Test quest 57. Tract 47. in Joh. St. Augustin We might add to this what (g) Tertull. Carm. Tertullian says That all the Apostles had an equal power and that they were all the same as St. Peter was as (h) Cypr. lib. de unitat Ecclesiae St. Cyprian explains it and that they had all the same dignity as Pope (i) Append. com Theod. Ep. 8. Gelasius says Philér I am very well satisfied as to your first proof and I think you have shewed sufficiently by the Holy Scripture that the supream Authority is in the Church and in the Council which represents it That St. Peter himself tho he were the Prince of the Apostles was subject to it and that he was not looked upon as the supreme Judge in things that concerned Religion but as the first Minister in the College of the Apostles I desire you now to pass on to your second proof and to shew me by the perpetual and constant Tradition of the Church that the Popes who have succeeded St. Peter were never considered as the supreme arbitrators of things concerning Religion but that the Soveraign Authority to which the Popes themselves ought to be subject was esteemed ever to be in the Council Phila. I will readily perform the promise I made to you but I would have you observe by the by That the Bishops of Rome have not succeeded St. Peter in the charge of his Apostleship which was a personal employment and particular to those whom Jesus Christ had immediately called whom he had Bapized by his Holy Spirit and enriched with extraordinary gifts by which means these blessed people were Infallible and possessed a soveraign and Independent Authority in the Church and a Ministry which was not restrained to a certain place but which was dispersed throughout the whole World. I would also have you observe That the succession of the Bishops of Rome to St. Peter was but in the charge of a Bishop whereof St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles did communicate the Rights or Prerogatives to their successors and that this Charge hath this common Right with the Apostleship that it confers the power of Preaching the Word of administring the Sacraments and of using the power of the Keys but it gives no infallibility or power of exercising the Ecclesiastical Ministry all the World over After this Observation which is not amiss to our purpose I come to what I promised you And I observe in the first place that in the most Ancient Monuments of Christian Antiquity I find no traces of this Supreme Power which the Roman Bishops of the last Ages would attribute to themselves We have the Epistles of St. Ignatius which are of an Apostolick Character but there is not so much as the least foot-step of this supreme Authority attributed to the See of Rome This Holy Prelate speaks of the Church of Rome as of other Churches He calleth it the Church sanctified and illuminated by the will of God without giving it the least authority over any other and in his 7th Epistle to those of Smyrna he directeth it to the Bishop in the name of the Church and acknowledgeth nothing above him which he would never have done had he believed the Bishop of Rome to have been not only above other Bishops but also above a Council St. Justin Martyr in his Apology for the Christians gives an account to the Emperor Antoninus of the behaviour of Believers in his time but there is not one word of a superior and supreme Master that resided at Rome and made his Soveraign decision concerning matters of Religion St. Polycarp the Disciple of St. John as Eusebius relates it in his Book of Ecclesiastical History came to Rome to confer with Anicetus who was there Bishop concerning the day whereon he was to keep Easter but yet he followed not this Bishops Opinion which without doubt he would have done if it had been true that the Bishop of Rome had been at that time held the supreme Judge of the Church St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons in his Epistle to Victor Bishop of Rome as †Lib. 5. cap. 2 24. Eusebius saith sharply reproves him for separating from his Communion the Eastern Church because they would not keep Easter upon the same day that he did How could this Bishop have reproved things of this nature if he had believed that Victor had been in this conjuncture the absolute judge to whose Decisions and to whose Tribunal the Church was obliged to submit There were several Synods held both in the East and West There was one in the East where Policrares Bishop of Ephesus presided wherein far from acknowledging the Bishop of Rome for the Arbitrator of the whole Church they condemn his opinion as Eusebius witnesseth Was not there a Council also held in France our own Country wherein the Bishop of Rome had no share But St. Irenaeus presided and wrote a very pressing letter to Victor to oblige him to retain Communion with the Eastern Churches Do you think now seriously that things would have been carried thus if they had believed that the Bishop of Rome had held a Soveraign authority in the Church Some time afterwards the Heretick Novatians whose Picture Cornelius Bishop of Rome hath drawn in his