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
were not reputed Hereticks Victori non dederunt manus Hieron Ibid. cut off from the communion of Catholicks It was about an hundred and eight years after that the great Council of Nice abolished that custome in respect that Saint John had onely allowed it for a time in these Provinces of Asia that bordered upon the Jews to give an honourable Funeral to the Synagogue and that the other practice was taken universally as transmitted from the Apostles after which there lay an obligation upon Christians to submit to that Decree and they who headstrongly refused to obey it were declared Hereticks under the name of Quartodecumans This being so it is evident to all Men that neither these Bishops of Asia and of the East nor St. Irenaeus and the Gallican Church nor the Bishops of other Countries who wrote so smartly to Pope Victor in favour of these Eastern Churches did believe the Pope to be Infallible For had they believed it it is certain on the one hand that these Asiaticks would have submitted to the Decree of the Pope as they afterwards submitted to that of a Council because they believed as all other Catholicks doe that a Council is Infallible and on the other hand it is very clear that St. Irenaeus and so many other Bishops would not have written as they did to Pope Victor and found fault with his conduct For they never questioned but that those who refused to obey an Infallible Tribunal ought to be condemned and punished It was not then believed in the Church that the Pope had the gift of Infallibility though he might make a Decree for the instruction of all believers CHAP. IX What inference is to be made from that famous contest that happened betwixt the Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks THis famous question that hath made so much noise in the Church was fourty years before St. Cyprian solemnly examined in a Council held in Africa by Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage Ann. 217. and there it was determined that the Baptism of Hereticks being null there was a necessity of Re-baptizing all those who having abjured their Heresie should return to the bosome of the Church Cypr. Epist 71. ad Quin. Epist ad Jubaian Commonit 6.9 Vincentius Lirinensis hath Written that that same Agrippinus was the first who contrary to the custome of the Universal Church and the determination of his Brethren thought that Hereticks ought to be Re-baptised But saving the honour and respect that is due to so great a Man it is evident he was mistaken For besides that the Bishops of Africa and Numidia Cypr. loc citat with common consent and in conjunction with Agrippinus decided the same thing Tertullian Ann. 203. Cap. 12. who Wrote his excellent Book of Prescriptions against Hereticks fourteen years before the Council of Agrippinus says therein very plainly that their Baptism is not valid Cap. 15. Which in his Book of Baptism he also asserts in most express terms a Book Written by him before he fell into the Heresie of the Montanists Ann. 200. Strommat 1. Clemens Alexandrinus who flourished in the same time also rejects the Baptism of Hereticks which shews that it was the doctrine and custome of the Church of Alexandria the chief and most illustrious Church next to that of Rome So that Agrippinus and the Bishops of Africa and Numidia whom he assembled in a Council to determine that Question are not the first who established that Custome and Disipline which appoints all Hereticks who return into the bosome of the Church to be Re-baptized Probably it may be objected by some that what these ancient Authours say ought onely to be understood of the Hereticks of their times who all of them blaspheming against the most Holy Trinity Baptized not in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost and that therefore their Baptism was null which is most true But the reason whereupon they ground the nullity of the Baptism of Hereticks to wit that they are strangers without the Pale of the Church Ad quos vetamur accedere quis servus cibaria ab extraneo ne dicam ab inimico domini sui petat c. Tertull. de praescrip Quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis Id. de Baptis Trajicies aquam alienam c. Clem. Alex and that we are forbidden to have any commerce with them proves manifestly that what they said ought to be understood of all sorts of Hereticks both present and to come because they are all out of the Pale of the Church Now seeing some considerable time after the Council of Agrippinus Novation who was the first Anti-pope caused Catholicks who followed the party of the true Pope Cornelius to be Re-baptized the Question concerning the Baptism of Hereticks was argued afresh in Africa where it was put Whether or not the Novatian Schismaticks who returned to the Church ought to be Re-baptized Litt. Synod ad Epis ad Episc humid ap Cypr. Epist 90. Numid ap Cypr. Epist 70. Whereupon St. Cyprian having assembled a Provincial Council at Carthage it was there declared that since no body can be lawfully Baptized out of the Church there was a necessity of Re-baptizing Hereticks and Schismaticks those excepted who having been Baptized in the Catholick Church Cypr. Epist 74. ad Pomp. had afterward separated from it because Baptism once rightly administred could never again be reiterated The Bishops of Numidia who had received the Decree of the Council of Agrippinus Litt. Synod ad Epise Numid having consulted Saint Cyprian upon that new emergent received also the Decree of the Council of Carthage and that it might be rendered more Authentick Saint Cyprian assembled them together with the Bishops of his Province in a second Synod where the decision of the former was confirmed And thereupon a Synodal Letter was written to the Pope St. Stephen Cypr. Epist 73. ad Jubai informing him of what had been decided in those two Councils to wit that all those who being out of the Church Eos qui sunt foris extra Ecclesiam tincti apud haereticos schismaticos profanae aquae labe maculaeti quando ab nos venerint Baptisare oportere eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere Epist 70. Apud Cypr. ap August l. 6. 7. de Bapt. had been polluted by the profane Baptism of Hereticks and Schismaticks ought to be Re-baptised which was also confirmed in a third Council wherein were present the Bishops of Mauritania with those of Africa and Numidia Pope Stephen though his Predecessours had not opposed the Council of Agrippinus but left the Africans in the possession of their custome thought that he ought to condemn it as contrary to Apostolical Tradition And thereupon Euseb Hist l. 6. c. 5. in two Letters which he Wrote to the Africans he made a Decree quite contrary to that of St. Cyprian
rest by the spirits that they send over all and some for distributing the nourishment which the rest receive for growth and for perseverance in the perfection of their state So amongst the multitudes of believers that make up the Church and who cannot all be immediately governed instructed and edified by one single man for edification of the body of Jesus Christ there must be as the great Apostle speaks a great diversity of Ministers and many Pastours subordinate one to another in an holy Hierarchy Act. 20. v. 28. to the end the people may have the Sacraments administred unto them be instructed and governed And that 's the reason that there are in the world so vast a number of particular Churches which have their several Bishops and which are all subordinate to a Principal Church of which the Bishop is the head of all the rest And these being assembled in name of their Churches in an Oecumenical Council represent the Universal Church which we believe to be infallible for absolutely deciding the points of Faith when her Bishops who are the Pastours and Teachers of Christians being one and the same as well as she say in her name to all her members in perfect unity Visum est Spiritui Sancto vobis For as the Universal Church is a whole consisting of all believers and of all particular Churches which are one by the Communion which they have with one Principal Church that is the source principle root and centre of their Unity as Saint Cyprian speaks So according to the doctrine of the same holy Father Episcopatus unus est multorum Episcoporum concordi numerositate diffusus Cypr. l. de unit Eccl. Epist 55. there is but one Episcopacy in the Church whereof each Bishop fully possesses a part and by consequent there is but one Chair wherein all Bishops sit by virtue of the Union which they have with him Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur Cypr. Ep. 52. Ecclesia una Cathedra una Domini voce fundata Cyp. Ep. 40. Ad Trimitatis instar cujus una est atque individua potestas unum esse per diversos antistites sacerdotium Sym. Ep. ad Aeon Arclat whom they ought to acknowledge for their Head This Pope Symmachus explains in a very sublime manner by an excellent comparison taken from the Trinity In the same manner saith he as there is but one Omnipotence by the Unity of Essence and Nature which so unites the three Persons that they are but one God So amongst the many Orthodox Churches throughout all Christendom there is but one onely Priesthood that is to say but one Episcopacy through the unity not onely of Faith and Belief but also of communion of all the Bishops with a Head whence results that unity which is inseparable from the Church of Jesus Christ This being presupposed in which all Catholicks do agree Aug. on Ps 101. it is certain that Jesus Christ himself hath established his Church which he purchased by his own bloud and unto which he hath given the Faith Act. 20. v. 28. the Sacraments the Law of Grace in his Gospel and a visible Head to represent him as his Vicar upon Earth And as from a very small beginning it hath enlarged it self according to the Prophecies over the whole earth So also the Apostles and their Successours after the departure of Jesus Christ have founded particular Churches establishing them themselves or ordaining Bishops for governing the believers distributed into several Dioceses in all the quarters of the World Now seeing that particular Church which within a few years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ was setled in the Capital City of the Empire is without doubt the most illustrious of all others that on the one hand Hereticks not being able to endure its splendour and greatness have always furiously risen up and conspired to destroy it and that on the other all Catholicks who are sensible of the real advantages that distinguish it from all others are nevertheless divided about certain prerogatives which some attribute to it and others dispute I shall shew without speaking of other Churches what hath been the first establishment of that of Rome what is the excelling dignity thereof and what are the prerogatives rights and privileges of its Bishops And because a subject of this nature is not to be handled by Philosophical reasonings but by matters of fact drawn from Scripture interpreted according to the Fathers Councils and ancient Traditions which are the two principles of true Theology therefore you are not to expect any speculation or Philosophy in this Treatise which is purely Historical I do in the very entry declare that there is nothing of mine in this work For I doe no more but as a sincere and exact Historian barely alledge by uncontroverted matters of fact drawn from the one or other of those two sources what venerable Antiquity believed concerning that important matter This method we usefully employ against our Protestants We make it clearly out to them that what we believe of the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Mass the Invocation of Saints prayer for the dead and other controverted points is the ancient Doctrine of the Church and that so their belief contrary to ours being new is false We force them to acknowledge that what they hold with us concerning Infant Baptism the Baptism of Hereticks and the change of the Sabbath into Sunday of which Scripture makes no mention they have it onely from Tradition and the ancient Practice of the Church and that therefore they reject the anabaptists because of the Novelty of their Doctrine And this is also the great Principle that the ancient Fathers made use of against the Hereticks of their times Let us onely consult the order of time Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum verum quod sit prius traditum id autem extraneum falsum quod sit posterius immissum Tertull de praescr c. 32. and we shall know that that which hath been first taught us cometh from the Lord and that it is truth but that on the contrary what new thing hath since been introduced cometh of the Stranger and is false And in his fourth Book against Marcion Quis inter nos determinabit nifi temporis ratio ei praescribens autoritatem quod antiquius reperietur ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur l. 4. cont Marci c. 4. Who can put an end to our differences unless it be the order and decision of time which Authorizes the Antiquity of Doctrine and declares that defective which comes not till after that ancient Belief Upon the same ground St. Jerome who flourished about the end of the fourth Century said to one of his Adversaries who would have made a new Party in the Church Why do you offer after four hundred years Cur post quadringentos annos docere nos
