such a Cause should dye with Maimbourg and no body else should be found to defend the Roman-catholick Church of France against the Catholick Church of Rome Schelstrate quotes Nine Manuscripts of the Council of Constance and Maimbourg Ten and which is very surprising the Manuscripts on both sides have all the Appearance of being Authentick which can be desired if we may believe one of our own Church who is a very able Judge in those matters But Maimbourg has out quoted him by one and whether it be in confidence of this odds or for some other reason he is positive that the Decrees of a General Council are valid without the confirmation of the Pope § XXII Thus we see that notwithstanding the glorious pretensions to Unity and the Advantages of an Infallible Church so much magnified the divisions concerning Infallibility are so many and so great that it is onely a fine pompous thing that may serve them to boast of but is otherwise of no use For we have at this day the Jesuites against the Jansenists M. Schelstrate against M. Maimbourg and Nine Manuscripts against Ten the Archbishop of Gran against the Archbishop of Paris and the Synod of Hungary against that of France Amidst so much opposition how shall we hope to find any agreement The grand Debate between these two contending Parties is whether the Pope or a General Council should have the Preheminence There is but one way more of disagreement possible in this matter which is that neither Pope nor Council is superiour but that the joint Definitions of both are infallible this way the Guide in Controversies and his Followers here in Iâ—â—gland take If the nature of the thing would admit any more differences of opinion they would undoubtedly be as numberless as they are opposite in a dispute which has so much of Prejudice and Interest and so little of Reason or Scripture in it Neither is there any way to reconcile these contrary Doctrines unless they would all conclude in that which they all help to prove viz. That there is no such thing as an Infallible Judge or Guide here on Earth The Pope in the mean while whom one would think it most concerns to interpose his Authority and decide the difference yet sits by as Neuter countenancing and encouraging the one but not by any Authoritative Act disavowing the other opinion And indeed how is it possible for him by his Authority to decide the Controversie when his Authority is the very thing in controversie When I say there is no way besides of disagreement possible in this matter I speak onely of the Point now before us and would not be thought by any means to exclude the Infallibility of Oral Tradition nor the Infallibility of the Church diffusive including every member of it nor any other Infallibility which can be named but these are disliked as much by Papists abroad as they are by Protestants at home and are utterly inconsistent with the Authority of Councils § XXIII From what has been said I suppose it evident that General Councils cannot be relyed upon as Infallible if there were no other reason against it but this that it is so uncertain and doubtfull which Councils are General And I can foresee nothing that can be objected against this Consequence but that the Council of Trent comprehends all the rest and is instead of All. Which indeed magnifies the Council of Trent very much but is not so much for the credit of all the General Councils before it for besides that the Council of Trent grounds many of her Definitions upon the Authority of General Councils that went before I conceive that all who lived three hundred years ago were as much concerned to know what Councils were General as any Body can be at this day and an Infallibility which could be of little or no use till since the Council of Trent is something suspicious unless we had better proof than the Authority of that Council to recommend it I have shewn that that Council it self is not received in France as a General Council but onely its Doctrines acknowledged for true as they were acknowledged they tell us before the Councils sitting for any thing farther they desire to be excused And how can that Council be General enough to be Infallible which is not so far General as to oblige a particular Church in points of Discipline 'T is apparent from the account I have given of them that we have but the four or almost but the six first General Councils without Exceptions and those most of them very considerable too so that when all is done we have no reason that I can see not to be contented with our ancient Creeds and the Councils of the first Ages which have been acknowledged by all because they teach the Faith necessary to the Salvation of all while others who have taught some particular fancies have found a suitable reception § XXIV But if all the eighteen Councils were as General as they are pretended to be yet it is no good Consequence that they are infallible I could never yet see any Grounds from Antiquity to believe the Infallibility of General Councils I am sure St. Austin k De Baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 2. cap. 3. could believe no such thing when he affirms that later General Councils may correct the Errours of the former in that known place Nor Gregory the Great l Lib. 1. Epist 14. who equals the four first General Councils to the four Gospels but none besides and thereby puts a manifest difference between General Councils