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
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
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
into this which comprehends the Faith of the Divinity of Jesus Christ the confession of that Faith and the person who made that confession Now seeing the Church is the Society of true Christians and that the first object of the Faith of Christians as Christians Ephes 2. is Jesus Christ by the same it is that Jesus Christ is the first foundation of the Church and that no other than he can be laid for grounding and establishing the Faith of Christianity Moreover as it is not enough to be a true Christian to believe in Jesus Christ Rom. 11. and to preserve that Faith in the heart if we do not also confess that we believe in him therefore it is that the Church again is founded upon the confession of the Divinity of Christ In fine besides Faith and the publick profession of it the Church also which is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ must be well governed For that purpose he hath appointed in it Apostles Ephes 4. v. 11.12 Prophets Evangelists Pastours and Teachers that they may labour in perfecting the Saints according to the functions of their Ministery for edifying of the body of Jesus Christ And thence it is that because of that illustrious confession of the Divinity of the Son of God which St. Peter made in name of all the Apostles he established him the foundation of the Ministery and Government of the Church by giving him the oversight and authority over all the rest who are subordinate to him in their functions and inferiour Ministeries as to their Head Wherefore Jesus Christ immediately after said to him giving him that supream power and authority in his Church I will give unto thee the Keyes of the kingdom of heaven and whatever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shalt be loosed in heaven And that promise which could not fail of being accomplished was then fulfilled when the Son of God after his resurrection said to him thrice Feed my sheep John 20. I know that according to the sentiment of the Fathers and principally of St. Augustine he spake these words unto him as to one who was the Figure of the Church with relation to all the Apostles and their Successours the Bishops who are also the foundations and pillars of the Church according to St. Paul and to whom Jesus Christ hath said Cypr. Ep. 27. de laps Hier. l. 1. cont Jovin August Con. 2. in Psal 30. in Psal 86. that whatsoever they shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever they shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven But there is this difference betwixt Saint Peter and all the rest that when he speaks to all in common he gives them that which is common to all the Apostles and wherein they are all equal as the power of administring Sacraments teaching all Nations baptizing forgiving sins and what belongs to the other Apostolical functions And when he applies himself particularly to Saint Peter Cypr. lib. de unit Eccles Ep. 55. 73. Hieronym adv Jovinian l. 2. Optat. cont Parmen l. 2. he gives him that which is proper to himself speaking to him in the singular number for setling in his Church the unity whereof he makes him the principle and foundation to which all the rest must have a reference that they may be but one by the union which they ought necessarily to have with their Head without which they neither are nor can doe any thing For as St. Peter was the first that publickly confessed the Divinity of Jesus Christ which he had by revelation and that the rest knew it not but by his means and that they answered onely by his mouth joyning with him on that great occasion So Jesus Christ in consideration of that primacy of Confession hath given him the primacy over all the rest making him their head and that one that original foundation and principle of unity upon which he hath built the Church in regard of its government So that although all the rest received Immediately from Christ the power of binding and loosing and of governing their Churches yet they cannot exercise it but by virtue of the union which they have with St. Peter without which they would continue no longer in unity nor by consequent in the Church And it is upon that that the Primacy of Saint Peter is founded and that he is next to Jesus Christ and not as he is by his own power and virtue but by commission the foundation and head of the Church The Protestants who by a deplorable Schism not without Heresie have gone out of the unity of the Church by making separation from the Chair of St. Peter which is the principle original and centre thereof have in vain disputed this Doctrine with all their force untill this present I shall not here undertake a refutation of their objections whereby they pretend to overthrow it and whereof the weakness hath been made appear in a vast number of great and learned Answers that have been made to them But to avoid disputing which is unseparable from the opposing of arguments to arguments for refuting adversaries and that I may onely make use of that great maxime which alone I am to employ in this Treatise I shall onely say in one word that if we consult Antiquity we shall find by tracing it to the first Ages of the Church that it hath ever constantly believed that Primacy of St. Peter This is easily proved by the testimonies of almost all the holy Fathers Hippolyt Martyr de consum mundi Tertul. de praes c. 22. Iren. Origen in Ep. ad R. c. 6. Cypr. lib. de unti Eccl. Epiph. in Anchor Amb. in Luc. c. 10. Greg. Naz. or 26. Hilar. in Matth. c. 16. Hier. adv Jovin l. 2. Optat. Melev cont Parmen l. 2. Cyrill Alex. in Joan c. 12. August in Joan. tr 11.36 Ep. 161. who in an infinite number of places in their Works say That he is the Rock and Foundation of the Church that his Chair is the chief Chair to which all the rest must unite that he hath the Supreme power to take care of the flock of the Son of God that he hath received the Primacy to the end that the Church might be one that he is the first the chief and the head of the Apostles that he is the inspectour of all the Universe he to whom Jesus Christ hath committed the disposition of all things Chrysost hom 13. in Matth. in Joan. hom 87. de beat Ignat. St. Leo Serm. in Anniversar su Assumpsit to whom he hath given the rule over his brethren who is preferred before all the Apostles and who governs all Pastours with many other encomium's of that nature all which magnificently express his Primacy and which have been often repeated and approved in General Councils And that supereminent dignity of St. Peter was so well known even
