condemn it may be seen that the ancient Church believed and did what Catholicks believe and practise concerning the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Mass the seven Sacraments the Consistency of Grace with Free-will the Authority of Tradition the Invocation of Saints Churches dedicated and consecrated to God in memory of them the Veneration of their Relicks and Images Prayer for the dead the Fasts of Lent and of the Ember weeks the distinction of Holy days and working days that of the Habits of Lay-men and Church-men the single life of the Clergy Vows Sacred Ceremonies in the administration and use of the Sacraments and in publick Worship Divine Worship in Greek all over the East and in the Latine Tongue in the West though in most Provinces this was not understood but by the Learned in a word concerning all that distinguishes us from Protestants but especially Calvinists This the famous Cardinal Perron made out by unquestionable testimonies in his Reply to the King of Great Britain where he shews the conformity of the Ancient Catholick Church with ours in the Eighteenth Chapter of the first Book and throughout the whole Third Fourth Fifth and Sixth Books of that Learned Work And to which also David Blondel a Man incomparably more able than Calvin especially in the knowledge of Antiquity thought it not fit to make an Answer in that overgrown Volume which he wrote against the Reply and wherein he thought it convenient to begin his pretended refutation onely at the Three and twentieth Chapter of the first Book and to end it with the Four and thirtieth of the same Book But to pass by the Protestants against whom I pretend not to Dispute It is enough to me that hitherto without any disputation I have proved by Antiquity alone the Primacy of St. Peter and of the Popes his successours in the Chair of Rome and the Prerogatives and Rights which are inseparable from that Primacy wherein all Catholicks agree However it is very well known that at present they are not all of the same mind as to certain other Prerogatives which some grant and others will not allow to him and especially these four which are Infallibility Superiority over a General Council the Absolute Power of Governing the Church independantly of the Canons and the Direct or Indirect Power over Temporals And therefore I must now without deviating from my Principle drawn from Antiquity make appear without disputing and reasoning but as a bare Relater of the sentiments of the Councils and Fathers nay and of the Popes themselves what venerable Antiquity hath always believed concerning these points CHAP. VI. The Question stated concerning the Infallibility of the Pope THE Question here is not to know whether the Pope as a private Doctour and onely giving his opinion and thought of a point of Doctrine concerning Faith and Manners may be deceived for it was never doubted but that in that quality he speaks onely as another Man and that by consequent through the weakness and infirmity which is incident to all Men he is subject to Errour according to the saying of the Psalmist Omnis homo mendax Nor is it the question neither to enquire whether he be infallible when he pronounces from the Chair of the Universal Church jointly with the Members that are subject to him as to their head whether it be in a General Council where he presides in person or by his Legats or with the consent of the greatest part of Catholick Churches and Bishops For as we all allow that Jesus Christ hath given the gift of Infallibility to his Church and to a Council which represents it for determining Sovereignly by the Word of God the differences that might arise amongst Catholicks concerning these points of Doctrine so we do confess that when the Pope speaks and decides in that manner according to which he may say Visum est Spiritui Sancto nobis his words and decisions are Oracles and he can in no ways be deceived As to this there is no disagreement amongst Catholicks The question then that may be debated is to know whether when he speaks from his Chair of Rome as the Master and Teacher of all Believers and having well examined the point in hand in several Congregations his Consistory or his Synod of his Suffragans of his Cardinals and Doctours nay and having consulted Universities and by most publick and solemn Prayers begg'd the assistance of the Holy Ghost he teaches all Christians defines proposes to the whole Church by a Bull or Constitution what Christians are to believe whether I say when he pronounces in this manner he be Infallible or not and whether his Judgment given and declared in that manner may not be corrected by an Universal Council And this methinks is all that can be said in clear and formal terms as to the state of this formal question And it is the very same about which all Catholick Doctours do not agree For most part of the Doctours on t'other side of the Alpes especially the famous Cardinals Cajetan Baronius and Bellarmine and all the Authours who have followed them will have the Pope in that case when he