were wonderfully increased in number professing publickly their faith in Jesus Christ true God and true Man were first called Christians After that they carried to Jerusalem where St. Peter was V. 30. and into all Judaea the Alms which they had collected from the fervent charity of these first Christians of Antioch for the relief of the Poor during that great Famine which the Prophet Agabus foretold Act. 11. and which was universal all over the world Anno 44. the second year of the Empire of Claudius and the four and fourtieth of Jesus Christ Dio. Cass l. 60. In the mean time Herod Agrippa whom that Emperour had the year before sent home with freedom into his Kingdom of Judaea caused the Apostle St. James Brother of St. John to be put to death before Easter Act. 12. v. 1. and that he might still more gain the affections of the Jews mortal Enemies to the Christians he cast St. Peter into Prison to be served in the same manner after the Feast But an Angel delivered him out of his hands and brought him forth out of Prison After that this Apostle past by Antioch into the lesser Asia Petr. Epist Metaph. ex Antiq. where he spent most part of that year instructing the Believers and erecting Sees in Cappadocia Galatia Pontus and Bithynia And having from thence embarked for Rome according to the orders he had received from the Holy Ghost he arrived there about the end of that second year of Claudius as all the most ancient Authours who have written of St. Peter do agree In that capital City of the world after he had converted a sufficient number of Jews and Gentiles for founding a Church he established the year following which was the fourty fifth of Christ his Pontifical Chair Anno. 45. leaving that of Antioch to Evodius and there he held it till the consummation of his Martyrdom that he suffered in the year threescore and nine which was the thirteenth of the Empire of Nero. Anno 69. So that reckoning from the year thirty nine to fourty five we shall find that St. Peter's See continued seven years at Antioch and from fourty five to threescore and nine when he suffered Martyrdom we have the twenty five years of his Episcopacy at Rome Not that he lived there constantly during all that time no more than he did at Antioch all the seven years that he was Bishop there For seeing he was both an Apostle and a Bishop he travelled often according to the Vocation of his Apostleship into divers Countries of Europe and Asia there to plant Churches and as Bishop he governed his own either Personally or by his Vicars during his absence So that the quality of an Apostle is not at all inconsistent with that of a Bishop And if all Bishops be not Apostles all the Apostles were Bishops and ordained Bishops And for that reason it is that all these are the Successours of the Apostles St. Peter however since no man before him had Preached the Gospel at Rome Oros l. 7. c. 6. lived there seven years untill the year fifty one when he was forced to leave it because of the Edict of the Emperour Claudius Sueton. in Claud. who banished thence the Jews That obliged him to return into Asia And it is certain that he was again at Antioch where he had a great contest with St. Paul either before Act. 18. v. 2. Galat. 2. v. 11. or after the Council of the Apostles where he was present and which was held the same year at Jerusalem Now seeing after that Council St. Peter could not return to Rome during the life of the Emperour who had banished him thence and that all the other Apostles almost had had their Provinces in the Kingdoms of the East he took that time to go Preach the Gospel to the Nations of the West even those most remote For some have written that he went as far as England Metaph. ex Antiq. Orig. praef in Epist ad Rom. Theodor. alii So that when St. Paul wrote from Corinth and not from Ragusa to the Romans in the year fifty eight and when next year after he was carried Prisoner to Rome where he continued two years untill the year sixty one St. Peter was not as yet come back So nothing can be concluded from the silence of St. Paul who speaks not of St. Peter no more than St. Luke does who was with St. Paul at Rome And it cannot be said that there were no Christians in that City when that Apostle arrived there seeing he had written to them the year before an excellent Epistle wherein he says Rom. 1. v. 8. that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world and that he longed to see them that he might impart to them some Spiritual Gifts to the end they might be established which he adds says Theodoret and makes use of that word establish because the great St. Peter had already Preached unto them the Doctrine of the Gospel Theod. in Epist ad Rom. c. 1. Besides that when St. Paul arrived first at Rome the Brethren came to meet him as St. Luke mentions Act. 28. who in many places of the Acts calls the Christians by that name and the chief men amongst the Jews who came to wait upon him at his Lodging asked him not what that Sect was as if there had been no Christians at Rome and that they had not learned from them what their belief was but what he believed because they saw that all who owned that Profession were in all places opposed and contradicted This is a Chronology exactly conform to the Scripture and that very well agrees with the two Voyages of Antioch and Rome which is the Question in hand And as to what is objected to us that St. Peter wrote from Babylon 1 Pet. c. 5. v. 13. where it is also affirmed that he died there is nothing so pitifully weak For it is so clear in that place that Babylon signifies the City of Rome that that passage may even be used to prove by Scripture that St. Peter hath been at Rome And indeed it is by the very same that Eusebius makes it out that that Epistle was written at Rome Euseb Hist l. c. 74. when he saith St. Peter makes it appear that he wrote it at Rome when he calls that City Babylon Does not St. Jerome say the same Hierom. de script Eccl. in Marc. and after him all those who have written upon that Epistle before the Reformers But who knoweth not that Ancient Rome which according to the observation of St. Austin Aug. de civitat l. 18. c. 22. Oros l. 7. c. 2. Tertul. cont Marc. l. 3. c. 13. was built at the same time when the Empire of the Babylonians was about to fall is by the Ancients called Babylon Revel 17. and especially that St. John in the Revelation gives it no other
that passage to prove the necessity of praying and of obtaining grace from God without which we cannot persevere And this is also the sense that Theophylact Oecumenius Euthymius Cardinal Hugo Albertus Magnus St. Thomas St. Bonaventure Lyranus Dionysius Carthusianus and all the rest of the most famous Interpreters and Divines have followed as being the true literal sense It is evident that that onely agrees with the time of the Passion and the Person of St. Peter alone wherein his Successours can have no part And though they should pretend they had yet that would not hinder but that they might fail and fall as St. Peter did by publishing a falshood contrary to the true faith which is more against the duty of a Pope than to believe an Errour without publishing it CHAP. VIII What follows Naturally from the great debate that Pope Victor had with the Bishops of Asia THere had been for a long time very different Customs in the Church about the Celebration of the Festival of Easter and the observation of the Fast which ought to go before that holy day For all over the West according to the practice observed from the beginning in the Church of Rome that Festival was kept on Sunday which is the day of our Saviour's Resurrection But the Churches of Asia founded by the Apostle St. John Euseh Hist Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron de script c. 44. Exod. 12. Hieron de script in Polychr some of their Neighbours and many other Churches of the East kept it always the fourteenth of the Moon of March as the Passover is appointed to be kept in Exodus and according to the Tradition which they had received from St. John As to the Fast that is to be observed before Easter there was still a greater diversity in the Customs established in several places Irenae ap Euseb hist l. 5. c. 24. For some fasted but one day before that Feast as we do on the Vigile of Christmas and of Whitsunday others fasted two days some who were numerous fasted longer and many observed punctually the Fourty days fast of Lent Omnes Ecclesiae tum eorum qui decimo quarto die diem festum pachat is observabant tum eorum qui secus tranquillâ pace inter ipsas fruebantur Euseb Ibid. However these different customs that were amongst Christians of the second nay and of the first age of the Church concerning Lent and Easter made no breach at all of the peace and every one observed peaceably the custom of their Church which they thought to be good without condemning the practices of others This is so true that St. Polycarp Bishop of Smirna being come to Rome under the Pontificat of Saint Anicetus these two great Saints in a long conference which they had about the celebration of the Feast of Easter did what they could mutually to draw one another over to their party and seeing both remained stedfast in their opinions St. Polycarp saying always that he had from St. John his Master the custom that was observed in his Church and St. Anicetus affirming that that which was followed at Rome and in the Western Churches was derived from St. Peter they could never agree upon the matter Yet that hindred not but that they still lived together in great amity and in the same communion insomuch that the Pope to doe honour to St. Polycarp Ibid. prayed him to officiate publickly in his Church That good intelligence continued always betwixt the Popes and Asiatick Bishops Ann. 193. Euseb l. 5. c. 22. untill Victor I. who having held several Councils at Rome about that subject amongst the Gauls and elsewhere where the practice of the Roman Church was observed Euseb c. 24. would needs compell the Asiaticks to conform to it by celebrating Easter on Sunday And because these who thought not themselves obliged to obey him contrary to the tradition which their Churches had from St. John Omnes fratres eam incolentes regionem prorsus à communione secludendos edicit Ibid. would by no means comply He threatened them with Excommunication and published against them that which now adays is called a Monitory Polycrates who was at that time Bishop of Ephesus held also a Council with his brethren about the same subject and answering in name of all by a Synodal Letter to Pope Victor and his Bishops he says That what the Asiaticks did had been religiously observed by the Apostles St. Philip and St. John Hieron de Script in Polychr by another St. John a Bishop and Martyr whose body rested at Ephesus by St. Polycarp Bishop of Smirna by the Martyr St. Thraseas and by many other holy Bishops who had always celebrated that Holy day the fourteenth of the Moon according to that Tradition that for himself who was sixty five years of age having consulted many able Men of all Nations and carefully read all Writings for informing himself in that controverted Peragratâ omni scripturâ non formidabo eos qui nobis minantur c. point he did not fear those that threatned him because it hath been said by his Predecessours that it is better to obey God than Man And seeing Victor still persisted in his threats and that he would by all means Excommunicate the Asiaticks if they obeyed not Verum ista caeteris omnibus parum place-bant Episcopis ....... quorum verba utpote Victorem acrius acerbius coarguentium scriptis prodita adhuc extant Euseb l. 5. c. 24. Ibid. several Bishops of other Countries who blamed his proceeding wrote sharply to him to divert him from his enterprise Amongst others St. Irenaeus the great Archbishop of Lyons sent him a long Letter in name of all the Gallican Church whom he had assembled for that effect wherein he represents to him with as much force at least but with far greater moderation than the rest that he ought not for a difference of that nature cut off from the Universal Church so many particular Churches so many Bishops and so many Believers who acted according to an ancient Tradition upon which they founded themselves He adds that he would doe far better to follow the example of so many holy Popes his Predecessours Anicetus Pius Hyginus Telesphorus and Sixtus who though they as well as he had observed a quite different custome from that of the Bishops of Asia yet never treated them as Hereticks for that nor forbore to communicate with them in a perfect union Multos Asiae orientis Episcopos ..... damnandos crediderat Hieron de script Eccles c. 24. But notwithstanding all these Remonstrances Victor was still of the mind that they ought to be Condemned Nay there are some who affirm that he did actually condemn and thunder an Anathema against them However it be it is certain that they would not submit to his Ordinances that the custome of their Churches concerning the Feast of Easter was allowed them and that they who observed it