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
less to be rejected because I shall produce as Evidences for this Truth those who are most concerned in the Affair I need say no more but that the ancient Popes whom of late in spight of themselves they would have elevated above Councils do themselves protest that they are subject unto them and that they ought to obey them in matters belonging to Faith the Regulation of Manners the universal Good and general Discipline of the Church Is there any thing clearer and more sincere as to that Subject than the Testimony of Pope Syricius Successor to Damasus The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian the younger Ann. 390. had called a great Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Capoua Ambros Epist ad Theoph. Alexand. Epist Syricii ad Anys Thessalon for quenching the Schism of Antioch which after the Death of Meletius and Paulinus still continued by the Election that the two different Parties of that Church made of Flavian to succeed to Meletius and of Evagrius Successor to Paulinus Seeing Flavian appeared not the Council delegated Theophilus of Alexandria to judge and determine that great difference with consent of the Bishops of Egypt and at the same time since the Council was informed against a Bishop of Macedonia called Bonosus accused of Heresie and Impiety against the holy Virgin who durst not appear the Council committed the Tryal of the Cause to Anesius of Thessalonica that he might determine it in a Synod which he should hold with the Bishops of Macedonia and Illyrium These whether to discharge themselves of the Judgment which they well foresaw they must of necessity pass against one of their Brethren Cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis Judicium ut finitimi Bonoso atque eâ—us accusatoribus Judices tribuerentur advertimus quod nobis Judicandi forma competere non possit Nam si integra esset bodie synodus recte de iiâ— quae comprehendit scriptorum vestrorum series decerneremus Vestrum est igitur qui hoc recepistis Judiâ—ium sententiam ferre di oâ—nibus vicem enim Synodi recepistis quos ad examinandum Synodus elegit Primum est uti ii judicent quibus judicandi faculias est data vos enim totius ut scripsimus Synodi vice decernitis nos quasi ex Synodi authoritate judicare non convenit or out of the Veneration that they had for the Holy See referred that Judgment to Pope Syricius But he wrote back to them that if the Council had determined nothing about the Cause of Bonosus he would have pronounced a just Judgment concerning what they had written to him of that Bishop but that since the Council had commissionated them to take Cognisance of that Cause by a decisive Judgment with the Bishop of Thessalonica he frankly confessed that he had no Power to judge of it It is you said he who are to supply the place of the Council in that Judgment and who received the Power to determine it to whom it belongs to pronounce about that Affair Epist Syricii ad Anys Thes in collect Roman bipertit veter monument Romae 1662. seeing you represent the Council which hath transferred its Authority upon you and not to me who have it not There is a Pope of the fourth Age who ingenuously confesses That the Delegates of the Council much more the Council it self have greater Power than he hath and who by consequent acknowledges that the Authority of Councils is above that of Popes Innocent I. who three Years after Syricius was Pope and who had observed his Conduct in relation to the Council of Capoua walked also according to the Tradition of the Roman Church Chrys Ep. ad Innoc 1. Ep. Inn. ad Jo. Chrys apud Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Innoc. Episc ad cleric Constant Pallad dial de vit Chrysost c. 2. and the Example of his Predecessors who never thought that their Power was equal and far less superiour to that of a Council For in the great Persecution that Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria rais'd against St. John Chrysostom who was condemned and deposed in a Synod of Bishops of the Faction of Theophilus Theophili Judicium cassum irritum â—sse decrevit dicens oportâ—re conflare aliam iâ—repâ—ehensiâ—ilem Synodum occiâ—entalium sacâ—rdotum cedentibâ—s aâ—ciâ—is primun dâ—inde inimicis neutraâ—um quippe partiam ut plurimum â—ectum esse Judicium Pallad loâ— cit and Enemies to that Saint seeing the Pope and Western Bishops had been written to on both sides that holy Bishop did indeed rescind that Judgment past contrary to all the Forms and Rules of Councils by incompetent Judges against an Absent who had judicially appealed to a lawful Council but as to the Substance of the Affair and the Accusation in hand he would never meddle in it He thought that considering the Importance of the Affair wherein the Honour and Dignity of a Patriarch whose Faith had always been so pure and his Learning and eminent Sanctity in so high a Veneration over all the Church was struck at Quodnam remedium hisce rebus afferemus necessaria erit Synodalis cognitio nothing but an impartial Council wherein the Friends and Enemies of neither side should be present could pronounce a definitive Sentence concerning the matter Ea sola est quae hujusmodi procellarum impetus retardare potest Innoc. This he wrote to both Parties and in the Letters which he directs to St. Chrysostom to his Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople he says positively that that Council Cum opem ipse ferre non posset Pallad even the same to which that holy Patriarch had appealed was absolutely necessary for determining that great Affair by a supreme Sentence that there was no other Remedy but that for the Evils that afflicted them that he could not help them otherwise Multum deliberamus quonam modo synodus Oecumenica congregari possit per quam c. Expectemus igitur vallo patientiae communiti c. that an Oecumenical Council alone could restore Peace to the Eastern Church and calm so furious a Tempest and that in the mean time it behoved them to arm themselves with Patience and have recourse only to God expecting till that Council should be called wherein he laboured incessantly searching out the Measures that might be taken for having it called Could that Pope express himself in clearer terms that a general Council hath an higher power and of larger Extent than his own and that by consequent it is above him However if I mistake not there is somewhat that strikes higher in what Innocent III. one of his Successors no less zealous than he was for the Grandeur and Rights of the Holy See wrote to Philip August This Prince who had a great desire to have the Marriage which he had contracted with the Queen Ingerbuge dissolved instantly pressed the Pope to declare it null that so he might be free to marry another That wise Pope writing back to