declares solemnly to all Believers by his Constitutions what they are to believe as to any controverted point to be no ways liable to a mistake On the contrary an infinite number of the most noted Doctours of their time as Gerson Major Almanus the Faculty of Theologie of Paris so often and so publickly praised by the Popes and all France as it is even acknowledged by the Doctours Navarr Victoria and John Celaia Spaniards Denis the Carthusian Tostatus Bishop of Avila in his Commentaries upon St. Matthew and in the second part of his Defensorium Thomas Illyrius a Cordelier in his Buckler against Luther which he dedicated to Pope Adrian VI. The Cardinals of Cusa of Cambray and of Florence the Bishops of France in their Assembly representing the Gallican Church Aeneas Sylvius before he was Pope Pope Adrian VI. when he was Professour at Louvain in his Commentary upon the Fourth of the Sentences which he caused to be reprinted at Rome when he was Pope without any alterations and a thousand other most Catholick Doctours of the Universities of France Germany Poland and of the Low Countries who have all very well defended the Primacy of the Pope all these I say maintain that he is not Infallible if he do not pronounce in a General Council or with the consent of the Church The diversity of Sentiments amongst Catholicks about that Subject is then a matter of fact not to be question'd But what part are we best to take in this dispute as the most rational and best grounded that 's a question which I ought not to answer according to the design I have taken and the method that I have proposed to my self in this Treatise I shall onely then barely relate what hath been believed as to that in Antiquity and I shall do it without touching at the
contradiction which that great Cardinal had not leisure to mind For the Patriarch Denis speaks onely here of what these Bishops had done under the Pontificate of Pope Cornelius and he prays Stephen the Successour of that Pope not to use them harshly for the Judgment they are of that the Baptism of Hereticks is null Them says he who under his Predecessour condemned the Heresie of Novatian Is there any thing clearer than that Baronius without minding it hath taken the Counter-sense and besides Denis of Alexandria would have had care not to call an opinion which he believed to be true an Heresie Firmilian then and the Asiaticks persisted still in their opinion as well as St. Cyprian the Africans and their successours till the decision of a General Council as may be clearly seen in an hundred passages of the Books of St. Austine which he Wrote concerning Baptism against the Donatists I know that St. Jerome says in the Dialogue against the Luciferians that the Bishops of Africa returned to the ancient custome saying What do we doe and that abandoning St. Cyprian they made a new Decree conform to that of Saint Stephen But all the Learned agree that that holy Doctour who Wrote that Dialogue before the most part of his other Works had taken that out of some Apocryphal Writings such as that which bears for Title The Repentance of St. Cyprian and was declared false and supposititious in a Synod held at Rome Threescore and fourteen years before the death of St. Jerome For to be short the quite contrary is to be seen in the Books of St. Austine that I have just now alledged in the Letter of Saint Basil to Amphilochius and in the Eighth Canon of the first Council of Arles Now if during the life of Saint Stephen there were so many Bishops who refused to obey his Decree there were as many that opposed it after his death For the Patriarch Denis of Alexandria Wrote in a high strain to Pope Sixtus the Successour of St. Stephen Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. exhorting him to follow a conduct contrary to that of his Predecessour and not to break as he had done with so many Bishops for a constitution contrary to his own since it had been approved in several Councils Hic in Cypriani Africanae Synodi dogma consentiens de Haereticis Re-baptizandis ad diversos plurimas mifit epistolas quae usque hodie extant Hieron de script Ecclesias in Dionys and St. Jerome himself in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers which he made long after his Dialogue against the Luciferians assures us that that great Man declared openly for the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and African Bishops and that he thereupon Wrote many Letters which were still extant in his time That was the cause that the Successours of Sixtus entertained Peace with the African and Asiatick Bishops every one freely following their custome and opinion as to that Point without being blamed for it untill that a General Council had pronounced Supremely in the matter This we learn from St. Austine in his Books of Baptism against the Donatists These August l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donatis c. 7. who began their Schism against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage in the year Three hundred and two alledged continually