Epistle to Fabian Bishop of Antioch being deprived of the Roman Chair which he had usurped and where he had published this Error That they ought not to be admitted to Repentance who had fallen into grievous sins Cornelius did not undertake of himself to condemn this Error which he would have done without all question if he had thought himself to have been the soveraign Arbitrator of the Church but he assembled at Rome a Council of Sixty Bishops There were also held without any order of Cornelius many Councils in divers places namely at Antioch which had been an horrible attempt had Cornelius been the absolute Magistrate of the Christian Common-wealth Matthew Bishop of Arles having joyned himself to Novatian Faustinus Bishop of Lyons did not address himself to Cornelius but to St. Cyprian Bishop of Carthage who wrote to the neighbouring Bishops of France and to the Bishop of Rome to exhort them to do their Duty and in this Letter he saith That he held in his own hand the ballance of the Church Government Doth not all this then demonstratively prove that the Bishop of Rome was not at that time looked upon as the Monarch of the Church I add to these Examples that of the famous Council of Antioch held in the year 265. against Paulus Samosatenus wherein assisted more than 270. Bishops This sworn enemy of our Saviour's Divinity being relapsed into the Heresy which he had formerly abjured in an Assembly held in the same City and because he could not be brought back to his Duty by the Letters and Remonstrances of the neighbouring Bishops it was their Opinion to call a Council and to this purpose Helenus Bishop of Tharsus and
The 19th in the Morning they spoke every man in this turn upon the Subject of their Commission and at Night the Company being re-assembled they by a general Consent approved of a Declaration which contains these following Propositions The First is That neither the Pope nor the Church it self hath any Power directly nor indirectly over the Temporality of Kings That they cannot be deposed and that their Subjects cannot be absolved from their Oaths of Allegiance to them upon any account whatsoever The Second is That the Council is above the Pope according to the Doctrine established in the 14th Session of the Council of Constance which the Assembly declares to have had the full Power and Approbation of the Church The Third is That the Use of the Pope's Power ought to be limited by the Canons and that he can do nothing to the Prejudice of the Ancient Customs and Liberties of the Gallicane Church The Fourth is That the Pope hath the Chief or Principal Authority in things which concern the Faith but so that his Decisions are not certain without the Churches Consent The Assembly ordered at the same time That this Declaration should be written in Latine and sent to all the Prelates of France to be Signed by them and that the King should be petitioned to make an Edict for the Execution of it throughout the whole Kingdom Philalethe This is Brave and looks like the Apostolical Vigour and Heroick Courage of our Ancient Prelates Philér This is not all These Lords Commissioners were dispatched away to the King and having given an exact Account of the Behaviour of the Clergy they demanded an Edict in the Kings Name for the Execution of their Declaration His Majesty granted them the Edict which was made as followeth And by this Edict the King ordains That this Declaration shall be Registred in all the Courts of Parliament of the Kingdom and in all the Faculties of Divinity and of the Canon-Law And his Majesty doth Prohibit under grievous Penalties even Foreigners within his own Kingdom and all as well Seculars as Regulars to teach any thing contrary to what is contained in this Declaration This Edict hath been executed The Parliament of Paris hath Registred this Declaration of the Clergy with that Zeal and Readiness that cannot be too much commended and which all other Parliaments of the Kingdom ought to imitate Phila. It cannot be denied but that our Prince is incomparable in all his Actions that France never saw upon the Throne a Monarch of so High a Character and of so great a Power that he maintains most worthily upon all occasions the Glorious Title of Lewis the Great which his Heroick Actions have acquired him And that the Parliament of Paris hath done well to express the great Zeal which they have always had for the Rights of the Crown and for the Liberty of the Gallican Church against the Enterprizes of the Court of Rome You may have read in our Histories what heretofore Philip the August Philip the Fair Charles the 6th 7th and 8th Lewis the 9th 11th and 12th did You know also the Conduct of the same Parliament under all these Great Princes to maintain according to their Will and Pleasure the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Gallican Church And I believe also that you have heard of the Decrees which this Honourable House hath sent forth under Lewis the 13th against the Scandalous Books of Saâ—terel and of Bellarmin But we may say without excess That Lewis the Great in this