the Spirit of God hath made and which are consecrated by the Veneration of all the World and the Decrees of the Apostolick See which are not contrary to these Canons Ex Art Concilii Florent è Sesi 25. Antiq. Eâ—ition cum aâ—â—rob Clement VII And that is the very same that was defined in the Council of Florence after long debate betwixt the Latins and Greeks concerning the primacy and power of the Pope in the Universal Church It was agreed upon on both sides That the Pope as Successor of St. Peter was Head of the Church the Father and Teacher of all Believers who had received from Jesus Christ in the person of St. Peter full power to govern the Church The difficulty only rested in expressing the manner how he might and ought to govern it The Latins would have the Definition run thus That he had above all others the priviledge and full power of governing the whole Church according to the Sayings and Sentences of the holy Fathers Juxta determinationem sacrae Scripturae dicta sanctorum The Emperour John Paleologue and Greek Prelates An siquis inquit sanctorum in Epistola honoret Papam accipiet hoc pro Privilegio vigorously oppos'd that Clause dicta sanctorum How said he if any of the Holy Fathers writing to the Pope says to him what he thinks fit for rendering him greater Respect and more Honour shall the Pope take these Expressions of Complement and Civility for Priviledges that belong to him Besides in the draught of the Bull of Union of the two Churches the Pope having only put his own name Eugenius Bishop Servant of the Servants of God as if he alone had made these Decrees the Emperour and the Greeks would by all means have that amended and that there should no mention be made of the Pope in it unless the other Patriarchs were also named At length after that these two considerable Clauses had been well examinâ—d the Union was made in the manner that the Greeks desired it to which the Latins agreed Then the Bull was framed which began thus Eugenius Servant of the Servants of God c. Our death beloved Son John Paleologue illustrious Emperour of the Romans those who hold the place of our venerablâ— Brethren the Patriarchs and all the rest who represent the Eastern Church consenting to all the Decrees which anâ— in this Bull c. And then amongst other Articles it was defined 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 mâ—dâ—m qui in â—â—â—tiâ— conciâ—iâ—â—â— in canonibus conâ—â—â— That Jesus Christ hath given to the â—ope in the person of St. Peter full power to govern the Universal Church in the manner as is contained both in the Acts of Oecumenical Councils and in the sacred Canons and not according to the false Translation Quemadmodum etiam in gestis Conciliorum c. as if it were said that the Canons of Councils attribute also to the Pope the power of governing the Universal Church It is a quite contrary Sense to the Words of the Council which says only that the Pope hath received from Jesus Christ the power of governing the Church in the manner as is prescribed to him by the Canons Juxta eum modum qui in gestis Conciliorum in Canonibus continetur Which comprehends all because it is supposed as it is very true that the Canons of Oecumenical Councils are conform to holy Scripture Tradition and the true Sayings of the holy Fathers from whom we derive our Tradition From those two Clauses of the Bull wherein both the Eastern and Western Churches after they had well examined them agreed two things may be unquestionably concluded the one that the Pope can determine nothing in his Constitutions of infallible Authority without the Consent of the Church and the other that the Exercise of his power which is not infinite and unlimited ought to be moderated according to the Rules prescribed to him by the Canons of the Councils to which all Believers are subject What the Popes have over others is the Care they ought to take to see them observed not only by their Authority but by their Example which is of greater force and efficacy than their Ordinances and if they themselves violate them acting arbitrarily as they please without regard to the Canons which ought to be their measures or suffer them to be violated by others without punishment they become culpable before God who hath made them not the Masters but the Stewards of the Church to act according to her Orders and cause them to be obeyed This the great St. Leo expressed admirably well in those rare words which he wrote to the Emperour Martian With the Assistance of Jesus Christ I must constantly continue my Service In quo opere auxiliante Christo fideliter exequendo necesse est me perseverantem exhibere famulatum quoniam dispensatio mihi credita est ad meum reatum tendit si paternarum regulae sanctionum quae in Synodo Nicenâ ad totius Ecclesiae regimen spiritu Dei instruente sunt conditae me quod absit connivente violentur Ep. 54. ad Martian Dum tamen evidens utilitas vel necessuas id expoâ—cunt Greg. IX In talibus eadem utilitas urgens necessitas secundum instituta canonum debet attendi Innoc. III. Ep. ad Episc Favent in faithfully executing what I am commanded because he has trusted me with the Care and Dispensation of his House and I make my self guilty of great Vnfaithfulness if by my Connivance which God preserve me from I suffer the Rules and Canons to be violated which have been made by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost in the Council of Nice for the Government of the whole Church Not but that the Pope who ought to take the care of the general Good of the Church may on certain Occasions dispense with the Canons but in that thing it self he is subject to the Canons seeing he cannot dispense with them as he pleases and without any other reason save that of his Will but only in Cases prescribed by the Canons when urgent necessity Vbi necessitas non est inconvertibilia maneant sanctorum patrum institâ—ta Gelas Vbi necessitas non est nullo modo violentur sanctorum patrum constituta St. Leo. or manifest advantage makes it appear according to the Canons that the Church intended not to oblige to them Except in such cases the ancient Popes say openly that the Canons and holy Decrees must be inviolably kept and that they cannot dispense with them Whereupon St. Bernard writing to a Pope Quid Prohibes dispensare non sed dissipare c. ubi necessilas urget excu abilis diâ—pensatio est ubi utilitas provâ—cat dispensatio laudabilâ—s est utilitas dico con munu non propria nam cum borum nih lâ— est non plane fideâ—is dâ—â—sheâ—satio est sed câ—â—eussima dissipation Bern. de cons ad Eugen