the example of St. Cyprian and of his fellow Bishops to justifie the conduct which they held as well as those in Re-baptizing all Hereticks It is most evident that they durst not have made use of that instance if St. Cyprian and those Bishops had retracted For St. Austine would have confounded these Schismaticks upon the spot by saying that all these Bishops had condemned their former opinion Yet he never did so On the contrary he confesses that they always believed that Hereticks must be Re-baptized but he adds that it was lawfull for them to believe it and for all who have succeeded them to doubt of that point which was then in controversie and to dispute about it As indeed there were many conferences great disputes and debates on Church decided that difference and all submitted to that Sovereign Authority Cui ipse cederet si jam eo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium concilium solidaretur Ibid. c. 4.89 as St. Cyprian would have done without doubt saith St. Austine if the whole Church in a full and general Council had in his time pronounced concerning that point And because the Donatists would not submit to the Decree of that Council in that they added Heresie to their Schism Now before we come to shew what that General Council decided as to that point we must make a serious and solid reflexion upon what we have now said which will suffise to make it clearly out to us what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Infallibility of the Pope Here then we have a Pope of famous memory in the Church who makes a Decree whereby he instructs all Believers concerning a point of highest importance where the question is about the validity or nullity of Baptism without which one cannot be saved and by that Decree he pretends to oblige the whole Church to believe that Hereticks who are converted ought not to be Re-baptized and does so pretend it that he cuts off from his communion great Bishops who would not submit to his Decree And nevertheless St. Cyprian all the Bishops of Africa Mauritania and Numidia those of Cappadocia Cilicia Galatia and Phrygia Denis Patriarch of Alexandria and the Bishops of his Patriarchate will not receive that so solemn a Decree of Stephen Pope of Rome Besides St. Austine and all the African Catholicks united with that great Doctour of the Church against the Donatists say that before the decision of the Council that came not till long after that Decree of the Pope it might freely without making a separation from the Church be held what St. Cyprian had believed concerning the Baptism of Hereticks In fine St. Athanasius St. Optatus Melevitanus Athanas Or. 3. contra Arian St. Cyril of Jerusalem Optat. l. 4. Cont. Parmen St. Basil and some others Cyril Hieros praef in Catech. who have Written as well as they after that General Council Basil Epist 3. Con. 47. whereof St. Austine speaks and before that of Constantinople have believed that all Hereticks who have not the true Faith of the Trinity ought to be Re-baptized who in those first Ages of the Church were incomparably more numerous than the other Hereticks who believed that great Mystery These are not bare conjectures that may be doubted of but uncontroverted matters of fact A Man needs no more but eyes in his head to prove them by Reading the testimonies alledged It must necessarily then follow seeing they submitted to a Council because they knew it to be Infallible which was not done in regard to the Pope St. Stephen that St. Cyprian Firmilian of Caesarea Denis of Alexandria St. Athanasius Saint
of Scripture which teacheth us Nec rationem habere ullam exempli quod hic vel ille decessor meus c. that God permits that men should for a time be ignorant of that which afterwards he discovers to his Church Perspicite an decessores nostri id satis intellexerint quod de indissolubili matrimonii vinculo disquirimus Who knows then now said he but that God may manifest by our means what others have not known touching the indissolvable Bond of Marriage Wherefore have no respect to Examples and don 't tell me what this man or that man of my Predecessors have determined about this matter in a like Case Confider only whether these Popes have understood rightly or not what they have decided concerning this matter of Marriage which we examine There is a Pope who doubtless will never be accused of having failed in maintaining the pontifical Authority that nevertheless frankly confesses and in very plain terms that he and his Predecessors may have erred in Decisions that they may have made concerning points relating to the Faith So that from all that I have hitherto said upon that Subject it may evidently be concluded That great Saints of the ancient Church Bishops in all parts of Christendome in the East in the West and in Africa full and general Councils ancient Popes who have either presided in or consented to these Councils in a word that all Antiquity hath believed that the Pope deciding by his pontifical Authority without the consent of the Church is not at all infallible CHAP. XVI