followed in this Treatise what the Doctrin of Antiquity is as to that and that the Ancients have always believed that neither the Pope nay nor the Church have received any Power from Jesus Christ but only over things meerly Spiritual and wholly distinct from Temporals that therefore Kings and Sovereign Princes according to the appointment of God are not Subject as to Temporals either directly or indirectly to any Ecclesiastical Power as depending upon God alone who hath established them And that they cannot be Deposed upon any Pretext whatsoever by the Authority of the Church nor their Subjects absolved from the Oath of Allegiance and Obedience that they owe them This I shall briefly and solidly prove by matters of fact which cannot be denied CHAP. XXVII What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have Taught us as to that THERE is nothing in the Church of God more Ancient than Jesus Christ and his Apostles Now they are the first that have Taught us that the Church and the Popes have nothing at all to do with Temporal affairs I shall make no long Discourses here for proving of that truth which is so conspicuous at first glance that we need no more but Eyes to read the words that express it without any necessity of a Commentary to explain them Don't we read in the Gospel that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ John 17. and by consequent of his Church and his Vicar upon Earth is not of this World Matth. 22. That we must render to Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods That afterward Jesus Christ submits himself and his Vicar also to the Emperor by commanding St. Peter to pay the Tribute that was due to him for them both That he takes not the Crown from Herod Matth. 17. who did what he could to rob him of life which hath given occasion to the Church in one of her Hymns to say Non eripit Mortalia quia Regna dat Coelestia He deprives not Kings of their Temporal Kingdoms since he came into the World to give us the Kingdom of Heaven John 6. Is it not clear that he fled into the Desart when they talked of making him a King Luke 12. Who would not so much as judg of a difference betwixt two Brothers concerning their Succession And that he positively told his Apostles oftner than once that he would by no means have them like the Kings of the Gentiles who bear rule over their Subjects Matth. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. and far less have any Dominion or Jurisdicton over Kings May not we see in the Epistles of the Apostles an express command given to all sorts of Men without exception Every Soul Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. to be Subject to Sovereign Powers That the Powers that are are ordained of God That whosoever resists them resists the Ordinance of God and draweth upon himself Eternal damnation 1 Pet. 2. That all without exception must be subject to their King for so is the will of God and that we must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Rom. 13. This shews the falsity of the distinction of Buchanan and of his impious followers Buch. I. De Jure Regni apud Scotos who to answer those that objected to them the express command of God made to us in Scripture of obeying our Princes whoever they be and the example of Primitive Christians who according to the Law of God were always Loyal to the Emperors tho Pagans Persecutors and Enemies of their Religion have had the boldness to say that that was only fit in the first Plantation of the Church when Christians were too weak to take up Arms against Princes and to shake off their yoke They are to know that it was for fear of offending God and of bringing upon themselves Eternal damnation that they were Subject and Loyal to the Emperors and not for fear of their wrath and of the punishments which with so much courage they slighted when it was put to them to go to Martyrdom or to deny the Faith Buchanan ought at least to have read the fourscore and seventh Chapter of the Apology of Tertullian that he might have learnt this truth from that great Man that it was only to obey the command of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles that the Christians of his time were Loyal to their Princes and not at all because of their weakness and inability of acting and of rising in Arms against them to deliver themselves from their cruel and tyrannical Government If we would saies he Si hostes exertos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum copiarum vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas castella castra ipsa c. sola vobis relinquimus Templa cui Bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis qui tam libenter trucidamur si non apud istam disciplinam mâ—gis occidi liceret quam occidere revolt by openly declaring our selves your Enemies could we want Forces and a great number of good Troops we who fill your Towns your Isles your Forts your Camps your Armies in a word all but your Temples And though we were not equal in number yet what is it we might not undertake and with what courage and zeal could not we fight you we who suffer our selves to be inhumanly put to death with so much Joy if we had not learnt in the School of Christ that we had better suffer our selves to be Massacred than to kill Men in Rebellion and in waging War against our Princes who persecute us It was not then propter iram but propter conscientiam to satisfie their Conscience and obey the Law of God that these Primitive Christians inviolably kept their Allegiance which they owed to their Emperors though they were infidels and wicked This is it which we have plainly declared to us in the Gospel and in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul Whereupon the true Divines who in their Discourses are not conducted by the bare light of Human Philosophy which many times degenerates into Sophistry but by the Principles of Scripture that cannot deceive have in all times made this truly Theological Argument to which no Philosophical subtlety can be objected It is most evident by these clear and express passages of Scripture that Kings are ordained of God and that the Allegiance and Obedience that Subjects owe to them is of Divine Right Now neither Popes nor the Church can destroy and overthrow what God hath fixed nor dispence with that which is of Divine Right as manifestly appears in what concerns the essential parts of the Sacraments as for instance of Marriage of which it is said Quod Deus conjunxit homo non separet Therefore neither Popes nor Councils can ever depose Kings nor acquit their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance And this is the more convincing
that the contrary opinion has not so much as the least appearance of any rational ground in Scripture For of all the passages that are cited for maintaining it there is not so much as one that is interpreted by the Church in Councils nor by any of the Holy Fathers in that most erroneous sense that they put upon them Wherein these Modern Authors who in that manner do interpret them act directly contrary to the Decree of the Council of Trent fourth Session and against the Confession of Faith enjoyned by Pius IV. which will have Scripture never to be interpreted but according to the sense that Holy Church gives it and according to the common Interpretation of the Fathers These new Doctors in that most dangerously follow the conduct of Hereticks who for maintaining their Errors interpret as they please and not as the Church pleases the Scriptures that they may wrest them to their sense Bellar. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Suarez l. 3. de Prim. Sum. Pont. c. 3. l. 6. de form Jur. fidel c. 4. Becan Anglico contr c. 3. qu. 3. This appears manifestly in those two passages upon which Bellarmin Suarez and after them Becanus and all the others who as these have copied or abridged them chiefly ground their opinion John Last The first passage is that where Jesus Christ saies to St. Peter Feed my Sheep Feed my Lambs Is there so much as one of the Holy Fathers who hath understood these words of the Power which St. Peter hath received over the Temporal of Princes There is none of them who hath not expounded them as they ought to be of the Spiritual Pasture which Popes are bound to give to Believers by Doctrin Example and good Government and never one of these Doctors and Masters in the Church ever let it enter into his Head to wrest them to a Temporal meaning as these new Divines have done And more Ambres l. de dig Sacer c. 2. Chrys hom 79. in Matth. c. 24. August de Agen. Christian c. 30. Tractat. 47. in Joan. in Ps 108. alii most part of these Holy Fathers having said what is most true that Jesus Christ applies these words in the person of St. Peter to the whole Church in general and to all its Pastors in particular if the new sense that these new Doctors give to them were to be followed it must be said that all Bishops and all Curates had right to dispose of the Temporals of those who by their bad Doctrin or scandalous deportment do injury to the Spiritual good of their Churches And as to that comparison which they make betwixt the Shepherd in respect of the Wolf which he may dispatch omni modo quo potest and the Pastor of the Church in regard of a Prince who may have fallen into Heresie it is not only a base Sophism contrary to the rules of right Logick but also impious and detestable which leads Men in a full career to Parricide and for which the Books that contain it have been justly condemned to the fire The second passage is taken out of St. Matthew Chapter sixteenth where the Son of God saies to St. Peter That whatever he shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever he shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Whence these new Rabbies conclude that the Successors of St. Peter have Power to dissolve the obligation that binds Subjects to their Prince by the Oath they have made to him and by the tie of Allegiance which binds them in fidelity to him Is it not strange that Catholicks should take this liberty of wresting the sense of Scripture to what they list without any respect to the common interpretation of the Fathers to which the Council of Trent obliges them For of all the Holy Fathers who have expounded that passage there is not so much as one to be found who hath so understood it all of them have interpreted it of the Power that that Apostle received of loosing and absolving Penitents from their sins Nor do the Popes themselves expound it otherways Paul 1 Ep. â—0 ad procem Fran. Adâ—i Ep. 1. ad Carol Magn. as it may be seen in the Epistle of Pope Paul I. to the French Lords and in that of Adrian I. to Charlemagne To absolve Men from their sins is it to absolve them from their Allegiance And that whatever which signifies only any sort of sin and censure and some obligations that are not of Divine Right can that Power I say be extended to ths Temporal and to the duty that Subjects owe to Kings To persuade us of the contrary we need only read the words that go before these I shall give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven saies Jesus Christ and not of the Kingdoms of the Earth for deposing of Kings And those that follow comprehend the use of the Power of the Keys that he giveth him for opening the Kingdom of Heaven by forgiving Men their sins or for shutting it by not absolving them John 20. as he in another place expresses himself speaking to all the Apostles after his Resurrection But that we may not swerve from the words in question we need no more but read the Eighteenth Chapter of the same Gospel of St. Matthew There it is to be seen that Jesus Christ repeats them to all his Disciples and gives them the whole Power that they import by saying to them Verily I say unto you that whatever ye shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever ye shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven If these words comprehend the sense that the new Authors give them and that their meaning is also of the Temporal it must needs be said that all the Bishops who are the Successors of the Apostles nay and all Priests who have the Power of binding and loosing may depose Kings and dispence their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance which is the highest extravagance Or else let these Gentlemen tell us by what Authority of the Church or Holy Fathers they find that when they were said to St. Peter they have a different meaning from that which they ought to have when they were spoken to St. Peter and to all the Apostles Now that is a thing they 'll never be able to find out Miss Rom. An. 1520. Paris apud Francis Renaud Miss Rom. à Paulo III. nefar Ann. 1543. Diurn Monast Congrez Cassin à Greg. XIII confir Venet. ap Juris And this is so true that the Church of Rome her self sticking to the sense wherein all the Holy Fathers have expounded these words which Jesus Christ said to St. Peter will not understand them but of the Power which he hath given him of binding and loosing Souls For in all the ancient Missals Breviaries and Diurnals in this manner was read that Prayer which is said in the Feastival of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch Deus qui
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