c. Here he relates at length the Decree of the fourth Session with that Clause Et ad reformationem Ecclesiae in capite in membris and having done so This says he to the Fathers of the Council is the Decree that you have made Dare M. Schelstrate after this still say that those of Basil have falsified that Decree by adding thereunto those Words And since for convincing him he hath obliged me to alledge so authentick a Piece in that part of this excellent Sermon which John Gerson made to the Council of Constance I should be glad he might know what after the Rehearsal of the Decree as we have it that learned Doctor adds speaking still to the Council These are his own Words which are very considerable Huic veritati fundatae supra petram sacrâ—e Scripturae quisquis à proposito detrahit cadit in haeresim jam damnatam quam nullus unquam Theologus maxime Parisiensis Sanctus asseruit Whoever opposes and contradicts that Truth founded upon the Rock of Holy Scripture falls into the Heresie that now hath been condemned which no Divine especially of the Faculty of Paris nor no Saint ever maintained In this manner Gerson speaks of the Opinion of those who will not have a Council to be above the Pope We give it a softer term and reject it not as heretical but as contrary to the Doctrine of Antiquity and consequently false Then he goes on with greater force still and expresses himself in these Words I lately saw St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure I have not here the Books of other Doctors They allow the Pope the supreme and full Ecclesiastical Power Vidi nuper Sanctum Thomam Bonaventuram hic reliquorum libros non habeo dant supremam plenam summo pontifici potestatem Ecclesiasticam rectè proculdubio sed boc faciunt in comparatione ad fideles singulos particulares Ecclesias Dum etiam comparatio facienda fuisset ad anctoritatem Ecclesiae Synodaliter congregatae subjecissent Paepam usum potestatis suae eidem Ecclesiae tanquam matri suae cujus legem dimitti non debere iradit sapiens tanquam praeterea regulae vel legi directivae infallibiliter cui se submittere tenetur omnis frater peccabilis de Ecclesia cujus anctoritatem si non audierit frater quilibet etiam Papa qui nobiscum dicit Pater Noster audi itur quid dixerit omni Catholico Christus sit tibi inquit sicut Ethnicus Publicanus id est excommunicatus and without doubt they are in the right because saying so they compare the Pope with all Believers and all Churches taken particularly But if they had been to compare him with the Authority of the Church assembled in a Council they would have subjected him and the exercise of his Power to the same Church as to his Mother whose Laws the Wise Man says one should never forsake and as to the Rule which directs us infallibly and to which all men in the Church liable to failing are obliged to submit And if any one whoever he be of our Brethren though he were Pope who says his Pater Noster as we do will not acknowledge her Authority and obey her let us hearken to that which Jesus Christ enjoyns to every Catholick Let him be to you saith he as an Heathen and as a Publican that is to say as an excommunicate Person And this is just the same which the Pope Silvester II. said in express terms many Ages before Gerson And to prevent M. Schelstrate from offering to say that the Text of this Doctor hath been falsified by adding thereunto these words Et ad reformationem Ecclesiae in caepite in membris I declare unto him that the Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica where that great man quotes that Decree hath been collationed with four Manuscripts two of the History of St. Victor marked N N. S. and M M. 11. with one of the Colledge of Naevarr and of the Bibliotheke of Monsieur Colbert marked 99. That the Treatise An quomodâ— appellare liceat à summo pontifice where the same Decree is to be found is altogether conform to two Manuscripts one of St. Victor marked N N. 9. and the other of the Bibliotheke of Navarr That the Sermon pro viagio Regis Romanorum hath in like manner most exactly been compared with a Manuscript of St. Victor marked according to the ancient Catalogues N N. 11. with one of the Bibliotheke of Navarr and with one of the Library of Monsieur Colbert marked 99. In a word that what is to be read in the Sermon Nuptiae factae sunt c. wherein Gerson repeated before the Council the Decree of the fourth Session is to be found in a very ancient Manuscript of St. Victor marked N N. 19. word for word as we have caused it to be printed All these Manuscripts have been communicated to me by Monsieur d' Herouval Regular Canon of St. Victor and Doctor of the Surhonne whose merit already well known to the Learned will shortly be to the Publick in the new Edition that he is preparing of the Works of Gerson which by his Care and Pains will be found restored to their Perfection that they have never hitherto had This I think is enough to oblige M. Schelstrate to yield Would he have any thing more precise He shall be satisfied The Council of Basil ten Years before the Extract made which he pretends they falsified proposed that Decree such as we have it and renewed the same in the second Session Cardinal Julian who was nominated by Martin V. to preside in that Council and who after the Death of that Pope presided therein in Name of Eugenius IV. consented to that Decree in behalf of the Pope in that second Session and defended it in the Letter which he wrote to Eugenius to remonstrate to him the Reasons which obliged his Holiness not to offer to dissolve that Council Had not this Decree been that of Constance most faithfully proposed would he have consented to it Would not he have objected against that notorious Falsification Et tibi prout opus â—â—deris esse juxta tibi injuncta ordinata in Concilio Constantiensi optimè provideas Julian Ep. 2. ad Eugen Would not he have protested that what was added to the end of the Decree was no part of it he who was very well acquainted with his Council of Constance and daily studied it having express Orders from Eugenius to act in the Council of Basil as he should find it expedient according as he was enjoyned and directed by the Decrees of the Council of Constance Would he have more still Here is enough to satisfie him Eugenius IV. in the Bull which he published during the sixteenth Session declares That according to the Decrees of Constance he had called the Council of Basil for the Extirpation of Heresies the Peace of Christian People and the general Reformation of the Church
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