The state of the Question touching the Superiority of a Council over the Pope or of the Pope over a Council IF I proceeded in this Treatise by way of Discourse and Argument I might soon conclude and not fear that any Objection could be brought against my Conclusion for if Antiquity hath believed as I think I have demonstrated that the Pope is not Infallible and that he may be deceived in his Decrees it 's most evident that it hath also believed by necessary consequence that the Tribunal of the Universal Church which without contradiction is infallible and represented by a general Council is above that of the Pope But because for avoiding of Dispute I only alledge evident matters of Fact against which all the Arguments in the World can never prevail for in fine can one by dint of Argument make that which has been never to have been I shall only relate what the Ancient Church hath believed touching that famous Question Seeing the State of the Question ought plainly and without Ambiguity to be proposed for avoiding perplexity to the end that people may at first agree about the thing that is in question and that it may not be said as it oftentimes happens after much jangling and dispute without concluding any thing that the thing was understood in a quite different sense than it was proposed in Take therefore the state of the Question as follows It is enquired Whether after that a Council is lawfully assembled the Pope who without contradiction is Head of it presiding in it in person or by his Legates or not being present nor presiding therein either the one way or t'other as it hath happened oftner than once and is to be seen in the second Oecumenical Council of an hundred and Ann. 381. fifty Bishops Ann. 553. and in the fifth of above an hundred and sixty Whether I say that Council considered in its Membets united either under the Pope who has Right to preside in it or failing of him under another President is above the Pope and hath sovereign Authority over him so that he is obliged to submit to its Decrees and Definitions to approve them and consent thereunto as all others are though he be in his own particular of a contrary Judgment or whether the Pope is so above all the other Members of that Council united together be he there or not that if he approve and confirm not by his Assent and Authority the Decrees and Definitions thereof That Council has no Authority neither over Him nor over Believers In this precisely consists that Question which hath not been moved in the Church but since the Council of Pisa some two hundred and forty Years ago Ann. 1409. And the reason why it was never spoken of before is because it was not at all doubted in the Ancient Church but that a Council was above the Pope I shall make it out by matters of Fact against which no Reply can be made CHAP. XVII That it is the Holy Ghost which in the Definitions of Faith pronounces by the Mouth of the Council ANtiquity hath always believed as it is believed at this day That the Council held at Jerusalem concerning the Legal Observations to which many amongst the converted Jews pretended that all who embraced the Faith of the Gospel were tied hath been a pattern to all Oecumenical Councils which have been since celebrated in the Church for the supreme Decision of other points of Controversie which have often divided Christians inâ—o very different Opinions and when the matter in question had been well examined the Decree that pass'd in that Council proceeded from the Holy Ghost which was uttered in these Words Visum est spiritui sancto nobis It hath ever since also been believed that when other Councils after an exact Enquiry into the Truth defined what was to be believed or what was to be done it is the Holy Ghost that speaks in their Decrees and that it may truly be said as it was said at Jerusalem It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to this Assembly This hath been expressed by St. Leo in these terms Sanctorum patrum canones spiritu Dei conditi totius mundi reverentia consecrati St. Leo Epist 84. ad Anast Thessalonic which have been received with so much Applause in the whole Church when he saith in one of his Epistles That the Canons of the holy Fathers have been made by the Spirit of God and that they are consecrated by the Veneration of the whole Earth Now it is certain that St. Peter depended upon the Holy Ghost as well as St. James St. John St. Paul St. Barnaby the Elders and other Brethren who were present in that Council and if after that he compelled by his Example the Christians to Judaise as Cardinal Baronius hath thought he had been much more to be blamed for having disobeyed the Holy Ghost and the Council than when St. Paul rebuked him openly before the Council as I have made it clearly out by the Testimony of the Fathers and of Pope Pelagius II. So that it ought to be concluded that the Pope who is no less inferiour to the Holy Ghost than St. Peter to whom he succeeds is obliged to submit to his Judgment against his own to obey and consent to his Decisions and consequently to those of the Council who neither speaks nor decides