and so could not hold all to be infallible If we meet with high Expressions in the Fathers concerning the extraordinary assistence of the Holy Ghost in General Councils I know no man but will acknowledge it if they say that the Holy Spirit did effectually guide them in the Truth this is no more than we always profess to be believe that the First Councils did determine Infallible Truths and so were not mistaken in their Determinations but it is but an ill consequence to say that they could not be mistaken because they were not or that all succeeding Councils cannot possibly err because the first Councils actually did not err § XXV It is not pretended that General Councils are Infallible in matters of Discipline yet I am confident many Expressions of the Ancients run as high for these as for matters of Faith. The first Council that ever was that of the Apostles themselves Act. XV. was about matters of Discipline and as the Apostles there write It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us so the following Councils were persuaded they had immediate directions from the Holy Ghost in things of this nature which made the Emperour Constantine the Great and the Council of Nice it self urge the uniform observation of Easter in the same Terms and from the same Arguments that they used to enforce the Nicene Creed And afterwards Leo the
Provincial Synod However the constant Appeal now is from the Sentiments of Private Men and particular Synods to the Definitions of General Councils which are appealed to with as much confidence as if not one of them had ever been suspected or called in question but were all of undoubted Authority whereas there is indeed nothing more suspected than the credit of most of them and the chief Tenets of Popery will be found to have but little Authority from General Councils The Worship of Images will stand in great need of the second Council of Nice and Transubstantiation Auricular Confession c. will want support from the fourth of the Lateran and in short it will be almost as difficult to defend the Councils brought to authorize them as to defend the Doctrines themselves I think I have made it evident that this Argument from the Authority of Councils will be as unsuccessfull as all other Arguments have hitherto proved for it is a vain thing to attempt by any means the Defence of a Cause which will not be defended But in my Opinion the famous Mr. Schelstrate has gone the farthest towards the finding out an Expedient which may be of equal force in all Controversies For in the year MDCLXXXV he put out a Book intituled Dissertatio Apologetica de Disciplina Arcani against Ernestus Tentzelius a Lutheran Divine in defence of his Commentaries upon the second Canon of the Council of Antioch In this Book he shews that the Church concealed her Doctrines a long time and that the stream of Tradition like some Rivers ran for a great way under ground till at last it broke out and discovered it self in this Age or that Council If you enquire why we reade nothing of Transubstantiation in Ancient Authours The Answer is very easie and ready Disciplina Arcani p. 150 151. Why the Fathers did not assert the Worship of Images Disciplina Arcani p. 124. Why the Doctrine of the Trinity was not clearly taught before the Council of Nice Disciplina Arcani p. 10 17. Why we have no Accounts of the Seven Sacraments before the seventh Century Disciplina Arcani p. 104 106. Why the Writings of St. Denys the Areopagite lay so long concealed Disciplina Arcani p. 120. And so for any Novelty else Disciplina Arcani still returns upon you and it is so great a Charm that some would be almost afraid of it for it has a strange faculty of making every thing look aged that it can but come near This Disciplina Arcani is an occult Quality to salve all Difficulties by and say what you will prove what you will these two Emphatical Words shall bear down all before them And I am persuaded the following Considerations will stand out against any Attack but that of Disciplina Arcani A TABLE of the CONTENTS PART I. § THE False Dealing that has been used in publishing the Councils Page 1. § I. In putting out those which are forged ibid. § II. In suppressing those which are genuine 3. § III. In depraving those which are genuine which they have not wholly suppressed 5. 1. By Corrupting all the later Editions ibid. 2. By their Indices Expurgatorii ibid. 3. Instances of this in the four first General Councils 6. 4. Instances in the Councils of Basil and Trent 8. PART II. § I. PApists not agreed about the Number of General Councils 10. § II. Nor about their Authority the fifth Canon of the second General Council at Constantinople and the twenty eighth of the fourth General Council at Chalcedon have been thrown aside 12. § III. The fifth General Council at Constantinople was opposed by Pope Vigilius § IV. The sixth General Council contradicted as entirely forged or at least much corrupted 13. § V. The Council in Trullo is disputed about 14. § VI. 1. The second Council of Nice can scarcely be defended as general ibid. 2. The History of the Council 15. 3. Opposed by the Council of Frankford 17. 4. This farther proved 18. 5 6. The Objections against the Can. of the Council of Frankford which condemned Images answered 20 21 22. 7. The Council of Nice was not received for at least one Age in the Eastern or Western Churches 23. § VII 1. Papists cannot agree which is the eighth General Council 25. 