Council over the Pope What in signifies in M. Schelstrates Manuscript That the Pope Elected cannot be bound The Judgment of the Vniversity of Paris and of the Gallican Church concerning the superiority of a Council over the Pope p. 317 CHAP. XXVI The state of the Question touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal THE distinction of the direct and indirect Power p. 341 CHAP. XXVII What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have taught us as to that A False distinction of Buchanans refuted It was upon an obligation of Conscience and not through weakness that Christians obeyed infidel Emperors and Persecutors The Allegiance that Subjects owe to their Sovereigns is of Divine Right with which Popes cannot dispence All the passages cited for the contrary opinion are understood contrary to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church which is forbidden by the Council of Trent p. 345 CHAP. XXVIII What hath been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers of the Church as to that Point THE distribution that God hath made of the Spiritual for the Church and her Pastors and of the Temporal for Kings An Exhortation of the passage Here are two Swords Dominion forbidden to the Popes and how p. 359 CHAP. XXIX The Judgment of Ancient Popes touching the Power over Temporals that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope THE Testimony of Gelasius Of Gregory II. That Pope offered not to depose Leo Isauricus nor to make Rome revolt against him Testimonies of Pelagius I. Stephen II. St. Gregory the Great and of Martin I. supposititious Bulls of St. Gregory Pope Gregory VII is the first that offered to depose Emperors Pope Zachary deposed not Childerick and Leo III. transferred not the Empire to Charlemagne p. 370 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 HOW the Bishops of France opposed the attempts of Gregory IV. against Louis the Debonnaire They have always done the like upon all occasions What the Chamber of the Clergy declared concerning the absolute independence of our Kings in the Estates Assembled in 1914. Their Declaration in the year 1682. in relation to the same Subject The sentences of Parliament and the Edicts of Kings upon the same occasion Conclusion of this Treatise p. 387 AN Historical Treatise Concerning the FOUNDATION AND PREROGATIVES OF THE CHURCH of ROME And of her BISHOPS CHAP. I. The Design and Draught of this Work and the Principle on which it moves TO maintain a State in peace and tranquillity which makes Subjects happy according to the scope that true Policie proposes to it self The first thing that is to be done is to beat off the enemy that hath taken up Arms for the ruine of it and then to take care that the quarrels and troublesome contests which sometimes arise amongst the chief members of the State proceed not so far as to occasion a Civil War All Christians agree that the true Church of Jesus Christ is that Spiritual Kingdom which he came to establish in this world and which nevertheless as he himself hath said is not of this world because the whole end of it is to procure us eternal happiness a thing no ways to be attained to upon Earth Hereticks and Schismaticks have often risen against the Lord and his Christ that they might overturn that beautifull kingdom and establish their particular Churches upon its ruines every one pretending that his is the Church of the Lord though indeed they be no more all of them but the Synagogue of Satan and the Kingdom of him who in the Gospel is called the Prince of this world Besides it falls out many times that amongst Catholicks who alone are members of the true Church disputes and controversies arise which may trouble the tranquillity and peace that Jesus Christ hath left unto them for securing their happiness in his Kingdom It is necessary then for the service of the Church and for maintaining it always in the flourishing state wherein Jesus Christ hath established it to fight and beat off the enemies that attack it and to compose and calme the quarrels that arise amongst the children of the Church about points that are disputed with heat on all hands and which might in the end disturb the repose and peace of the Kingdom of the Son of God As I have wholly devoted my self to the service of the Church so have I endeavoured as much as lay in my power to acquit my self of the former of those two duties in my Treatises of Controversie and especially in that of The true Church I think I have been pretty successfull in that engagement and repelled all the efforts of our Protestants in making it appear by evident and unanswerable Arguments That there is no true Church but ours which is enough without more dispute to put an end to all our Controversies since they acknowledge with us that the true Doctrine is always that of the true Church of Jesus Christ I discharge my self also as well as I can of that obligation in one part of that Treatise where I maintain against Hereticks the declared enemies of the Holy See the primacy rights power and authority of the visible head of the Church At present then that I may fulfill my duty in its full extent I must labour to prevent the springing up of any dangerous division amongst Catholicks by reason of some private opinions that divide them as to that important subject of the Church into which they are all equally incorporated Now that I may solidly carry on so laudable and necessary an undertaking It is at first to be presupposed that according to Catholick doctrine the Universal Church which ought allways to be visible and to continue without Interruption untill the consummation of all things is the Society of Christians dispersed all over the World united together by the profession of the True Faith the participation of the True Sacraments by the bond of the same Law and under one and the same Head Because the Church Joh. 10. v. 16. Ephes 1. v. 22. August Ep. 50. whose first and principal property is to be perfectly one is the mystical body of Jesus Christ and that the members of a living body may receive the influences of life they must be united to the Head Hence it is that according to Saint Austin Epist 48. p. 151. l. de un Eccl. c. 4. though one may have all the rest yet if he be separated from the Head and by consequent from the body which is united to him he is out of the Church Catholick by Schism as Hereticks are cut off from it because of the want of True Faith And as all the members of the body have not the same functions but the parts that constitute it being subordinate one to another in a lovely order there are some which are for giving motion to the
of the Pagans in Antiquity that Porphyrius one of their greatest Philosophers upbraided the Christians as St. Jerome informs us that their St. Paul was so rash as to have dared to reprove the Prince of the Apostles and his Master Hieron Ep. 89. Since then all venerable Antiquity hath believed the Primacy of St. Peter which our Protestants contest by the novelty of their Doctrine we have reason once more to say to them Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem After all it is so evident that Jesus Christ who will have his Church to continue to the end of the World hath given St. Peter the Primacy and Supreme dignity of visible Head of the Church for himself and Successours in that Principal Chair which that great Apostle fixed at Rome that it would be superfluous to attempt to prove it For if it had been so confined to his Person that it descended not to his Successours it would follow that after the death of St. Peter the Church was fallen that it had no longer that Principle of unity which makes it one that it was no more but a body without a head and a ruinous building without a foundation Besides Is it not well known that it is an order naturally fixed in lawfull Successions that Kings and other Princes and their Officers in the Civil State Bishops Metropolitans Primates and Patriarchs nay and Ministers amongst our Protestants succeed to the rights and powers of their Predecessours But though we had no such convincing reasons Concil Sardic Ep. ad Jul. in frag Hil. Con. Constant ad Dam. Conc. Ephes Conc. Calcedon ad Leon. Conc. 6. Act 18. Ep. ad Agath Iren. l. 3. cont Valent Cyprian ad Corn. Ep. 55. l. de unitat Optat. contra Parm. l. 2. Vincent Lirin lib. contra Haer. c. 3. Hier. ad Dam. August de duab Ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 1. Ep. 92.162 Chrysost Ep. 1. ad Innoc. Prosper de voc gent. l. 8. c. 6. St. Leo. St. Gregor Theodoret. Socrates Sozom. alii passim yet it would be enough to say that all the same evidences of Antiquity that have given testimony to the Primacy of St. Peter and to his supreme power in the Universal Church have also by common consent attributed it upon the same words of Jesus Christ to the Bishops of Rome who are the Successours of the Prince of Apostles There is nothing more ordinary in the Councils and Fathers where the same things that are said of the Primacy of St. Peter and of the Prerogatives of his Chair at Rome are in formal terms most frequently found repeated to express the Primacy of the Popes their super-intendance in the Universal Church and the superiority of their Chair and of the Church of Rome to which they declare that all the rest ought to be united as Lines to their Centre and as to the source of Sacerdotal Unity And that 's the reason why we call the Universal Church the Roman-Catholick and Apostolick Church because all particular Churches of which that great body is constituted must be united in communion with the Pope of Rome their Head that so they may be Members of the true Church of Jesus Christ which is no ways one but by that union which maketh its perfect unity I have me thinks made it hitherto clear enough according to all Antiquity opposite to the novelty of our Protestants what is the belief of Catholicks concerning St. Peter and of his Successours in his Bishoprick of Rome We must now in order examine sticking close to Antiquity against all Novelty what Prerogatives and Rights that Primacy gives to Popes what it is that all Catholicks agree in and wherein it is that they differ about that point and prove by uncontroverted matters of Fact without disputation what Antiquity which ought to direct our belief in spight of all the attempts of Novelty hath believed concerning points of that importance CHAP. V. Concerning the rights and advantages that the Primacy gives to the Bishop of Rome over all other Bishops I Think that point cannot better be decided than by the Decree of the Council of Florence in the year 1439. when that famous re-union was made betwixt the Latin and Greek Churches after many celebrated conferences and great contests that happened there during the space of fifteen months betwixt the learnedst men of both Churches about that Subject and other controverted points This is the definition of the Council Item we define that the Holy Apostolick See and the Pope of Rome have the Primacy over all the world that the Pope of Rome is the Successour of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ and Head of all the Church the Father and Teacher of all Christians and that our Lord Jesus Christ hath given him in the person of St. Peter full power of feeding ruling and governing the universal Church in the manner specified in the Acts of Councils and holy Canons For it is precisely so in the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the Latin Juxta eum modum qui in Actis Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur As it is to be read in Blondus Secretary to Pope Eugenius Decad. 3. l. 10. who presided in that Council In Ekius his Treatise of the Primacy of the Pope Lib. 1. in the Bishop of Rochester's five and twentieth Article against Luther Cap. Vlt. and in Albertus Pighius his fourth Book of the Hierarchy That is to say in English To govern the Church in the manner which is found expressed in the Acts of the Councils and in the Holy Canons not as Abraham of Candie hath very ill rendered it quemadmodum etiam which gives it a quite contrary sense to the intention and words of the Council as will manifestly appear in another place of this Treatise At present it is enough that we know according to that Council that the Primacy of the Pope entitles him to the inspection of all that concerns the government and welfare of the Church in general which is more than any Bishop of what dignity soever he may be can challenge For the power that other Bishops have by Divine Right to govern the Church reaches not beyond their Dioceses but that of the Pope as Head of the Church Universal extends every where when the good of all Believers in general is concerned of whom he is to take the care And that supreme dignity gives him a great many rights which none but he alone can enjoy To him application is made to have resolutions in difficulties that may arise in matters concerning Faith Hieron ad Ageruch Ep. 2. Innoc. 1. apud Aug. Epist 93. August Epist 106. Jul. apud Athan. Apol. 1. manners or general Customs Of this we have evident proofs in the Holy Fathers and an illustrious instance of it hath been seen in our days in that famous letter which the Bishops of France wrote to Pope