Conjuncture hath shewed more stedfastness and greatness of Mind in the Opposition which he hath made against the Attempts of the Court of Rome than all his Illustrious Predecessors ever did And it cannot also be denied but that the Parliament of Paris hath gone on worthily in the Footsteps of their Glorious Ancestors Philér It is not in this single Affair only that this Honourable House of Parliament have shewed their Zeal to Second the Intentions of his Majesty and to maintain the Rights of the Crown and the Privileges of the Gallican Church They have also given notable Proofs of it in the Affair of Father Buhi the Carmelite Phila. I have also heard of a Thesis which this Father had maintained the 4th of December last and it was said that they had caused him some Trouble about it at Rome but I do not precisely know what were the Propositions which this Father did maintain Philér If my Memory doth not fail me I think there were Six The First of them is That there are some Ecclesiastical Laws to which the Pope himself is subject The Second is That he cannot upon all occasions dispence with the Canons of General Councils The Third is That he cannot Depose Kings nor impose Tributes upon their Estates without their Consent The Fourth That Bishops hold their Jurisdiction from God. The Fifth That the Faculty of Divinity at Paris doth not esteem the Pope to be Infallible And the Sixth That the Right of the Regale is neither a Fancy nor an Usurpation These Propositions greatly stirred up the Pope against this Father he ordered the Commissary General of the Carmelites to declare him deprived of the privileges of his Order and uncapable of performing any function either Administration of the Sacraments or Preaching This Command was sent to the Superior of the Carmelites of the place Maubert * A Street in Paris so called to whom this Commissary General had given advice of the Noise that this Thesis of Father Buhi had made at Rome and of the misfortune wherewith the whole Order was threatned This Father demanded a Copy of the Letter of his Superior that he might consult his Friends about it which was granted him The Affair coming at length to the King's ear there came forth a Letter under the Seal to the Superior forbidding him to execute any Order from Rome against Father Buhi without the King's knowledg and consent Yet notwithstanding this the Superior caused the Order to be Registred which he had received from the Commissary General of the Carmelites the 18th of February last But the Parliament shewed the same vigour in this Affair as in that of the Declaration of the Clergy for after many proceedings made at the instance of the Attorny General the Parliament ordered that the Superior of the Carmelites should be admonished for his Disobedience and expresly forbad the execution of the Order against Father Foelix Buhi to which they added That he should continue in his Function of Divinity Reader expresly forbidding any person to molest him and at length they Order that the Commissary General 's Letter should be razed out of the Register and laid aside And this by order of Parliament the 14th day of April 1682. Phila. The Parliament did very bravely in this Affair and shewed that the same spirit of Zeal and Courage still reigns in that Honourable Assembly Thilér But ought not we to fear that this should
Theoctistus Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine invited Dyonisius of Alexandria chief of the Diocess of Egypt and Firmilian of Caesaria in Cappadocia chief of the Diocess of Pontus to the Convocation of a Council which was at length holden at Antioch without the order of Faelix Bishop of Rome and they did proceed against Paulus Samosatenus tho it doth not appear that any body I won't say presided but so much as assisted on the behalf of that Bishop and at length they ended the Assembly by a Synodal Letter which they sent to Dionysius whom they thought yet in possession of the Roman Chair tho he were dead in the Month of September the year before to Maternus Bishop of Alexandria and to all their fellow Bishops Priests and Deacons throughout the whole Earth and to the whole Catholick Church under Heaven This had been a very irregular proceeding if the Bishop of Rome had been the supreme Magistrate of the Church We may add to this what the Council of Alexandria did in regard of Origen under Demetrius for they condemned this Doctor whilst he was yet living and also under Theodosius in whose Reign they Anathematized his Doctrine and his Memory and all this without the Order Intention or Authority of the Bishop of Rome which they had not dared to have undertaken had they believed that this Bisop had had the supreme Authority in the Church From all this Truth which I have told you thus at large may be gathered That in these Primitive Ages of Christianity the See of Rome was really considered as the first in place as the Chair of St. Peter and the Center of Priestly Unity as St. Cyprian calls it in his Epistle to Cornelius but that it was not looked upon as the supreme Tribunal of things that concerned