Council And therefore to remove all ambiguity and to prevent the wresting of these words to a sense contrary to the Superiority of a Council they said that instead of Regendi Ecclesiam universalem it ought to be put into the Canon Potestatem regendi omnes fideles omnes Ecclesias that the Pope hath the Power of Governing all Believers and all Churches which is to be understood of all not Assembled in Council but taken severally and in particular none of them being exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Pope in what relates to the publick good the general Government and the cases limited by the Canons So careful even to a scruple have our Ancestors been to stand upon their guard on that side that no attack in the least might be made against the ancient Doctrin always inviolably observed in this Kingdom And it is most remarkable that at that time when the Doctors of Paris most strenuously maintained that Doctrin after the Councils of Constance and Basil against those that strove to invalidate their Decrees Innoc. VIII Litter ad Theol. Paris 7. iâ— Sept. Ann. 1486. Innocent VIII sent them a Brief wherein he makes their Elogy and amongst other things magnifies the greatness of their zeal which they expressed for maintaining the honour and rights of the Holy Roman Church and for defending the Catholick faith against the Heresies which they incessantly confuted After all that I may end where I began to handle this question I shall conclude with the testimony of another Pope whom the Authors who will have it as M. Schelstrate will that Popes are above Councils can never reject And that is Pius II. who when he was no more but Aeneas Sylvius Picolomini Clerk to the Council of Basil whereof he hath given us the History maintained with all his might as well as the Doctors of Paris that the Authority of a General Council is Superior to that of a Pope But when he himself was promoted to be Pope he thought for a reason that may easily be guessed at that he ought to make known to the World that he had changed his Opinion and that then he thought the quite contrary of what before he had maintained with all the heat that a Man ought to have who is well persuaded of the Justice of the Cause whereof he undertakes the defence And that he solemnly did by a Bull wherein he retracts and in that Recantation that he might declare that he followed another Opinion he would not stiffle the manifest truth concerning the nature of the Opinion which he forsook and of the other that he embraced For in this manner he speaks in his Bull hinting at the Conferences and Disputes that were had with Juliano Cesarini Cardinal of St. Angelo who stood up for the interest of the Pope as much as he could and yet for all that agreed in Judgment with the Council wherein he presided Tuebamur antiqaam seutentiam i le novam defendebat Extollebamus generalis concilii autoritatem ille Apostolicae sedis potestatem magnopere commendabat He defended says that Pope the Ancicient Doctrin and he took the part of the new We extolled the Authority of the Vniversal Council and he magnified extreamly the Power of the Apostolick See This now is plain dealing Pius II. in Bull. retract That Pope who was willing to change his Opinion with his condition which after him Adrian VI. did not declares fairly and honestly in his Bull that the Doctrin whereof he had formerly undertaken the Defence concerning the Superiority of a Council is the Doctrin of Antiquity and that the other is new And that is all I would be at I need no more to gain my cause For all that I have pretended to in this Treatise is to shew what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Points in hand So that after so authentick a Declaration of Pope Pius II. I have ground to say as to this Article what I have already oftener than once said in relation of the others with Pope Celestin I. writing to the Bishops of the Gallican Church Desinat incessere novitas vetustarem CHAP. XXVI The state of the question touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal I Have if I mistake not made it clearly appear in all the preceding Chapters of this Treatise how far the Ancient Church hath believed that the Power over Spirituals which Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter and his Successors as Heads of the Universal Church extended I am now to shew whether according to the Judgment of venerable Antiquity they have also any Power over the Temporal of any person whatsoever and especially of Kings and other Sovereigns by virtue of the primacy that by Divine right belongs to them Heretofore there have been some so passionately concerned for the Grandieur of the Apostolical See or rather so blindly devoted to the Court of Rome that differs much from the Holy See that they have dared to publish that the Pope representing the person of Jesus Christ who is King of Kings Lord of Lords and Universal Monarch who hath an absolute Power over all Kingdoms from which he may even depose Kings if they fail in their duty as these Kings may turn off their Officers who behave not themselves as they should And this is called the direct Power which Boniface VIII thought fit to take to himself in his Tuae unam Sanctam that his Successor Clement V. was obliged to recal That is not the question here For I cannot think that now a days there is any Man who hath the boldness to maintain so palpable and odious a falshood But there are a great many beyond the Alps who by the Philosophical distinction of an indirect Power which they have invented teach that the Pope may dispose of Temporals depose Kings absolve Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they have taken to them and transfer their Dominions to others when he judges it to be necessary for the good of Religion because say they since he hath the inspection over every thing that concerns it so hath he Power to remove destroy and exterminate every thing that may annoy the same and by that clinch they cunningly enough come home to their Point though they would seem to forsake it For a Pope will always take the pretext of the welfair of Religion when he has a mind to undo a Prince as all these Popes have done who after Gregory VII deposed Emperors and since them Julius II. who transferred the Kingdom of John King of Navarre to Ferdinand King of Arragon because that King would not declare against Louis XII whom this Pope persecuted Now seeing that Opinion which the Gallican Church and all our Doctors have always reckoned very dangerous and inconsistent with publick tranquillity hath still vouchers amongst some Modern Doctors especially beyond the Alps I must now make it appear according to the method which I have