and of those three Councils These are the proper terms of the Decree of the Pope which we have in the Epistles of St. Cyprian for the Letters of St. Stephen have not come to our hands Si quis à quâcunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est ut manus ei imponantur ad poenitentiam Ap. Cyprian Epist 79 ad Pompeian If any one return to us from what Heresie soever it be let nothing be innovated and let nothing be done but what Tradition authorises that is to say that hands be onely laid upon him to reconcile him by repentance There is nothing more opposite than those two Decrees Qui ex quâcunque haeresi ad Ecclesiam convertantur unico legitimo Baptismate Baptizentur Cypr. Epist ad Jubaian if you take them literally That of Saint Cyprian will have all Hereticks to be Re-baptized from what Heresie soever they return and all that are out of the Church and that it is not enough to lay hands upon them but the Pope by his Eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere Stephanus Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat hoc facientibus graviter succensebat August l. de unic Baptis c. 14. declares that it is sufficient and forbids any Heretick to be Re-baptised This St. Austine confirms when he expresly assures us that Stephen would have no Heretick to be Re-baptized and that he was extreamly offended against all those that did it The truth is Eusebius in his History remarks that the true state of that great Question that was then in agitation was to know Whether those who returned from any Heresie whatsoever ought to be Re-baptized Indeed if one would stick without admitting any explication to the natural sense of these words of Eusebius A quocunque Haeresis genere Erat id tempor is non exigua quaestio controversia excitata utrum oporteret eos qui se à quocunque haeresis genere revocassent lavacro Baptismatis repurgare Euseb l. 7. c. 2. and of those of the Decree of Saint Stephen Si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur nisi ut manus ei imponatur in poenitentiam It will seem at first sight that as St. Cyprian was for having all generally who had been Baptized by Hereticks to be Re-baptized so that Holy Pope on the contrary forbad the Re-baptizing of any who had been Baptized by Hereticks And that is also the errour that some have attributed unto him upon these words Si quis à quacunque Haeresi which they have taken according to the strictness of the Letter But it is to be confessed ingenuously that as Tradition hath always rejected the Monstrous Baptisms of some Hereticks which may be seen in Epiphanius who Baptized in a quite different manner from what Jesus Christ prescribes when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize in the Name of the Father of the Son and of the Holy Ghost So that Holy Pope who with St. Cyprian rejected all these false Baptisms would onely that the Baptism administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost by any Hereticks whatsoever should not be reiterated And certainly without necessity of alledging any other proof that in my opinion appears evidently by that testimony of St. Augustine which I have just now cited Stephanus Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat Pope Stephen thought that the Baptism of Jesus Christ was to be reiterated in no Heretick The Question was onely then about the Baptism of Jesus Christ which ordains Baptism to be administred in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost The Romans would have that to stand good by what Heretick soever it had been conferred and the Africans maintained that it was null if it was conferred by Hereticks out of the Church or by Schismaticks And this is the precise state of that great Controversie betwixt the Pope Saint Stephen and St. Cyprian though the Decree of that Pope be not altogether so clearly worded as that of St. Cyprian Aug. l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donat. Now this Decree which the Pope grounded wholly upon the ancient custome of the Church Cypr. Ep. 74. al. and the Tradition of the Apostles having been brought into Africa St. Cyprian and all those of his party which was very considerable opposed it with all their might For besides the African Bishops assembled in three Councils after that of Agrippinus Firmil Epist ap Cypr. Epist 75. Dionys Alexand. apud Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. 6. Firmilian Bishop of Cesanea in Cappadocia and most of the Bishops of Asia adhered unto him and had as well as those of Africa decided against the Baptism of Hereticks in the Councils of Iconium and Synnada and of many other Cities of Asia where the Bishops of Cappadocia Cilicia Galatia Phrygia and other Provinces assembled for examining that Question which had been the cause of so great a difference Denis Patriarch of Alexandria a Man of extraordinary merit singular learning and great authority Ibid. made it also evident enough by his Writings that they should not offer to condemn that Doctrine which his Bishops of Africa and of Asia maintained to be exactly conform to holy Scripture affirming that as there is but one Faith Cypr. Epist 70 71 72 73 74 75 76. one Church and one Baptism this cannot be administred out of the Church And as Hereticks can neither absolve from sins nor give the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of hands so neither can they Baptise And as to the custome that was objected to them they absolutely denied it to have been the practice of the Primitive Church nor a Tradition derived from the Apostles but on the contrary said that theirs was Apostolical and that their practice being the more ancient had been observed time out of mind in the Church Notwithstanding all these reasons the Pope continued stedfast in the resolution he had taken of causing his Decree to be observed in so far Dionys Alexand. apud Euseb l. 3. c. 4. Firmil ap Cypr. Epist 75. that he cut off from his communion all the Bishops of Asia who would not submit to it And this he did although Denis of Alexandria had written earnestly to him to dissuade him from it representing to him that he might appease him that Pope Cornelius and the Anti-pope Novatian having written to these Bishops to engage them severally unto their party they had in fine all of them condemned Novatian and his Heresie which consisted in this that he maintained that the Church had not power to reconcile those who in time of persecution had fallen off to Idolatry Cardinal Baronius concludes from these words of the Holy Patriarch that the Asiaticks had quitted their opinion concerning the nullity of the Baptism of Hereticks But without doubt that is an evident Anachronism and manifest
Optatus St. Cyril of Jerusalem Saint Basil St. Austine and most Catholick Bishops of Aegypt Asia and Africa not to mention those who in the interval of almost Threescore years that was betwixt Pope Stephen and the Council had liberty to follow the party of St. Cyprian believed not in the Third Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church that the Pope was Infallible What can be answered to that Let us now consult the Council in Question or rather the Councils which have pronounced Sovereignly concerning that point of the Baptism of Hereticks You have three of them First the full Council which is the first Council of Arles to which the Pope St. Sylvester sent four Legats in the year 314. makes this Decree in the Eighth Canon upon occasion of the Africans De Afris quod propriâ lege utantur ut Re-baptisent placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de Haeresi venerit interrogent eum symbolum si perviderint eum in patre filio Spiritu Sancto Baptizatum manus ei tantum imponatur sic accipiat Spiritum Sanctum Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc Trinitatem Rebaptisetur who Rebaptized all Hereticks If any Heretick return to the Church let him be asked the Question and if it appear that he hath been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that hands be onely laid upon him to the end he may receive the Holy Ghost but if he answer not according to the Mystery of the Trinity let him be Re-baptized Moreover the great Council of Nice Twelve years after ordains in the Canon 19. that the Paulanists who return to the Church should be Re-baptized De Paulanistis ad Ecclesiam Catholicam confugientibus definitio prolata est ut iterum Baptisentur omnimodis Aug. de haer ad quod vult Haeres 44. because as St. Austine says these Hereticks the Disciples of Paulus Samosatanus who believed not the Trinity nor the Incarnation of the Word Can. 1. observed not the form of Baptism in Baptizing in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity But as to the Novatians who Baptized in the Name of the Trinity as Catholicks did the Council declares that it is sufficient to lay hands upon them In fine Can. 7. the first Council of Constantinople which is the second General ordains also the Montanists Sabellians and such other Hereticks who Baptized not in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity against which they blasphemed should be Re-baptized but not the Novatians the Quartodecimans nor yet the Arians and Macedonians because although these had not the true belief which ought to be had of that great Mystery yet they Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which St. Austine who hath Written after that Council of Constantinople assures to be sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament though the Faith of him who Baptizes be not pure So that saith he Manifestum est fieri posse ut fide non integraÌ„ integrum in quoquam maneat Baptismi Sacramentum ....... Quamoâ—rem nisi Evangelicis verbis in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Marcion Baptismum consecrabat integrum erat Sacramentum quamvis ejus fides sub iisdem verbis aliud opinantis quam Catholica veritas docet non esset integra Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. cont Donatist c. 14 15. if Marcion Baptized using the words of the Gospel in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost his Baptism was good though that Heretick under these words believed a thing quite different from what the Catholick Church teaches That being so there is no more to be done but to compare these Decrees of Councils with those of the Pope St. Stephen and of Saint Cyprian Si quis à quacunque Haeres c. manus ei tantum imponatur This Pope Decrees that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever he shall have onely hands laid upon him without being Re-baptized Si quis à quacunque Haeresi Qui ex quacunque Haeresi c. Baptisentur c. St. Cyprian says on the contrary that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever he ought to be Re-baptized These are two extreams directly opposite one to another The Three Councils take the middle course explaining the one and condemning the other They are not for Re-baptizing the Novatians and other Hereticks who Baptize in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity and they hold their Baptism to be lawfull and good according to the true Apostolical Tradition but they are also absolutely for Re-baptizing the Paulanists and all such who Baptize not in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thereby clearly defining that their Baptism is null And therein they explain and rectifie the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen adding but in formal terms an exception which is onely understood therein They plainly then declare on the one hand how the Decree of St. Stephen is to be understood and on the other that St. Cyprian Nondum veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium concilium who expressed himself clearly enough in his was deceived but very innocently because as St. Austine says L. 1. de Baptis Contra Donatis c. 7 8 9 17. the truth was not then discovered and declared by the Council Now seeing before that Declaration one might according to that holy Father freely follow the opinion of St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Decree of the Pope and that after that of the Council one had not the same liberty it is altogether evident that it must once more be concluded that it is because the ancient Church believed that a Council is Infallible and that the Pope is not CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius THESE two holy Popes Victor and Stephen whom so many Catholick Bishops of the Ancient Church have not believed to be Infallible had notwithstanding the truth on their side and in their favours the Councils decided But there are others who according to the unquestionable testimonies of the Ancients have fallen into errour whence it may be irrefragably concluded upon better reason that Antiquity reckoned them not Infallible I shall onely alledge seven or eight of the most evident instances which will be sufficient to prove that the Ancients acknowledged no other Infallibility amongst Men but what God hath given to his Church The first is Liberius who to get himself recalled from the Exile to which the Arian Emperour had Banished him and to remount the Pontifical Throne which Felix had usurped Ann. 357. solemnly approved Arianism This he did by condemning jointly with the Arians St. Athanasius the great defender of the Faith and scourge of Arianism besides by suppressing the Term Consubstantial which distinguished a Catholick from an Arian and which was in a manner the