Religion Philér I gather from this Discourse that you have now made that in these Primitive Ages wherein the Holy Bishops of Rome aspired to no other Crown than that of Martyrdom and shared nothing amongst them but the Cross before the Spirit of Ambition and of Dominion had entred into the heads of any of these Prelates That the Spirit of Charity and of Humility which is the spirit of the Gospel did perfectly animate them and that all the Bishops living in this good understanding and in this union which Jesus Christ recommends so strictly to his Disciples they did communicate from one to the other the exigencies and necessities of their Churches that to heal the evils which molested them they chose out themselves the remedies which they judged most convenient and the most effectual means and that which they oftenest made use of was the Convocation of Synods to whom the Grace of the Holy Spirit as St. Cyprian says was never wanting for the good and edification of their Flocks And this which you have now related brings into my memory many such like methods of our Ancient Bishops of France which I think I have read in St. Gregory of Tours But can you shew me in the following Ages this same method of acting and this Tradition of the Church which you have called perpetual and constant Phila. I hope I shall make good my Promise I own that the Heathen Emperors having embraced Christianity the Church having been enriched by their liberality and her Ministers raised to a degree of Honour more considerable in the World by the effects of these Princes Piety things began to put on another face and the Bishops to take place according to the dignity of the Cities wherein they exercised their Ministry and to change that deference and honour that was given them before into a sort of jurisdiction as many people have own'd and among others * In Anno 39. Cardinal Baronius and as may be gathered out of the 17th Canon of the Council of Calcedon But whatever alteration the Conversion of Emperors and of Kings might have caused in the condition of the Prelates and in the Government of the Church it cannot be denied but that the Church Government remained still the same in substance and in what was essenrial to it and that they were always vigorously opposed who endeavoured to innovate and to introduce in the Church a Monarchical Government so that the Soveraign Authority remained always in the Councils who in these latter Ages have openly declared themselves against those who would have robbed them of this privilege The first example that I remember which justifieth the Soveraign Authority of the Church and which proves that the Bishops of Rome were dependants on it is that of the Council of Arles assembled if I am not mistaken by the Emperor Constantine in the year 314 and composed of 200 Bishops called together from divers Provinces of the Empire You know that the Causes of this Councils being called were the differences that happened between Donatus of Casanigra and Cecilian Bishop of Carthage who had been deposed by an Assembly of Bishops wherein Secundus the Bishop of Tigifis and Primate of Numidia presided these differences having divided Africa some Synodal Assemblies having established Cecilian and others Donatus I will not pretend to give an account of this History which you may have read in divers Authors †Euseb lib. 15. Optat. Mil. cont advers Parin lib. 1. and particularly in St. Austin in his Epistles 68. and 162 where you may see how Constantine commanded the Proconsul Aelius to hear all Parties and to give judgment and that the Donatists were were there condemned by the Sentance of the Proconsul The Schismaticks then applied themselves to the Emperor who to put an end to their differences named first of all Matronus Bishop of Cologne Delicius Bishop of Autun and Marinus Bishop of Arles and to these three he at length joyned Melciades Bishop of Rome and Fifteen other Italian Bishops of which number was the Bishop of Milan these Nineteen Bishops gave their judgments in favour of Cecilian the Donatists being condemned Appealed from this judgment and accused their Judges of being too precipitate What now did the Emperor Constantine He did not tell these Sectaries that the judgment that had condemned them had been given by the Soveraign Judge of the Church but he called a General Council in the City of Arles to examin the matter over again which had been judged by the Bishop of Rome and the other Eighteen Bishops which was done in the presence of two Priests and two Deacons whom Sylvester that succeeded Melciades had sent thither who sat also no higher than in the 5th place The condemnation of the Donatists was confirmed in this Assembly they also decided the question concerning the Baptism of Hereticks and gave it otherwise rhan the Bishop of Rome had adjudged it or St. Cyprian explained it which decision held the just medium between these two Opinions From hence it appeareth clearly enough That the Bishop of Rome did not believe himself above the Council since that he suffered what he had already adjudged