Pope We maintain that it signifies there according to the absolute will of the Pope We maintain that it signifies there According to the advice and counsel of the Pope which is plainly to be seen by the opposition of these words ad nutum Sacerdotis ad jussum Imperatoris which signifie two different things that the Soldiers take Arms by the command of the Emperor ad Jussum and by the advice of the Pope ad nutum It cannot be said that that is by the command otherwise St. Bernard would have said briskly ad Jussum Sacerdotis Imperatoris but he makes a distinction and for the one saies ad Jussum and for the other ad nutum by the counsel and advice Just so as it is said of the Disciples in the Gospel Annuerunt sociis qui erunt in alia navi They beckoned to their companions that were in the other Ship that annuerunt beckoned does not signifie a command but an advice an exhortation They pray them to come So that ad nutum which comes from the same verb annuere means nothing more but the advice counsel and exhortation of the Pope as Vrban II. exhorted the Emperor and all Christian Princes to cross themselves and to take Arms against the Sarasins for rescuing the Holy Sepulchre And as we see at present that Pope Innocent XI exhorts all the Potentates of Europe to League against the Turk and sends Money to the Emperor and King of Poland to carry on the War in Hungary against that common Enemy of all Christians It will not be said for all that that the Pope commands these Princes to employ the material Sword all that can be said of it is that the Germans and Polanders make good use of their Swords in Hungary and beat the Turks ad nutam Sacerdotis ad Jussum Imperatoris by the counsel and exhortation of the Pope and by the command of the Emperor and the King of Poland But to prove to these new Doctors that that is the true sense of St. Bernard I 'll only object to them the same Saint in the same Treatise of Consideration to Pope Eugenius wherein doubtless it will not be said that he hath contradicted himself by overthrowing in one place what he hath built up in another For in this manner he speaks to the Pope upon what our Saviour three or four times told his Apostles that he would not have them to be like the Kings of the Gentiles that bear Rule over their Subjects It is plain saith that Holy Man that all Dominion is forbidden to the Apostles Planum est Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ergo tu tibi usurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum plane ab alterutro prohiberis aut si utrumque similiter habere voles utrumque perdes l. 2. de cons c. 6. Go then boldly and usurp the Apostleship either by domineering or Dominion by retaining the Apostleship From one of the two you are excluded If you think to retain both you shall lose both Are these the words of a Man that would have Popes so far to domineer over Kings as to depose them and transfer their Crown to others seeing he will not so much as have them to have any Dominion Not that he finds fault that Eugenius III. as other Popes have had should enjoy Lands and Principalities and those vast demains which they hold of the liberality of the Kings of France and which by the favour of times they have since converted into Sovereign and independent States Grant Esse ut aliâ quâcunque ratione haec tibi vindices sed non Apostolico Jure nec enim ille Petrus tibi dare qâ—od non habuit potuit adds St. Bernard that you have that Temporal Dominion by any other title but I declare you have it not as Pope nor by any right of Apostleship for St. Peter who had no such thing could not give what he had not So that Popes as Popes have no other Power but what is purely Spiritual for binding or loosing Souls and have nothing to do with the Temporal of the meanest of Christians much less with that of Kings After this I am not of the mind that the new Doctors will be found of alledging to us the words of St. Bernard nor indeed be able to oppose any considerable Authority to that of all the Ancient Fathers since Bellarmin himself in the Treatise that he made of the Power of the Pope as to Temporals against William Barclay produces only for justifying his Opinion the Authors of the last four or five hundred years What can all these upstarts do against the Fathers of the Ancient Church It is enough to send them packing to tell them once more what Pope Celestin I. said Desinat novitas incessere vetustatem But because we speak with a Pope and that the question in Hand concerns the intetest of all Sovereign Popes let us now see what the Belief of the Ancient Popes hath been as to the same Point CHAP. XXIX The Judgment of Ancient Popes touching the Power over Temporals that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope THESE of all Men are evidences of greatest Authority and least to be rejected seeing the question is about a Power that some would attribute to them and which they openly declare they have not I mean Ancient Popes who for most part were great Saints and who very well understanding their obligation have always kept within the bounds of that Spiritual Power which they have received from Jesus Christ for Governing his Church according to the Laws and Canons of Ecumenical Councils so as the Council of Florence defined it The truth is they were so far from attempting any thing upon the Temporal of Emperors and Kings tho even Infidels and Hereticks as to deposing of them and absolving their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they had taken to them that they have always openly protested that they were wholly submitted unto them as most humble Subjects and have acknowledged as well as the great Osius that distribution which God hath made of the Temporal for Sovereigns and of the Spiritual for the Church for the Popes and Bishops There is nothing more evident than this in Ecclesiastical History We need only read the Epistle of Pope Gelasus I. to the Emperor Anastasius wherein he makes that distinction of the two Powers one Temporal and the other wholly Spiritual and both independent one of another That of Nicolas I. to the Emperor Michael wherein he distinguishes them Actibus propriis dignitatibus distinctis by their Dignities and proper Functions which are of two quite different kinds and what Gregory II. wrote to Leo Isauricus a most wicked Arch-heretick and cruel Persecuter of Catholicks saying to him in one of his Letters In the same manner as the Pope has no Power of inspecting the Palace of Emperors Quemadmodum Pontifex introspiciendi in Palatium poteftatem