Having found the Epistle of Sergius to Honorius and that of Honorius to Sergius wholly contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles the Definitions of Councils and the Judgment of the Holy Fathers and that they were conform to the false doctrine of Hereticks we absolutely reject and abhor them as pernicious to Souls We have moreover Judged that the names of Theodore Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus c. ought to be blotted out of the Church and that with them Honorius heretofore Pope of ancient Rome ought to be Excommunicated because we have found by his Letters to Sergius that in all things he hath followed the mind of that Heretick and that he hath confirmed his impious Doctrines The holy Council repeats that Condemnation in the definition of Faith that was made in the Eighteenth Session and again Anathematises him as also the Heretical Patriarchs Sergius Pyrrhus Paul and Peter of Constantinople Cyrus of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch Ad haec Honorius Antiquae Romae Papa hujusmodi haereseos confirmator Sext. Syn. p. 1084. Edit Paris in the thanks that were given the Emperour at the end of the Council And that Emperour in his Edict whereby he Banishes the Heresie of the Monothelites out of his Empire declares the same against the Heretical Bishops and against Honorius whom he calls the confirmer of that Heresie The Council being ended the Legats brought an Authentick Copy of it to the Pope St. Leo II. who succeeded Agatho that died during that Council And this Pope Leo who understood Greek very well took the pains himself to Translate it into Latin such as we have it Afterwards Writing to the Emperour to whom he sent his Approbation of all the Acts of the Council he Anathematises Honorius Necnon Honorium qui hanc sedem Apostolicam non Apostolicae Traditionis Doctrinâ lustravit sed immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est T. 6. Concil Edit Paris p. 1027. who enlightned not says he the Apostolick Church by the Doctrine of Apostolical Tradition but who on the contrary endeavoured to destroy the Faith And in the Letters which he Wrote to the Bishops of Spain and to the King Ervigius to whom he sent the Definition of the Council to be signed he expresses himself as to that point in words at least as significant and weighty Qui immaculatam Apostolicae traditionis regulam quam à praedecessoribus suis accepit maculari consensit Ibid. p. 1252. saying That that Pope hath been smitten with an Anathema with Theodore Cyrus and Sergius for having consented that the Immaculate Rule of Apostolical Tradition which he had received from his Predecessours should be corrupted What this Pope who had Read Examined Translated and Approved that Council said of Honorius other Popes his Successours have also said in the following Ages For in the ancient Diurnal-book which is a kind of Ceremonial of the Church of Rome the Confession of Faith which all the new Elected Popes did make is to be seen and wherein they declare That they receive the Sixth General Council where Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus c. Vnà cum Honorio qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit inventers of the Heresie of the Monothelites are say they condemned with Honorius who favoured and countenanced their wicked Doctrines Adrian II. in his Epistle that was read and received with applause in the seventh Action of the Eight Ecumenical Council confesses That the Orientals pronounced Sentence of Anathema against Honorius accused of the Heresie of the Monothelites And that great Eighth Council which so strongly maintained the Primacy of the Pope against Photius yet for all that with consent of the Popes three Legats who presided in that Council in the definition of Faith they Anathematised Theodore of Pharan Sergius Pyrrhus c. and with them Honorius Bishop of Rome Cyrus of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch These are matters of fact to be read in the Councils and in the Books which I cite and they are so strong and decisive against the Infallibility of the Pope that Baronius Bellarmine Pighius and the other modern Authours who will absolutely have the Pope to be Infallible have been forced to deliver themselves from the persecution of those troublesome matters of fact to alledge forgery in them and boldly to say that the Acts of the Sixth Council have been corrupted by Theodore of Constantinople who in hatred to the Popes foisted in immediately after the Council all that concerns Honorius and that the Epistles of St. Leo are false and have been forged by some Impostour an enemy of the Holy See For say they what likelihood that after the Letter of Pope Agatho had been read in the fourth Action wherein he sayth That the Apostolical Church hath never swerved from the truth they would have condemned one of his Predecessours and that Leo his Successour should doe the same But they who yield not to that reason nor to some other conjectures which they find to be weaker object reasons against them which they think can never be answer'd For say they if that wicked Patriarch had corrupted the Acts would not the Popes Legats who presided in the Council and brought a Copy of them to Rome have clearly seen the Imposture and that what was inserted concerning Pope Honorius was no Act of the Council which had not mentioned him Would they not have complained to the Emperour of that horrid Cheat Would they not have told Pope Leo that these Acts were falsified Would they have suffered without speaking one word that he should have Translated them in that manner to impose upon the whole Church And would the Emperour who was himself present at the Council put into his Edict that Honorius had been condemned there or at least would he have suffered that Edict to be falsified in his presence Now if any one to excuse the Legats and Pope Leo should think fit to say That these Acts were not corrupted till long after their death Might not his mouth be stopt with this Reply To what end then was that Imposture Was there not to be found in the Records of the Vatican the true Copy of that Council the Translation of it made by Pope Leo and besides a Thousand Copies of it elsewhere which might have been opposed to those Falsaries for discovering their Cheat Would not Pope Adrian very far from Writing to the Fathers of the Eighth Council that Honorius had been condemned in the Sixth have advertised them that their Copies were corrupted Durst the Fathers have renewed the Anathema against Honorius and Adrian's three Legats never have opposed it Yet they did no such thing and there was no complaint made at that time that the Acts of the Sixth Council were falsified because there have never been any other Copies of these Acts either in Writing or in Print except those which we have wherein Honorius is condemned with Sergius and Pyrrhus and the other heads of the Monothelites
Churches And seeing it was not doubted but that Pope John XII in the manner he set about it acted with all his Authority and Force to introduce and establish that Error in the Church so also was it believed in that Fourteenth Age that the Pope teaching the Church might err and that he is not Infallible but when he pronounces from the Chair of the Universal Church as Head of it in a general Council or with consent of the principal Members of the Church who are the Bishops CHAP. XV. The Tradition of the Church of Rome as to that IT will be no difficult Task for us to prove that that Doctrine is conform to the constant Tradition of the Church of Rome as appears by the conduct of ancient Popes who in great Controversies about Faith after that they themselves had pronounced against Error have thought that for condemning it by a sovereign and infallible Sentence there was need of a Council or at least by another way the consent of the Church Vt pleniori Juâ—acio omnis possice ror aboleri Ep. 15. ad Ephes concil to the end that Error might be abolished by a more solemn and decisive judgment said the great St. Leo writing to the second Council of Ephesus though he himself had already condemned Eutyches in his particular Council which for that end he held at Rome This hath been confirmed by the Popes of the last Age when that after Leo X. had published his Bull against the Errors of Luther Solumque Concilium generale remedium à nostris praedecessoribus in casu simili usurpatum superesse Clem. VII in Bull. indict Concil 1533. Tam necessarium opus Pius IV. in Bull. confirm they declared in their Bulls speaking of the Council of Trent which was called for the supreme Decision of that Controversie that that was the last and necessary Remedy which had always been made use of by their Predecessors on the like Occasions Wherein all the Popes perfectly well agree with the fifth Council which for proving that necessity alledges the Example of the Apostles who decided in common with St. Peter the Question touching the Observation of the Law of Moses Nec enim potest in communibus de fide disceptationibus aliter veritas manifestari and then declares that otherways Truth cannot be found in Controversies that arise about the Faith It is evident by that that the Popes and that Council did not believe that the Pope was infallible for had they believed him infallible they would also have been persuaded that it was sufficient to consult that Oracle or that after his Responses and Decisions it would not have been necessary for abolishing Error entirely to have recourse to the determination of the Church represented by a Council But if it be said that there are some Heresies which the Popes alone have condemned and which have always been reckoned lawfully condemned without the Interposition of a Council it is easily granted but at the same time it may be said that that concludes nothing at all because in the three first Ages of the Church there were Heresies such as that of Cerinthus of the Ptolemaits the Severians Bardesanites Noetians Valesians and many others that single Bishops or particular Synods have condemned and which we are obliged to account Heresies tho neither Popes nor General Councils have had any hand in their Condemnation Not that these Bishops and Synods are infallible but because all the other Bishops who abominated these Heresies as much as they condemned them as they had done by approving all that they had done So when Popes have decided against any Doctrine which is afterward to be esteemed heretical it is so because they have defined with consent of the Church which hath received their Constitutions as we have in our days seen an illustrious Instance of it That which more confirms that ancient Tradition of the Roman Church is the great number of Popes who condemning some of their Predecessors after Oecumenical Councils have thereby declared that they themselves no more than others have not received of God the gift of Infallibility which he hath only bestowed upon his Church And indeed two great Popes of the last Times were so fully persuaded of this that they would not accept of it from the hands of men that would have attributed it unto them The first is Adrian VI. who in his Commentaries upon the fourth of the Sentences Art 3. de Mines confirm says positively and in a most decisive manner Certum est quod Pontifex possit err are etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem haeresiâ—â— per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo that he is certain the Pope may err even in matters belonging to the Faith teaching and establishing a Heresie by his Definition or by his Decretal which afterwards he proves by many Instances and very far from following Pius II. and changing Opinion as he did when he came to be Pope he persisted in it so constantly that he thought fit during his Pontificat that a new Edition of his Book should be printed at Rome exactly conform to that which he published when he was Doctor and Dean of Louvain wherein that Passage is entire without the Omission or Alteration of one single Word The second is Paul IV. who before his promotion to the Papacy had been great Inquisior Relat. Joann Hay Paris Theol. Addit aux mem de Casteluam c. 2. b. 6 the most severe and zealous that ever was for the preservation of the purity of the Catholick Faith against all Heresies Num matrimonium per verba de prasenti contractum quod est verum matrimonium verum sà cramentum juxta sanclorum Theolegorum sententiam authoritate nâ—stra dissolvi possit intelligo cum carnalis nulla conjunctio intercessit This Pope in the Year One thousand five hundred and fifty seven held a great Congregation of Cardinals Bishops and Doctors at Rome for the examining that important question Whether by the power of the Keys which Jesus Christ had given him as Successor to St. Peter he could dissolve the Marriage which the Mareschal of Montmorency had contracted in formal terms de praesenti with the Lady de Piennes Having proposed the matter to them by giving them to understand that the Question was about the deciding of a Point of very great Importance concerning a Sacrament he declared to them that he would not have them alledge to him the Examples of his Predecessors Non dubito quin ego decessores mei errare aliquando potuerimus non solum in koc sed etiam in pluribus aliis rerum generibus that he would not follow them but in so far as they were conform to the Authority of Holy Scripture and solid Reasons of Divinity For I make no doubt added he but that my Predecessors and may fail not only in this but in many other things Which he even proved by Testimonies
