that quality all of them in St. Peter's Chair We say the same also and it must needs be granted for the reason that I shall alledge according to one of the Principles which I laid down at first in the first Chapter of this Treatise As the Universal Church is one and a body constituted of all particular Churches in
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
Decision in controverted Points they have many times pronounced Sentences conform to those which the Popes had already past against one of the two Parties nevertheless they have examined them to know whether they were just or not which makes it apparent that they believed that they had a Superiority over the Pope altogether like to that which superiour Judicatures have over inferiour Take two famous Instances of this which puts the Truth thereof beyond all doubt Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople in his particular Council condemned the pernicious Doctrine of Eutyches who acknowledged but one Nature in Jesus Christ and the great Pope St. Leo by his Judgment confirmed that of the Patriarch as appears by the Letters which he wrote unto him wherein he wonderfully well asserts the Catholick Belief concerning the Distinction of two Natures the divine and humane in one only person in Jesus Christ against the Error of that Arch-Heretick who confounded them Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria who openly declared himself the Protector of Eutyches undertook his Business and prevailed so far by favour of Chrysaphius who could do any thing with his Master the Emperour Theodosius the younger that this Prince called the second Council of Ephesus there to examine what had been determined at Constantinople and Rome against Eutyches St. Leo who approv'd not this Proceeding that look'd like cabaling Quia etiam talium non est negligenda curatio piè ac religiosè Christiamssimus Imperator haberi voluit Episcopale concilium ut pleniori Judicio omnis possit error aboleri fratres nostros c. qui vice meâ Sincto conventui vestrae fraternitatis intersint communi vobiscum sententia quae domino sunt placitura constituant hoc est ut primitus pestifero errore damnato c. at first withstood it but consented thereunto at length for the sake of Peace hoping that all things would be carried in that Council according to Canonical Forms and that then the definitive Judgment that would be pronounced there would calm the Troubles of the Church Whereupon he sent his Legates thither with Letters to the Patriarch Flavian and to the Council wherein having declared what he had done against the new Heresie of Eutyches he adds that however seeing all care is to be taken to reclaim those who were gone astray and that the Emperour had appointed a Council to be held for that Effect to the end that Error might entirely be abolished by a more ample Judgment he sends a Bishop a Priest and a Deacon with an Apostolical Natory to assist thereat in his Name and there to settle by common Advice what was fit for the Service of God that is to say Si tamen sensus haereticos plenè aperteque propria voce subscriptione damnaverit St. Leo Ep. 15. ad Ephes Syn. that after so pernicious an Error should be condemned they would take into consideration the re-establishment of the Author of it always provided that he condemned his Heresie by Word and Writing This great Pope openly declares That that Opinion of Eutyches is Heresie Ep. 16. ad Flav. Nay he writes to Flavian that it is so manifest that there was no necessity to assemble a Council for condemning it and nevertheless he is content that one be held to the end that Error may be entirely abolished by a more ample Judgment But more still For that second Council of Ephesus by the Power of Chrysaphius and Violence of Dioscorus being become that infamous Den of Thieves where all Order was over-turned and Eutyches absolved this holy Pope who would have that Heresie thundred by a definitive Sentence made continual Instances to the Emperour Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria after the Death of Theodosius for calling of a new Council which was held at Chalcedon where after Examination of the Doctrine of Eutyches and the Letters of St. Leo they confirmed by their Sovereign Authority and by a supreme Judgment what the holy Pope had pronounced against that Heresie And in that he gloried when writing to Theodoret who had condemned in that Council the Heresie of Nestorius whereof he was suspected and that of Eutyches after he had congratulated with him in a most obliging manner he subjoyns upon his account these lovely Words We glory in the Lord Gloriamur in Domino qui nullum nos in nostris fratribus detrimentum sustinere permisit sed quae nostro prius ministerio definierat universo fraternitatis firmavit assensu ut verè à se prodiisse ostenderet quod prius à primâ omnium sede formatum toâ—ius orbis Judicium recepisset St. Leo Ep. 63. ad Theodor. who hath not permitted that our Brethren should do any thing to our Disadvantage but on the contrary hath confirmed by the Assent of the whole Council what had been before defined by our Ministery to shew that that Judgment has truly proceeded from him which being first rendered by the chief of all Sees hath been received by the Judgment of the whole Church Is not that to say that to know whether the Decisions of the Pope proceed from God or not they must be received by the whole Church and that by consequent the Council which represents it and which gives them their full force by its supreme Authority is above the Pope This appears still more clearly by one other Instance where it is to be seen that a General Council having examined a Judgment solemnly rendered by the Pope rescinds it and passes a contrary Sentence It is that which the fifth Council pronounced against the three Chapters and against the Constitution of Pope Virgilius whereby he had approved them forbidding all men whosoever to condemn them I have already spoken of that Action which standeth not in need of any long discourse to set it off in its full Force and Vigour In this Council the Doctrine of the Three Chapters and the Constitution of the Pope who approves them are examined He is prayed to preside in that Assembly and in the Examination that is made there of these Writings He refuses though he was then at Constantinople where the Council was held and with all his might still maintains those three Chapters and nevertheless they are condemned and are to this day reckoned to have been very lawfully and justly condemned nay he was afterwards necessitated to submit to that Decree as I have already said upon the Credit of very good Vouchers and if yet he did not submit to it it is still certain that the Council examined his Judgment and rescinded it After that can it be doubted but that the ancient Church believed that a Council is superiour to the Pope Let 's reflect a little upon what I said of the sixth Council which condemned the Heresie of the Monothelites In it was examined what the Pope St. Martin had decided concerning that Subject in his Council of the Bishops of Italy celebrated at Rome and what Pope Honorius had before him
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