supposititious wherein he ordains that every King Prelate or Judg that shall neglect to preserve the Privileges which that Pope gives to the Abbey of St. Medard of Soissons and to three other Monasteries of Autun be deprived of his Dignity and as a destroyer of the Church separated from the communion of Believers and from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ that in fine he be smitten with all the Anathema's which till then had been thundered against all Hereticks damned like Judas and with him sent headlong into Hell if he do not do penance and make his peace with the Monks Such extravagant terms as these and so remote from the temper and stile of St. Gregory are alone sufficient to discover the gross imposture and the supposition of these pretended Bulls which some have not been ashamed to make use of for subjecting the Crowns of Sovereigns to the Pope That holy Pope behaved himself in a far different manner in relation to Kings and Emperors as may be seen in all his Epistles Lego relego Romanorum regum Imperat rum gesta nusquam invenio quemquam eorum ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum vel Regno privatum Otto Fris l. 6. c. 35. And that wise conduct which his Predecessors held continued still after him until Gregory VII who according to the observation of the learned Otho Bishop of Frisinguen was the first Pope that contrary to so many good Examples of his Predecessors takes to himself the Power of deposing Kings warranting himself as he himself saies in his Letter to Heriman Bishop of Mets by this that Jesus Christ gave St. Peter the Power of binding and loosing Waltr Naumbourg Apol. pro Henr. IV. l. 1. c. 3. 4. To which Waltram Bishop of Naumbourg made the same answer that we make at present to those who abuse that passage contrary to the interpretation of all the Fathers that that Power was given to loose Men from their sins and not from the Oath of Allegiance which Subjects are bound by a divine and indispensable Law to observe towards their Sovereigns It was upon that so weak and ruinous a foundation That this Pope Gregory undertook against the Ancient Doctrin of above a thousand years to settle that false and pernicious Opinion which he the first of all Popes put into practice by Excommunicating and Deposing the Emperor Henry IV. For as to what is said to the contrary of Pope Zachary whom Bellarmine pretends to have taken the Crown from Childerick and given it to Pepin is of no force and must needs proceed from a great ignorance of our History It was the French Lords who Ann. 752. after that they had consulted the Pope to be informed by him if they might lawfully make that Translation did in effect do it upon the Popes answer touching that case of Conscience whether right or wrong is not the question in Hand The words of Ancient Authors are express in acquainting us that it was no more but a consultation on the part of the French that they might Authorise their action by the advice and opinion of the Doctor and Father of Christians Missi sunt ad Zachariam Papam Chron. ver à Pith. Edit ut consulerent saith an Ancient Chronicle They sent to Pope Zachary to consult him upon the Point Missi fuerunt ad Zachariam interrogando si bene fuisset an non Ann. Francor Metens c. saies another Author They sent to Zachary to ask the question if they should do well or ill in deposing Childerick and putting Pepin in his place The Popes advice was only asked which was not approved by his Successor For Theophanes a Greek Author of that time tells us that Pope Stephen gave Pepin absolution for the sin which he had committed by violating the Oath of Allegiance which he had taken to Childerick If that be so it remains to enquire which of the two Popes was in the right But it is not my part to examine that question It is enough at present that I say to prove that the French applied not themselves to Zachary as to him who had power to depose their King that they did not so much as consult Pope John XV. when they placed Hugh Capet on the Throne instead of Charles who had abandoned them to close with the Germans As to what concerns Leo III. who is said to have transferred the Empire of the West to Charlemagne it 's a mere illusion I have made it clearly out in the History of the Iconoclasts that four years before Charlemagne was Proclaimed Augustus he was Master of Rome and of Italy as King of France and that he took not that title of Emperor which he did not at all care for but because the French Lords and Romans that were his Subjects besought him to do it And it is certain that the Pope was the first who rendered Homage to him as to his Emperor and that he had no other part in that Ceremony but the same which the Archbishop of Reims has in the Coronation of our Kings It is certain then as Otho of Frisinguen assures us that Gregory VII was the first Pope that offered to depose Kings I have made it clearly enough out in my History of the Fall of the Empire how he formed and pursued so terrible an enterprise But I should be very glad that it might be taken from a very famous ultramontean Author Onuphrius Panvinius à Veronese of the Order of St. Austins Hermits in the life of that Pope In this manner he speaks of it Primus omnium Romanorum Pontificum Gregorius VII armis Normannorum fretus opibus Comitissae Mathildis mulieris per Italiam potentissimae confisus discordiâ Germâ—norum Principum Bello civili laborantium inflammatus praeter majorum morem contemptâ Imperatoris Authoritate Potestate cum summum Pontificatum obtinuisset Caesarem ipsum à quo si non electus saltem confirmatus sucrat non dico excommunicare sed etiam Regno Imperioque privare ausus est Res ante ea secula inaudita Nem de fabulis quae de Arcadio Anastasio Leone Iconomacho circumferuntur nihil moror Gregory VII is the first of the Popes of Rome who supported by the Norman Forces trusting to the great assistance of Money which he got from the Countess Mathilde a most powerful Princess in Italy and encouraged by the divisions amongst the Princes of Germany who were engaged in a Civil War dared contrary to the custom of his Predecessors slighting the Imperial Authority and Power so soon as he was promoted to the Papacy I shall not only say to Excommunicate but even depose from Kingdom and Empire the very same person by whom if he was not chosen he was at least confirmed in his dignity A thing unheard in all foregoing Ages For I take no notice of the tales that have been spread abroad of Arcadius Athanasius and Leo Isauricus
the Iconoclaste Before that saith the same Author Popes were Subject to the Emperors and durst neither judg nor resolve of any thing that concerned them Imperatoribus suberant de iis Judicare vel quicquam decernere non audebat Papa Romanus Thus the Ancient Popes behaved themselves and so much they believed of their Pontifical Authority which does not at all reach the Temporal And to this you may add Onuphr Pavin in vit Greg. VII ex edit Gresser pag. 271. 272. that in the eight first Ecumenical Councils there is nothing to be found but what speaks 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