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
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
l. 3. c. 6. told him with a great deal of holy liberty that he forbids not to dispense but to dissipate that he knows very well that the Popes are the Stewards of the house of God but for Edification and not for Destruction and that the Steward ought to be faithful when Necessity urges Dispensation is excusable and laudable when Advantage not of a private person but of the publick requires it and when neither appear in that which is defired then what is granted is no more a faithful Dispensation but a most cruel Dissipation And this as a learned Pope teacheth Hadrian V. de dispens Apostolic renders both him that obtains that Dispensation and him that grants it criminal in the sight of God unless he that granteth it hath been without his Fault imposed upon by a false Information as many times it happens The power then of dispensing exempts not Popes according to the Ancients from the Obedience which they owe to the Decrees of Councils and when they do otherwise and act in their Constitutions contrary to the Canons that is not a lawful practice but an abusing of their power and an abuse that draws many others after it Priâ—cipium maiorum inde fuisse quod nonnulli pontisices coacervaverant sibi magistros prurientes auribus ut eorum studio calliditate inveniretur ratio quâ liceret id quod liberet pontificem esse dominum beneficiorum onniâ—nâ— Ita quod voluntas pontificis qualiscunque ea faerit sit regâ—la quâ ejus operationes actiones dirigantur c. This that great Assembly of Cardinals and Prelates pick'd out of the best and ablest men of the Court of Rome which Paul III. called in the Year One thousand five hundred and thirty eight to search for means of remedying the Troubles of the Church represented to him with much Vigour and Respect when they told him that the source of so many Disorders was the Flattery of some new Doctors who strained their false Subtilties to make his Predecessors believe that they were the absolute Masters of all in the Church that they were above all Canons and that there was no other Law for them but their own Will and Pleasure So that when it happened that some Popes manifestly abusing their power transgressed the limits set them by the Canons Appeals were made to the next Oecumenical Council Ann. 1303. as was done upon account of the Bull of Boniface VIII who pretended to a Sovereign power over all the Crowns upon Earth as the University of Paris in the Year 1491 appealed to a Pope better informed and to the first general Council concerning certain exactions and gatherings of Tenths which were attempted against the Canons and Liberties of the Gallican Church and as hath been done oftner than once in Germany upon the like Occasions But seeing that Remedy is tedious and that it may be abused by Appeals very ill brought which seeing they could not be judged in an whole Age would render the pontifical Authority useless in the smallest matters which Pius II. and Julius II. have most justly condemned instead thereof we have in France an Appeal as of Abuse to theâ—â— arliament which representing the King sitting in his Chair of Justice to whom as protector of the Canons it belongs to hinder any thing from being acted contrary to them has Right to judge whether there be any matter in the Bulls Ordinances and Ecclesiastical Sentences which wound the Canons and our Liberties For in this chiefly consist the Liberties of the Kingdom and Gallican Church that no new thing can be commanded or enjoyned us contrary to the holy Decrees of the Councils received in France and against the ancient Law in the possession whereof we have always maintained our selves without submitting to any other Laws unless we our selves consent to them so that whatever derogates from these ancient Constitutions which are our inviolable Laws is by Decree rescinded And this seems to be grounded upon that excellent Sentiment of Innocent III. a great Pope great Canonist and great Lawyer who speaks like a Pope when he says Quae in derogationem sanctorum canonum attentantur tanto potius infringi volumus carere robore firmitatis quanto authoritas universalis Ecclesiae cui praesidemus ad id nos provocat inducit Innoc. III. l. 1. Ep. ad Episc Favent We will that all that is undertaken and attempted against the holy Canons be void and null and we will it so much the rather that the Authority of the holy Church wherein we preside moves and inclines us to it As if by that he would tell us that the Authority of the Church depends upon the Observation of her Canons and Laws and not on the Liberty that a Pope might take to violate them From all that I have said in this Chapter this truth of Fact results That all Antiquity hath believed that Popes being subject to the Decrees of Councils and obliged to act and govern according to the Laws that are prescribed to them by the Canons Councils by consequent are above the Popes CHAP. XXI What General Councils have decided as to that Point SEeing that Question was not moved in the Ancient Church when all were of the Opinion that I have now mentioned Councils that decide nothing but upon occasion of Differences and Disputes which arise amongst Christians about some certain point of Doctrine have given no definitive Sentence as to that particular till it was begun to be questioned and disputed about Concil Pisan t. 11. Edit Paris Act. conc ex codic Gemmetic t 6. Spirit Monach. Dionys 1.29 l. 1. sequen Niem l. 23. Platina Ciacconius And this I think happened upon occasion of the Council of Pisa which the Cardinals of both obediences that is of Gregory XII and Benet XIII with consent of almost all Kings and Sovereigns called for extinguishing that Schism which these two Competitors and pretended Popes entertained by their Collusion and Obstinacy contrary to the express Promise they had made of resigning up their Pretensions For seeing some who stood for Gregory Ann. 1409. protested against the Council which as they said had no Authority over the Popes such an unprecedented protestation in the Church being exploded the famous Doctor Peter Plaoust one of the Deputies from the University of Paris which at that time was in the Meridian of its Reputation made a long and learned Speech in full Council 29 May. wherein he proved by many Reasons that the Universal Church and by consequent a General Council which represents her is above the Pope adding that that was the Judgment of the University of Paris and of all the other Universities of France No sooner was he come down from the Pulpit but that the Bishop of Novare stept up and read aloud a Writing which declared that an hundred and three Doctors and Licentiates of Divinity deputed by the Universities to that Council being
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
M. Schelstrate then say now with his long discourse about the five Nations agreeing that the Reformation should not be made 'till after the Election of a Pope But once more What does he mean with the great mystery he makes of this that after much debate in the Assembly of these Nations concerning the manner how the Decree should be made whether by obliging the Pope with these Deputies to make the Reformation formation before his Coronation Postea fuerunt factae diversae formae decreti ad h. c Tandem dictum fuit quod Papa electus ligari non poterat or after it was at length said Papa electus ligari non poterat that when a Pope is chosen he cannot be bound Does he by that then pretend that we are obliged to believe that a Pope lawfully elected as St. Silvester was is not obliged to subscribe to the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council as that of Nice was And that when such a Council hath decided the consubstantiality of the word and forbidden Priests to marry the Pope is not bound by these Decrees as well as the rest of Christians are and that he is still at liberty to believe of the one what he thinks fit and to act in regard of the other as he pleases But does he not see that to have the true meaning of those words they are to be applied to the Subject in question to wit whether it should be put into the Decree that the Pope who was to be chosen Ante Coronationem Pape Administrationem aliquam should be obliged to make the Reformation before his Coronation nay and before he could have any part in the Government of the Church and to give good security for it as the German Nation demanded Whereupon they had reason to say that a Pope could not be obliged to a thing so unbeseeming the Pontifical Majesty nor so tied up as to deprive him of the Power he hath by Divine Right to Govern the Church by virtue of his Primacy from the very instant that he is Canonically elected Successor of St. Peter Thus ought these words to be understood in relation to what goes before and not that the Pope is not obliged to any thing The truth is in the Decree that was made after that Conciliariter in the fourtieth Session The Pope was not obliged in that manner as the Germans had proposed nevertheless he was bound in another most reasonable manner if I may say so that is to say he was obliged to reform the Church in the Head and Members with consent of the Council or with the Deputies of the Nations before the end of the Council But if M. Schelstrate will still be opinionative and pretend that the Nations understood something else by these words Quod Papa electus ligari non poterat there need no other answer to be made unto him but that we must not stick to what hath been said in the Assembly of the Nations as he doth but to what hath been defined Conciliariter in the Session as we have just now mentioned I am apt to believe now that M. Schelstrate will be fully satisfied with me seeing I have exactly answered Point for Point all that he hath said upon his Manuscripts unknown to the whole World for near three hundred years and which at present he thinks fit to object to us as most Authentick Pieces in the dissertation he hath made against the Declaration of the Gallican Church and against the perpetual Edict of the King who as Protector of the Church and of her Canons makes it to be observed in all his Territories and in fine against the Council of Constance received by all Christendom and especially by France which looks upon and reverences it as its Palladium the prop support and defender of its liberties This being so there remains no more but in a few words to conclude what I have hitherto said of the superiority of a Council over the Pope I made it out in the beginning that all Antiquity believed it without the least dispute as to that Subject as there happened about the time of the Council of Pisa Then I clearly shew'd what that Council and the two following of Constance and Basil even approved by the Popes Alexander V. Martin V. and Eugenius IV. determined on that Subject in favours of Councils As to the times that have succeeded these three Councils it is certain that all those great Men those Bishops Cardinals Popes those Universities and Learned Doctors of all Nations who as I have said have taught that Popes are not Infallible have by consequent maintained that an Ecumenical Council which cannot be doubted but to be Infallible is above the Pope But in a particular manner it is a Doctrin which the more renowned Doctors of Paris have always taught I say of that learned University the ancientest and most famous of all others of whom if I should make a List with the quotations of their Opinions it would easily fill up a whole Book It is enough for me to mention here what the great Cardinal of Lorraine fearing that some term might be slipt in the Council of Trent that might be interpreted against that Doctrine of all France caused his Secretary to represent to Pope Pius IV. in the year 1563. These are the proper terms that he put into his instructions concerning that Point I cannot deny but that I am a French Man and have been bred in the Vniversity of Paris where it is held that the Pope is subject to a Council and they who teach the contrary there are looked upon and noted as Hereticks The French will sooner lose their lives than renounce that Doctrin It would be folly to think that there is one Bishop in France that ever would consent to the opinion contrary to that truth The truth is Edit Card. Borom 9. Jan. 1563. Pallabicin Hist conc Trid. l. 19. c. 12. n. 10. c. 13. n. 2. The Legates of the Council being instructed from Rome that they should endeavour so to bring it about that in the Canon concerning the Pope the terms of the Council of Florence should be used by putting into it that the Pope hath received the Power of Governing the Universal Church Ibid. n. 7. inesse summo Pontifici potestatem regendi Ecclesiam universalem the Bishops of France opposed it and were followed by most of the Fathers of the Council Not that these words regendi Ecclesiam universalem signifie any thing else but that general Jurisdiction of the Pope which reaches all the parts of the Church in what concerns the Publick good of all Christendom that he may see to it according to the Canons as the Council of Florence expresses it so as we have made it appear But they would not have these words Ecclesiam universalem so much as abused to insinuate thereby that the Pope is above the Church universal taken altogether assembled and represented by an Ecumenical