2. The Pope's Legates were at the Council which restored Photius ibid. 3. And his Restoration was in effect approved on for some time after 26. 4. Though all is deny'd since with execrable Calumnies against Photius 27. 5. Which are sufficiently taken off by P. Nicholas and his Legates carriages and by Photius 's own Letters 28. 6. This is farther cleared 33. 7. It is no ways likely that Photius corrupted P. John the Eighth's Ep. Commonitorium in favour of himself 34. 8. Conclusion 35. § VIII Small proofs that the three first Councils of the Lateran were general 36. § IX 1. The fourth Lateran Council thought general by the Church of Rome 37. 2. Its Decrees in point of Doctrine 38. 3. in point of Discipline ibid. 4. Yet it lay unregarded for three hundred years 39. 5. Nothing decreed in this Council 40. 6 7. Papists shuffle about its Authority 42 43. § X. 1. The first Council of Lyons not thought general at first 46. 2. Omitted in the Venice Edition 47. 3. Its Decrees not much valued in France ibid. § XI Nothing in the second Council of Lyons to make it general 48. § XII The Council of Vienne was called onely upon a particular occasion 49. § XIII 1. Of the Council of Constance 50. 2. That Council above a Pope 51. 3. Not allowed by Martin the Fifth chosen by that Council 52. § XIV 1 2. Quarrels between Eugenius and the Council of Basil 53 54. 3. The Acts of this Council were ratified by Eugenius 54. § XV. 1. Causes of citing the Council of Florence 56. 2. The Gallican Church disown the principal Decree of this Council 57. § XVI 1. The French own the second Council of Pisa against the Fifth of the Lateran 58. 2. Though for politick Reasons Francis the First with his Clergy allowed the Fifth Lateran ibid. 3. And three years after they renounce it 59. 4. Even the highest Opposers of the Gallican Privileges speak doubtfully of it 60. 5. And it was onely a meeting of Sixty most Italian Bishops ibid. § XVII 1. The Council of Trent may be suspected by their own Concessions ibid. 2. Its Decrees about Discipline not received in France ib. 3. Which yet ought to be if it were received as general 61. 4. So that on both hands the Authority of the Council of Trent is rejected 62. § XVIII Modern Papists not agreed what Authority to give to Councils ibid. § XIX English Papists differ from all others in this Matter 63. § XX. Jesuits make the Pope infallible in Matters of Fact 64. § XXI 1. Herein contradicted by the French Clergy ibid. 2. Who in their Assembly censure the Arch-bishop of Gran for
was afterwards improved into that which all Bishops c. take at their Consecration § IX 1. The fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third An. MCCXV is reckoned the twelfth General Council in order by Bellarmin Possevin c. Cardinal Pole with his Synod at Lambeth owns it for General they frequently mention it and never but under the Title of General though they do not put it in the same rank among the General Councils they profess however to receive and embrace the Faith of the Church of Rome according to the Decrees of the General Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third v Decret 2. The Council of Constance * Session 39. requires all Popes to make profession of the Faith established in the VIII Sacred General Councils whereof this is set down for one and the Council of Trent x Session 24. cap. 5. it self calls this a General Council The Great General Council of Lateran y Session 14. cap. 5. and makes use of its authority again z Session 21. cap. 9. and which is yet more to the purpose a Council of English Bishops held at Oxford a Conc. Tom. 11. Part. 1. A. MCCXXII cap. 24 28 29 33. not above seven years after acknowledge the Authority of this Council of Lateran and several times quote its Decrees In short as this is placed by Bellarmin among those Councils which are received with full approbation beyond all dispute by the Church of Rome so he looks upon it as no less than Heresie to deny the Authority of it and therefore when he has produced the third Canon of this Council in defence of the Deposing Doctrine against Barclay he cries out with great zeal and vehemence Quid hic Barclaius diceret si haec non est Ecclesiae Catholicae vox ubi obsecro eam inveniemus si est ut verissimè est qui eam audire contemnit ut Barclaius fecit annon ut Ethnicus Publicanus nullo mode Christianus pius habendus erit What can Barclay say to this if this be not the voice of the Catholick Church where I pray shall we find it and if it is as questionless it is he that despises to hear it as Barclay has done is he not to be look'd upon as an Heathen-man and a Publican and by no means a Christian or a pious Man This Widrington b Discussio Discuss Part. 1. § 2. p. 28. complains of as intolerably insulting others may rather think he speaks as a Cardinal when he was managing the Popes cause so victoriously from so infallible evidence For such is the authority and esteem in the Church of Rome of this Council that it is usually called The Great Council of Lateran either from the great number of Bishops in it or from the great importance of the matters decided or both The number of Bishops was no less than CCCCXII or in Bellarmin's reckoning CCCCLXXIII and among these were the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem and the Delegates of the other two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch LXXVII Primates and Metropolitans besides DCCC Abbats and Priors these were all there in person and proxies were sent innumerable The Emperour likewise of Constantinople the King of Sicily Emperour of the Romans Elect the Kings of England France Hungary Jerusalem Cyprus Arragon and other Princes and Cities sent their Embassadours hither so that never was there such a show perhaps in the world again 2. The matters Determined both of Faith and of Discipline were extraordinary and of the greatest importance The Doctrines of Faith defined were Transubstantiation c Cap. 1. the Articles concerning the Holy Trinity asserted and vindicated from the errour of Abbat Joachim and those errours condemned and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son declared d Cap. 2. The Deposing Doctrine established e Cap. 3. The Church of Rome declared to be the Mother and Mistress of all Christians universorum Christi fidelium and to have by God's appointment the Dominion over all other Churches of ordinary Authority by her extraordinary Prerogative f Cap. 5. 3. The Decrees in points of Discipline are in their kind no less considerable against the Incontinency of the Clergy g Cap. 14. against their Drunkenness h Cap. 15. against the Negligence and Debauchery of Prelates i Cap. 17. that no Clergy-man should give Sentence in Capital Causes k Cap. 18. Auricular Confession enjoyned once every year l Cap. 21. That no Clergy-man should take an Oath of Allegeance to any secular Persons unless he held some temporal Estate of them m Cap. 43. That no Clergy-man should be obliged to pay Taxes n Cap. 46. The manner of proceedings in Excommunications regulated o Cap. 47. The Prohibition of Marriages restrained to the fourth degree p Cap. 50. Clandestine Marriages forbidden and that Children of Parents married within the degrees prohibited declared illegitimate q Cap. 51. Against Simony r Cap. 63. and many other things of like nature which are of the highest consequence and fall under daily practice 4. All this one would think were sufficient to put the Authority of the fourth Council of Lateran beyond all contradiction or debate for who can imagine that a Council celebrated with so much solemnity which decided Controversies of so mighty concernment in the Church and determined things of continual use among all sorts and Orders of Men should not immediately meet with the most entire submission and always retain an undoubted Authority and veneration Thus much would have been due if it had not been infallible but being infallible what regard must every Age and every Nation and every Writer at least every Traditionary Christian pay to it yet this very Council so famous and so renowned in its Members so extraordinary in its Determinations and Decrees lay dormant unregarded and unknown till the year MDXXXVII that is till above CCC years after it was held 'T is very surprising that neither Innocent himself nor his Nephew and next Successour but one Gregory the Ninth who published his Uncle's Decretal Epistles and these very Decrees which now pass for the Decrees of this Council among the rest should put this forth among the other General Councils 't is strange that no other Pope or Bishop or at least some Canonist or other learned man should ever think of it but 't is yet more strange that Merlin in his Councils printed but three years before the fourth Council of Lateran was published should omit this though he sets down the Councils of Constance and Basil But when this Council did come to light with what Credentials did it come what evidence does it bring for its Authority is it printed from some ancient Manuscripts in the Vatican it might then be wondred how it should lie so long concealed never published never quoted nor mentioned but 't is a much greater
more easie than answering but he gives this very good reason for what he says because at this rate the Precept concerning Auricular confession would not be valid nor Transubstantiation de Fide no nor the Procession nor the opposite Articles to the errours of Joachim and so the Schoolmen in their Writings and the Inquisitors in punishing Hereticks had been all to blame Widrington replies that the Practice of the Church and the inserting these Canons into the Body of the Canon Law by Gregory the Ninth was sufficient to give Authority to them But this is to bring us back again from a Council to the Pope and from him to send us to the Church diffusive to inquire into her Faith and Practice and so we are disappointed of the vast hopes conceived from so numerous an Assembly But if these things had then been of known Practice and undoubted Truth how came they not immediately to be consented to in Council how came they to seem grievous and burthensome to the Bishops there was not Transubstantiation one of those Grievances the Deposing Doctrine another Auricular Confession a third and might not many more Grievances be mentioned Well but the Procession of the Holy Ghost and the true notion of the Trinity must be called in question if we reject this Council by no means because this had been explained in other Councils as far as was necessary and the Greek and Latin Manuscripts of Cossartius leave out the Procession so that that was it seems but in some Copies and cannot be proved from this Council But all these Doctrines says Widrington a Ibid. p. 12. have been received