seemed they had done in the first Article of their address That was the sole cause of the difference that was betwixt the two Chambers as that of the Clergy informed Pope Paul V. in the answer they made to his Brief of the last of January one thousand six hundred and fifteen Augebamur enim non mediocriter cum videremus ipses Catholicos zelo quodam minus prudenti abreptos cognitionem earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent ad se trahere de quaestionibus ejusmodi statuere velle quas nisi pastorum suorum vocibus edocti non debeant attingere Sed ea molestia è vestigio in laetitiam versa est postquam iidem nostris monitis justis rationibus adducti demum agnoverunt omnem hanc autoritatem penes Ecclefiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi preesse voluerit 7 Calend. Nartii We were not a little troubled say these Prelates to see even Catholicks transported with an undiscreet zeal offer to take cognisance of matters relating to Faith and to decide such kind of questions as they must needs first be instructed about by their Pastors before they can meddle with them But our grief was soon changed into gladness when these Gentlemen yielding to our Admonitions and just Remonstrances at length acknowledged that none but the Church hath that Authority and that none but the Pastors have from her received the Power and Right of instructing and guiding the Flock That was the thing in question and not at all the substance of the Article wherein the Clergy of France agreed though they judged it not a proper business to be proposed in the Estates especially at that time The truth is that Chamber of the Clergy was so far from invalidating in the least the substance of the Doctrin contained in that Article and in all times received in France concerning the absolute independence of our Kings as to Temporals that on the contrary they oftener than once protested that they acknowledged that independence Manifeste de ce qui se passa aux Estat Generaux entre le Clergi et le Tiers Estat 1615 and that it ought to be held for a Maxim That the King in Temporals can have no other Superiour but God alone Discours veritable de ce qui se passa aux Estats Generaux and that the Vicar of Jesus Christ hath no jurisdiction over matters purely Temporal So that although the Clergy declared that it belonged only to the Church to handle and decide a Point of Doctrin and Religion nay and that that was not an affair to be consulted about in the Estates Procés verbal de cequi s'est passé en la Chambre du Tiers Estat Avis donné au Roy en son Conseil par M. le Prince sur le Cahier du Tiers Estat yet they avowed that they believed in substance the same thing which the third Estate had proposed and which the late Prince of Conde a great Defender of the Catholick Faith most prudently represented to the King in Council the fourth of January the same year and which the University of Paris expressed in most significant terms in their Petition presented to the Estates upon the same occasion the two and twentieth of January To wit Discours veritable dece qui s'est passé c. That our Kings depend upon none but God us to Temporals and that there is no Power upon Earth that can depose them nor dispence with or absolve their Subjects from the Obedience and Allegiance that they owe to them under any pretext whatsoever That was their Doctrin which they would not have to be weakned or impaired in the Remonstrances which they had caused Cardinal Du Perron to make to the Chamber of the third Estate And certainly after so many proofs one cannot doubt of the Opinion of that learned Clergy always uniform as to that Point I might here produce a great many very convincing Testimonies but that would not be necessary now after that famous declaration which the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris by order of the King in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty two as representing the Gallican Church have made of their Judgment concerning the Ecclesiastical Power This is the first Article of it whereby they declare That God hath given to St. Peter and his Successors the Vicars of Jesus Christ and to the Church Power over Spiritual matters which belong to Eternal Salvation but not over Civil and Temporal The Lord having said My Kingdom is not of this World and Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and unto God the things that are Gods And that Apostolical Decree ought to remain firm and inviolable Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God That Kings and Princes then according to the Ordinance of God are not subject to any Ecclesiastical Power and that they cannot be deposed neither directly nor indirectly by the Power and Authority of the Keys of the Church that their Subjects cannot be exempted from the obligation that lies upon them to obey them nor be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance which they have taken to them and that that Doctrin ought inviolably to be observed as not only necessary for the publick Peace but also useful to the Church And as being conform to the word of God the Tradition of the Fathers and the examples of Saints This now is a positive Doctrin that saith all and all that I have written upon this Subject hath only been to exhibit the convincing proofs of all the parts of that Article which contains so excellent and solid a Declaration As to the sacred Faculty of Theology it hath never failed on any occasion to evidence its zeal for the true Doctrin authorising and confirming this by its Decrees and Censures of the contrary opinion from time to time renewed especially in the years 1413. 1561. 1595. 1610. 1611. 1620. 1726. And lately in the condemnation of an ultramontanean Jacobin by renewing the censure of the Book of Santarelli This appears still in a stronger and more Authentick manner Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod sammus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi antoritatem habeat imo Facultatem semper obstitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantum modo illam Authoritatem esse voluerunt by the six Propositions that were presented to the King in the year one thousand six hundred threescore and three in name of the Faculty By my Lord De Prefixe Archbishop of Paris Visitor of the Sorbonne Take here two of them which relate to that Article Esse Doctrinam Facultatem ejusdem quod Rex Christianissimus nullum omnino in temporalibus habet supersorem praeter Deum eamque esse suam antiquam Doctrinam à quâ nunquam