People except a very few who still adhered to the Schismaticks Martin V. who was chosen Pope in place of John XXIII in the forty fifth Session approved the Decrees which had solemnly been made in that Council and protested that he would observe them inviolably In fine in the Bull wherein he enjoyns what is to be asked of Hereticks who return from their Heresie amongst others this Article is put Whether they believe not that all Believers ought to approve and hold what the holy Council of Constance representing the Vniversal Church holds and approves for the Integrity of the Faith and the Salvation of Souls and whether they condemn not and repute not condemned what the same holy Council hath condemned and condemns as contrary to the Faith and good Manners This without doubt is one of the most authentick Approbations that a Pope can give to a Council Now seeing in compliance with a Decree of this Council the Pope had called another at Pavia afterward at Sienna and lastly at Basil where it was held fourteen Years after that of Constance under Eugenius IV. who caused the Cardinal Julian of St. Angelo named by his Predecessor for that Function to preside in it in his place that Council in the second Session when without contradiction it was very lawful the Pope presiding therein by his Legate renewed those two Decrees and defined the same thing in the same terms touching the Superiority of General Councils to which Popes were obliged to submit in matters concerning the Faith the extinction of Schism and the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members This was not all for sometime after Eugenius having sent the Archbishops of Colossis and Taranto to the Council to represent the Reasons and Authority that he had to dissolve it and to transfer it to another place The Fathers in a general Assembly made a Synodal Respons Synod Sess 6. Answer by way of Constitution containing more than twenty four large Pages wherein having refuted all the Reasons whereby one of these Archbishops would have proved the Superiority of the Pope over a Council Septemb. 1432. they on the contrary evince by many Reasons and by the Authority of the Council of Constance and of the Gospel which remits St. Peter to the Church that the Council which represents her hath all her Authority and again define once more that the Council is above the Pope However Eugenius dissolved it contrary to the Advice of Cardinal Julian who presided therein But when he perceived that that began to produce very bad Effects Ann. 1433. he made the Year following a new Constitution whereby annulling and rescinding all that he had done for dissolving it Illas alias quascunque quicquid per nos aut nestro nomine in praejudicium derâ—gationem sacri Concilii B siliensis seu contra ejus authoritatem factum attentatum seu assertum est cassamus revocamus nullas irritas esse declaramus that that Council had lawfully continued till then from the Beginning and approves whatever had been done in it even so far as to declare null certain Constitutions in one whereof he declared that in matters belonging to the Government of the Church he had power over all Councils And that was so authentick and solemn that Pius II. even in the Bull of his Retractation ingenuously confesse that Pope Eugenius consented to the Decrees of that Council Accessit iâ—sias Eâ—gâ—nit consenâ—us qui dissolutionem Conâ—â—â—ii à se sactam revocavit progressam eâ—â—e approbavit approved its progress and continuation and recalled the Bull whereby he had dissolved it There are two Councils then without speaking of that of Pisa whereof the Council of Constance was a continuation and two Councils in formal terms approved by two Popes Martin V. and Eugenius IV. and these Councils determine the one during the Schism and the other after the Schism was extinct that every Council representing the Universal Church is superiour to the Pope Now all the Doctors of that party which hold for the Pope's Superiority acknowledge that a Council universal and approved cannot err in its Decisions whence it may easily be concluded that since the Decrees of these Councils one is obliged to believe what all Antiquity before these Councils believed that is that an Oecumenical Council lawfully assembled is above the Pope I don't see how one can avoid this without finding ways to invalidate the Authority of the Councils and particularly of that of Constance which is held for the sixteenth General Council And this a modern Author hath attempted to do in a Book written on purpose and last Year printed at Antwerp by John Baptista Verdussen We are now to see how he hath succeeded in it CHAP. XXII Of the Writing of the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate against these two Decrees of the Council of Constance THree years since Ann. 1682. Cleri Gallicani de Ecclesiasticâ potestate declaratio the Clergy of France representing the Gallican Church being by Order of the King assembled at Paris made an authentick