and embraced by the Catholick Church and from thence derive their Authority This we deny neither the Deposing Doctrine as Widrington himself confesses and maintains nor Transubstantiation nor Auricular Confession was ever received by the Catholick Church But the truth is he was forced to say something he was loth to deny the Authority of a Council now generally received by the Church of Rome he rather chose to evade the third Canon as well as he could nor durst he either in his Answer to Lessius b Discuss ib. p. 22. or in his last Rejoinder to Fitzherbert c Rejoynder cap. 9. disown the Council but after he has raised all the Objections he was able professes at last that as for his own part he receives it The same Objections have been lately renewed by Father Walsh yet still he too does not profess to disown the Authority of the Council 7. But Cossartius produceth a Greek Translation of this Council which he says is of the same Antiquity with the Council it self and he is positive that the very sight of this is enough to convince all men the Decrees are Genuine this Translation shewing the agreement between the Greeks and the Latins for that the Decrees which were made by the unanimous consent of all might be by all observed they were turned into the Greek Language for the use and benefit of those who did not understand the Latin. The Greek he confesses is in many places barbarous and his Manuscripts in some places imperfect and therefore in those places he was forc't to give us onely the Latin leaving void spaces in the opposite Column where the Greek was defective but here I observe that the whole first Chapter is not extant in the Greek Copy nor does it appear by any vacancies left in the Print that the Manuscript was imperfect but that the whole Chapter was omitted by the Greek Translatour and so if this Manuscript prove any thing it proves that the Greek Church did not concurr with the Latin in the Article of Transubstantiation for this being the first time that ever that Doctrine was asserted in a General Council certainly the Greeks would never have omitted to translate so material a Passage of the Council wherein this is contained if they had agreed to it All that part of the third Chapter which concerns the Deposing Doctrine is likewise wanting in the Greek but here he tells us is a leaf of the Manuscript wanting both in the Greek and the Latin 't were to be wished we could know how it came to be wanting but however this serves to confirm to us that nothing is deficient in the first Chapter but that the Manuscript is entire though the whole Chapter be onely in Latin and so the Doctrine of Transubstantiation had the ill luck to be left out in the Translation of the first Council in which it ever was defined for which no other reason can be given if this Manuscript be Authentick but that the major part of the Church i. e. all the East and four Patriarchs of five rejected it The Translatour often mistakes the Latin and quite alters the sense and in the second Chapter where the Catholick Doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity is explained the Particle non is omitted in the Latin and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Greek a small mistake in a matter of Faith but such a mistake as could not easily escape in both Languages or if it did must needs give a very exact and faithfull account of what was defined in the Council This and other gross faults do not make much for the credit of this Manuscript nor engage us necessarily to believe upon its sole Authority that the Greek Church received the fourth Lateran Council or indeed that it was ever received at all till of late years which many learned men in the Church of Rome have been so sensible of that they have never alledged its Authority but when they had nothing else to alledge For neither the more ancient of our Modern Divines says Widrington d Last Rejoynder c. 9. who are vehement maintainers of the Popes power to depose Princes as Victoria Corduba Sanders and others nor Cardinal Bellarmin himself in his Controversies did make any great reckoning of the Decree of this great Council This was Bellarmin's last Refuge when he was beaten off from his other Arguments by Barclay and though he urges it with great confidence and earnestness yet if he had much relied upon its Authority he would have used it before for if the Council be General the Argument is unanswerable and infallible in their account whatever disguises may be put upon it The opposers of this Lateran Council farther add e Widrington ib. p. 20. that the Council of Constance meant not this Council but that of Lateran under Alexander the Third and that the Council of Trent spoke according to the common opinion that is in plain terms the Council of Trent was mistaken and that in a matter of no small consequence for if one General Council tell the world that another is General which really is not so what assurance can men have of any Council that it is General or what Errours may not a General Council by this means lead men into What they answer to the Testimony of the Council held at