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
As to the Epistles of Pope Leo Father Francis Cambesis a learned Jacobin Edit Paris 1648. hath so cleared the truth of them that at present no body doubts of it And besides he hath given us a very rare piece which alone might end the Controversie if there still remained any about a point so fully determined That is a little work of the Deacon Agatho Keeper of the Records and Vice-Chancellour of the Church of Constantinople For he saith there that Officiating as Secretary in the Sixth Council he Transcribed all the Acts with his own hand which were carefully kept in the Imperial Palace and that by the command of the Emperour he took five Copies of them for the five Patriarchs that so the Decisions of the Council might not be altered by Consequent it was one of these Copies which the Legats carried to the Pope who without doubt is the first of the five Patriarchs A little after he adds Id praeterea autoritate decernens ut Sergii Honoriique ac caeterorum pariter ab eâdem sanctâ oecumenicâ Synodo ejectorum nomina in sacra Ecclesiarum dyptica praeconio publico referrentur eorumque per loca imagines erigerentur that Philippicus who from his youth was bred in the Heresie of the Monothelites being advanced to the Empire caused a Picture to be removed from before the Gate of the Palace before he would enter it which represented the Sixth Council and commanded that the Images should be set up again and that the Names of Sergius Honorius and of all the rest who had been Anathematised in the Holy Ecumenical Council should be replaced in the Sacred Dypticks So many convincing evidences make it manifestly out that the Acts of that Council have not been corrupted by the Greeks And therefore most part of those that said it before abandoning so weak a defence have retrenched themselves behind another saying That the Fathers were mistaken in not having rightly understood the sense and meaning of the Epistles of Honorius who made use of a wise dispensation for uniting and calming all Winds But that is a worse and far more dangerous Answer than the former For it strikes onely at some private persons who are accused but not known upon bare conjectures of having falsified the Acts but the other attacks a whole Ecumenical Council robbing it of all the authority and force which it ought to have against Hereticks The truth is by the same liberty that is taken to say that the Council hath not rightly understood the Letters of Pope Honorius thought it hath examined them the Monothelites if there were any at present might say That it hath not rightly understood the Scriptures nor the Fathers upon the credit of whom it pretends to have rightly condemned the doctrine of Theodore of Pharan Sergius Pyrrhus Paul of Constantinople and of Macarius of Antioch and thereby are made useless all the Decrees of Councils and all the Constitutions of Popes received in the Church which have condemned as Heretical certain doctrines and certain propositions particularly pointed at and contained in the Books of some Authours as the Fathers of the Fifth Council did in regard of the Three Chapters and in our time Pope Innocent X. and Alexander VII in regard of the Book of Jansenius These are Arguments which in my opinion can never be answer'd But since the method of this Treatise is not the way of Arguments which draws always Dispute after it against those who that they may not seem to be at a stand when they are put to it by evident reason never fail of the subterfuges of perplexed distinctions which are never well understood I 'll keep within the bounds that I have set to my self and onely make use of unquestionable matters of Fact in Antiquity that History furnishes us with Upon that ground then I say for an Answer to both in the first place that whether the Acts of the Sixth Council have been corrupted or not it is certain that all Antiquity hath received it in the same manner as we have it at present with the Condemnation of Honorius Detestamurque cum eâ Sergium Honorium c. Act. ult That appears not to say any thing of Pope Leo by the Decree of the seventh Council which as the sixth did anathematises Sergius Pyrrhus and Honorius Anastas in Vit. Leon Epist. ad Joâ—â— diacon by Anastasius the Library-keeper who certainly saw the Copy that was brought from Constantinople and who in the Life of Leo II. saith that that Pope received the sixth Council where Cyrus Sergius Pyrrhus and Honorius were condemned by that Letter of Adrian II which I have alledged by the determination of the eighth Council and by the Confession of Faith which the ancient Popes made after their Election nay more than that by the constant Tradition of the Gallican Church as it may be seen in the Chronicle of Ado and in the most ancient Manuscript of his Martyrology Aetat 6. which is to be found in the Mazarine Bibliotheke This is also to be seen in the Opuscles of Hincmar Archbishop of Reims Opusc de non Trin unit where he puts the Condemnation of Honorius in the sixth Council with that of the other Monothelites And for that very reason it was that writing to Pope Nicolas he saith Opusc 33. c. 20. That it is known that all the Churches of France are subject to that of Rome and that all the Bishops are subjected to the Pope by reason of his Primacy and that therefore they ought all to obey him Apud Flodard l. 3. Hist c. 13. but salva fide adds he the Faith being secured which it is most clear he would not have added had it not been believed in France as elsewhere that Popes might err as well as Pope Honorius In fine for an authentick Confirmation of all this there is no Author to be found who before some Moderns of the last Age durst say even contrary to the Tradition of the Church of Rome that the Acts of the sixth Council have been corrupted by the Greeks This is so true that in the ancient Breviary of Rome printed at Venice in the year 1482 and 61 years after at Paris in the Year 1543 after that it is said in the first Lesson of the second Nocturn of the Office of St. Leo on the eight and twentieth of June Hic suscepit sanctam sextam Synodum in the second it is to be read In qua synodo damnati sunt Cyrus Sergius Honorius Pyrrhus Paulus c. But in the new Breviary the Name of Honorius is left out and it hath been thought sufficient to put into that second Lesson In eo Concilio Cyrus Sergius Pyrrhus condemnati sunt Whereupon it is easie to conclude from most manifest matters of Fact alone that all Antiquity Oecumenick Councils Popes all the Gallican Church nay and even the Church of Rome until the last Age have believed that
the sixth Council received by all the Church hath condemned Pope Honorius and ranked him amongst Monothelite Hereticks Whence it clearly follows That Antiquity hath believed that the Pope was not infallible The same may be said to those who maintain that the Council in condemning the Epistles of Honorius to Sergius did not rightly understand them Whether that be so or no it is certain according to your selves that it condemned them Then a whole great Council of above two hundred Bishops of the seventh Age representing the Universal Church in her Pastors lawfully assembled did not believe the Pope to be Infallible for had they been of that Belief they would have had a care whether they had well or ill understood these Letters not to have anathematised him as they did The Result of all is That Antiquity in the Seventh Eighth and Ninth Ages as well as in those that preceded hath believed that the Pope was not Infallible This is it that I was to prove leaving the Modern Doctors who hold his Infallibility to their Liberty of thinking and saying thereupon whatever they please by Logick that can never overthrow the truth of matters of Fact which I have produced and which make known to us what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Infallibility of the Pope CHAP. XIII Of the Popes Clement III. Innocent III. Boniface VIII and Sixtus V. SUch as apply themselves to the Study of Antiquity find that in the Ages following there have been other Popes that have erred in their Decisions as these that follow In the twelfth Age Ostiens C. Quarto de Divortiis Clement III. declared in his Decretal Laudabilem That the Wife of an Heretick being converted and her Husband continuing obstinate in his Heresie might be married to another which doubtless neither Catholicks nor Protestants could at present suffer to be brought into practice And therefore Pope Innocent III. who filled the Holy See shortly after Clement recalled that Constitution thereby plainly declaring that his Predecessor had erred This is affirmed by Cardinal Cortzeon who flourished in the Pontificat of Innocent III. in his Sum which I have seen in Manuscript in the Abbey Royal of St. Victor And this same Pope Innocent himself for all he was so able a man was subject to the same failing from which Popes according to the Belief of Antiquity are not exempted that is to be deceived even when they decide a point of Doctrine in their Council without the Consent of the Church The matter of Fact is related by Caesarius a Cistertian Monk Lib. 3. Historiar Memorab c. 32. and contemporary with Innocent He says that a Monk of his Order who without doubt before he entered the Monastery had given it out that he was a Priest committed daily a dreadful Sacriledge in celebrating Mass though he had never received sacred Orders Having confessed this to his Abbot who failed not to enjoyn him as he ought to abstain from saying it for the future he would not obey him for on the one hand he feared that by refraining he should disgrace himself and give occasion to his Brethren to think ill of him and on the other he thought he had no cause to apprehend that his Abbot to whom he had discovered his Crime under the inviolable Seal of Confession durst do him any prejudice because of that Discovery The Abbot being in great perplexity bethought himself to propose this Case in general Terms in a Chapter of his Order that was held some time after and asking the Question what was to be done if such a Case should ever happen in their Monasteries the whole Assembly were as much puzled as the good Abbot had been and neither the Chapter of the Cistertians nor any of the rest durst ever undertake to decide that case of Conscience which was thought to be so difficult that it was resolved upon by all to write about it to the Pope for a Resolution Innocent III. the then Pope assembled thereupon the Cardinals Doctors and Learned Men to take their Advice who after some debate agreed all in his Judgment to wit That such a Confession being rather Blasphemy than a Confession the Confessor in such a case ought to discover so horrible a Crime because it might bring great prejudice to the Church And the Year following he wrote to the Chapter what he had determined Et placuit sententia omnibus scri sitque sequenti anno Capitulo quod fuerat à se determinâ—tum à Cardinâ—libus approbatum and what was approved in that great Congregation of Cardinals It is not at all to be doubted but that that Definition is wrong So that the same Pope a little after made no Scruple to retract it in the great Council of Lateran where he himself presided Ann. 12 15. which positively declared the contrary in these Terms Caveat sacerdos ne verbo vel signo vel alio quovis modo prodat aliquatenus peccatorem Qui peccaâ—um in poenitentiali Judicio sibi detectum praesumpserit revelare non solum à sacerdotali officio deponendum decernimus verum etiam ad agendara perpetuam poenitenâ—iam in arctum Monasterium detrudendum Let the Priest have a care that he discover not either by Word Sign or in any other way whatsoever the Sin of his Penitent That if any one adds it presume to reveal the Sin that hath been discovered to him at the Tribunal of Confession we ordain not only that he be deposed from the Sacerdotal Office but also that he be confined to a Monastery there to do Penance during Life These are two quite opposite Decisions upon a Point of highest Importance Conc. Later 4. c. 21. and which concerns a Sacrament one of the Pope with his particular Council or his Council of Cardinals Priests and Deacons who represent the Church of Rome the other of the same Pope with a great Council representing the Universal Church Whence comes that difference if it be not That the Pope pronouncing and deciding upon any Point concerning Doctrine and Manners in a general Council or with the Consent of the Church is Infallible and when he acts otherwise he is not This appears still more manifestly in the Bull Vnam Sanctam of Boniface VIII whereby that Pope whose History is sufficiently known proposes to all Believers as an Article of Faith the Belief whereof is necessary to Salvation That Popes have a Supream Power over all the Kingdoms of the World as to the Temporal It was believed then in all these Kingdoms and is so still that that Definition is wrong Even they themselves who hold that the Pope hath some Power over the Temporal have a care not to say That one is obliged to believe it upon pain of Damnation and it is known that Clement V. recalled that Bull in the Council of Vienna Cap. meruit de Privilegiis That Pope then and that Council in the fourteenth Century believed not that