Declaration in four Articles of what they believe and define concerning Ecclesiastical Power conform to the Holy Scriptures Tradition and the practice of the whole Church and particularly of that of France Amongst other things they declare in the second Article That the Popes Successors of St. Peter have in such manner full power over the spiritual That the Decrees of the holy Council of Constance approved by the Holy Apostolick See and contained in the fourth and fifth Session concerning the Authority of General Councils must also remain in their full force and not at all be infringed And they add That the Gallican Church approves not the Opinion of those who would weaken these Decrees and rob them of all their force saying that their Authority may be called in question that they are not sufficiently approved or that they extend not beyond the time when there is a Schism in the Church Doubtless there is nothing more authoritative and at the same time more modest than that Declaration of a Church so venerable in all Ages as the Gallican hath been and which next to that of the Apostles hath always maintained and made the Catholick Faith to flourish in France in its full Integrity without having been ever suspected of the least Error Nevertheless there is a late Writer to wit the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate Canon of Antwerp and Under-Library-keeper of the Vatican who as he declares at first in the Scheme of his Dissertation undertakes to overthrow all that the Clergy of France hath asserted concerning these Decrees and to shew in three Chapters first that one may and ought rationally to doubt of their Authority secondly that it is only to be understood during the time of a Schism and in regard of controverted Popes and lastly that they are so far from being approved that they have been manifestly rejected by an express Bull. Now
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
the Iconoclaste Before that saith the same Author Popes were Subject to the Emperors and durst neither judg nor resolve of any thing that concerned them Imperatoribus suberant de iis Judicare vel quicquam decernere non audebat Papa Romanus Thus the Ancient Popes behaved themselves and so much they believed of their Pontifical Authority which does not at all reach the Temporal And to this you may add Onuphr Pavin in vit Greg. VII ex edit Gresser pag. 271. 272. that in the eight first Ecumenical Councils there is nothing to be found but what speaks the compleat submission that is due to Emperors and Kings but nothing that can in the least encroach upon or invalidate the absolute independence of their Temporal Power Now if in some of the Councils which succeeded the Pontificat of Gregory VII Kings have been threatned to be deposed and if an Emperor hath been actually deposed that was not done by the way of decision and though a Council had made a decision as to that yet it must only have been an unwarrantable attempt upon the Right of Princes and could have been of no greater Force than the Bulls whereby it hath been often enough offered at to dispossess them of their States but which have always been condemned and rejected as abusive For after all there will be reason everlastingly to say that which all Antiquity hath believed that the Church her self infallible as she is which the Pope according to the same Antiquity is not hath not received from her heavenly spouse the gift of Infallibility but as to matters purely Spiritual and wholly abstracted from the Temporal and the Kingdom of the World wherein Jesus Christ who hath said my Kingdom is not of this World would never meddle CHAP. XXX What hath always been the opinion of the Gallican Church and of all France as to that The conclusion of this Point and of the whole Treatise HItherto I have made appear what hath been the Judgment and Doctrin of Jesus Christ of his Apostles the Fathers Ancient Popes and of the Councils that is of all venerable Antiquity concerning that Power at least indirect which some would attribute to Popes Now seeing the most Christian Kingdom above all other States of Christendom hath always stuck close to the Ancient Doctrin of the Church which is the solid foundation of their Liberties Therefore it was that all the Bishops of France representing the Gallican Church the faculty of Theology of the great University of Paris so much respected in the World the chief Parliament of France and in imitation of it the rest acting in the Name and by the Authority of the King as Protector of the Canons and holy Decrees have even in this Kingdom maintained the Ancient Doctrin and upon all occasions condemned that pernicious novelty which is contrary to it This I intend briefly to prove The Gallican Church since the settlement of the most Christian Monarchy amongst the Gaules hath always inviolably observed the Rights of the Royalty in her Councils which were so often called by the sole Authority of Clovis and his Successors especially during the first and second race of our Kings And when the Popes would have attempted any thing upon their Temporal the French Bishops have always opposed it with all imaginable force and vigour Of this I shall give you some instances Lotharius Louis and Pepin Sons of Louis the Debonaire instigated by some who had a mind to make their advantage of the dissentions that they had sowed betwixt the Father and his Children Auct Anonym Vic. Ludou Pii rose in Arms against him and found means to engage into their party Pope Gregory IV. Ann. 832. who came in person to their Camp to favour their pretentions The Emperor on the other Hand accompanied with a great part of the Bishops of France failed not to advance with a Powerful Army in May the year following as far as Worms not far distant from the Camp of the Princes his Children Ut si more praedecessorum suorum aderat curâ—tontas necteret moras non sibi occurrendo Immediately he sent them some of his Bishops who exhorted them to return to their duty and who told the Pope in his name that if he was come according to the custom of his Predecessors he much wondered that he had so long delayed to come and wait upon him But when it was discovered that instead of keeping within the bounds of a bare Mediator for reconciling the Children to their Father so as it was believed he was come with a design to Excommunicate the Emperor and his Bishops if they obeyed not his Will and the Princes for whom he thereby manifestly declared himself against the Emperor Then these Bishops without being startled Nullo modo se velle voluntati ejas succumbere sed si Excommunicaturus adveniret Excommunicatus abiret cam aliter se babeas antiquorum Canonum autoritas made it known to him plainly that in that they would no ways obey him and that if he was come to Excommunicate them he should return Excommunicated himself seeing the Authority of the ancient Canons prescribes and ordains the quite contrary to what he attempts The truth is that expression seems to me a little too high but it cannot be denied but that it makes it clearly out to us that the Bishops of France would not at all suffer that the Pope should offer to enjoyn any thing concerning the Government of the State and the Temporal interests which were the Points that occasioned the War and besides that they were very well persuaded that Popes are Subject to the Holy Canons and by consequent to the Councils which have made them Moreover the great clashing that Philip the Fair had with Pope Boniface VIII who openly attacked the Rights of his Crown is very well known and it is also well known what the Gallican Church did for maintaining them and the cautions they took against the Bull unam Sanctam which raised the Popes in Temporals above all Sovereigns It is likewise known what decisions she gave Louis XII for the preservation of his Rights in the difference that he had with Julius II. and what the Clergy of France Assembled at Mante during the League Anno 1591. declared upon occasion of the Bull of Gregory XIV against Henry IV. To the Estates General at Paris 1614 1615. Now if Cardinal Duperron hath in his Speeches said something not altogether consistent with the Doctrin always maintained by the Clergy of France that is but the opinion of one private Doctor who hath oftener than once changed his sentiment and on that occasion transgressed the orders of the Ecclesiastical Chamber of the States General in name of whom he spake and who would have him only represent to the third Estate that it did not belong to them but to the Church to decide that Point of Doctrin concerning the Pontifical Power as it
seemed they had done in the first Article of their address That was the sole cause of the difference that was betwixt the two Chambers as that of the Clergy informed Pope Paul V. in the answer they made to his Brief of the last of January one thousand six hundred and fifteen Augebamur enim non mediocriter cum videremus ipses Catholicos zelo quodam minus prudenti abreptos cognitionem earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent ad se trahere de quaestionibus ejusmodi statuere velle quas nisi pastorum suorum vocibus edocti non debeant attingere Sed ea molestia è vestigio in laetitiam versa est postquam iidem nostris monitis justis rationibus adducti demum agnoverunt omnem hanc autoritatem penes Ecclefiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi preesse voluerit 7 Calend. Nartii We were not a little troubled say these Prelates to see even Catholicks transported with an undiscreet zeal offer to take cognisance of matters relating to Faith and to decide such kind of questions as they must needs first be instructed about by their Pastors before they can meddle with them But our grief was soon changed into gladness when these Gentlemen yielding to our Admonitions and just Remonstrances at length acknowledged that none but the Church hath that Authority and that none but the Pastors have from her received the Power and Right of instructing and guiding the Flock That was the thing in question and not at all the substance of the Article wherein the Clergy of France agreed though they judged it not a proper business to be proposed in the Estates especially at that time The truth is that Chamber of the Clergy was so far from invalidating in the least the substance of the Doctrin contained in that Article and in all times received in France concerning the absolute independence of our Kings as to Temporals that on the contrary they oftener than once protested that they acknowledged that independence Manifeste de ce qui se passa aux Estat Generaux entre le Clergi et le Tiers Estat 1615 and that it ought to be held for a Maxim That the King in Temporals can have no other Superiour but God alone Discours veritable de ce qui se passa aux Estats Generaux and that the Vicar of Jesus Christ hath no jurisdiction over matters purely Temporal So that although the Clergy declared that it belonged only to the Church to handle and decide a Point of Doctrin and Religion nay and that that was not an affair to be consulted about in the Estates Procés verbal de cequi s'est passé en la Chambre du Tiers Estat Avis donné au Roy en son Conseil par M. le Prince sur le Cahier du Tiers Estat yet they avowed that they believed in substance the same thing which the third Estate had proposed and which the late Prince of Conde a great Defender of the Catholick Faith most prudently represented to the King in Council the fourth of January the same year and which the University of Paris expressed in most significant terms in their Petition presented to the Estates upon the same occasion the two and twentieth of January To wit Discours veritable dece qui s'est passé c. That our Kings depend upon none but God us to Temporals and that there is no Power upon Earth that can depose them nor dispence with or absolve their Subjects from the Obedience and Allegiance that they owe to them under any pretext whatsoever That was their Doctrin which they would not have to be weakned or impaired in the Remonstrances which they had caused Cardinal Du Perron to make to the Chamber of the third Estate And certainly after so many proofs one cannot doubt of the Opinion of that learned Clergy always uniform as to that Point I might here produce a great many very convincing Testimonies but that would not be necessary now after that famous declaration which the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris by order of the King in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty two as representing the Gallican Church have made of their Judgment concerning the Ecclesiastical Power This is the first Article of it whereby they declare That God hath given to St. Peter and his Successors the Vicars of Jesus Christ and to the Church Power over Spiritual matters which belong to Eternal Salvation but not over Civil and Temporal The Lord having said My Kingdom is not of this World and Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and unto God the things that are Gods And that Apostolical Decree ought to remain firm and inviolable Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God That Kings and Princes then according to the Ordinance of God are not subject to any Ecclesiastical Power and that they cannot be deposed neither directly nor indirectly by the Power and Authority of the Keys of the Church that their Subjects cannot be exempted from the obligation that lies upon them to obey them nor be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance which they have taken to them and that that Doctrin ought inviolably to be observed as not only necessary for the publick Peace but also useful to the Church And as being conform to the word of God the Tradition of the Fathers and the examples of Saints This now is a positive Doctrin that saith all and all that I have written upon this Subject hath only been to exhibit the convincing proofs of all the parts of that Article which contains so excellent and solid a Declaration As to the sacred Faculty of Theology it hath never failed on any occasion to evidence its zeal for the true Doctrin authorising and confirming this by its Decrees and Censures of the contrary opinion from time to time renewed especially in the years 1413. 1561. 1595. 1610. 1611. 1620. 1726. And lately in the condemnation of an ultramontanean Jacobin by renewing the censure of the Book of Santarelli This appears still in a stronger and more Authentick manner Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod sammus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi antoritatem habeat imo Facultatem semper obstitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantum modo illam Authoritatem esse voluerunt by the six Propositions that were presented to the King in the year one thousand six hundred threescore and three in name of the Faculty By my Lord De Prefixe Archbishop of Paris Visitor of the Sorbonne Take here two of them which relate to that Article Esse Doctrinam Facultatem ejusdem quod Rex Christianissimus nullum omnino in temporalibus habet supersorem praeter Deum eamque esse suam antiquam Doctrinam à quâ nunquam