Labbé had caused a Draught of the Work to be printed and I am apt to think that through this Authour's Complaint the Council of Basil had more right done it than otherwise at would have had But the Treatises prefix't in the Apparatus are such as quite overthrow the Gallican Privileges and the Doctrines peculiar to that Church For Cardinal Jacobatius de Conciliis sets himself purposely to prove the Superiority of the Pope to a Council and answers all Objections against it lib. 10. p. 519. in Appar Concil Labbé and in plain terms denies the Authority of the Decrees of Constance and making use of those known Evasions that these Decrees were to take place onely in the times of Schism between two contending Popes or in case of Heresie or that it was no general Constitution but limited to the present exigency of Affairs in short he denies that any Constitution of a Council can bind the Pope because he has no Superiour but God and so in all points he palpably contradicts the Doctrine of the French Church p. 536. Paulus Fabulottus de Potestate Papae supra Concilium proves his Tenets by all manner of Arguments from Scripture from Reason from History from Fathers and from Councils and in his fifth Chap. where he shews the Pope's Superiority from Councils be shews particularly that the French ought not to except against the Authority of the last Council of the Lateran because they acknowledge its Authority in enjoying the Privileges granted them in the Bull of Leo the Tenth which confirmed it and it is unreasonable says he that they should allow it when it makes for their advantage and reject it in other matters Fabulott ib. p. 69 70. He pretends to shew that Martin the Fifth did by his Bull retract the Decrees of the Fourth and Fifth Sessions of Constance made says he in Schism by appointing the Question to be put to all suspected of Heresie An credant Romanum Pontificem in Dei Ecclesia supremam habere Potestatem Whether they believe that the Pope has supreme Power ' in the Church of God And so turns the Council of Constance upon the French ib. In a word he concludes that whoever persists obstinately in the contrary Opinion against so many Councils for he produces no fewer than six whereof that of Constance is the second must needs be an Heretick He particularly answers the Objections brought from the Council of Constance in the usual manner as for the Council of Basil he says all Catholicks confess it was not a lawfull Council when it defined Councils to be above the Pope At last he concludes with admiration that any one should to the destruction of his Soul be so perverse as to call in question so certain a Truth established on so strong Arguments and so great Authorities Caranza maintains the Popes Infallibility and says it was never doubted of 'till the Councils of Constance and Basil Controver 3. p. 112. in Appar Labbei He spends his fourth Controversie in shewing against these two Councils that Pope's are against General Councils Petrus de Monte in his Monarchia runs as high as any of the rest and to make a Pope a complete Monarch exempts the Clergy from the Obedience and their Possessions from the Dominions of temporal Princes in Apparat. p. 155. But Jacobatius if it be possible goes beyond this For he maintains the Deposing Power and affirms that the Pope alone may depose Emperours and Kings and whomsoever he pleases and particularly the King of France and this without the advice and concurrence of his Cardinals he makes no doubt of his deposing Power the onely Question is whether he can doe it alone without his Cardinals and he determines in the Affirmative ibid. pag. 329. so little regard is to be had to that which is esteemed the Doctrine of the French Church and which some would have us think is the Roman-Catholick Doctrine and the Doctrine against the Pope's Infallibility the Sententie Parisiensium as it is called in contempt is every where decryed even in Paris it self The Jesuits at Cologne laid down this Rule In Censura Coloniensi fol. 132. If any Man examin the Doctrine of the Pope by the Rule of God's Word and seeing that it is different chance to contradict it let him be rooted out with Fire and Sword Walsh Irish Remonstr Treat 4. p. 61. And both the Clergy and People of the Roman Communion in Ireland generally hold the Pope's Infallibility being influenced by the Jesuits as they are in most places Insomuch that in MDCLXVI they refused to sign the three last of the six Propositions which the Sorbon in MDCLXIII had presented to the most Christian King and to apply them as they did the first three to his Majesty of Great Britain and His Subjects though they contain nothing but an Assertion of the King's Prerogatives and a Denial of the Pope's Infallibility Irish Remon Treat 3. p. 23. and Treat 4. p. 58. This we are told by One who is an Advocate for Popish Loyalty and it is confessed by Another who made it the Business of his Life to write against the Deposing Doctrine that this is the Doctrine most generally received amongst those of that Communion Neque quenquam movere debet ut aliàs observavi in Apol. num 4.49 utì citatur in margine quod opinio haec quae Summo Pontifici hanc potestatem tribuit communio sit quà m opposita plurésque Doctores eam sequantur c. Widrington Discuss Discussionis Praef. So little security have we that Popery is the same thing in France that it is at Rome and in other Popish Countries or that the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition is good Popery even in Paris it self But that which is the Doctrine generally taught we are often told by the Guide is equivalent to the Definitions of a General Council inasmuch as no Council can be known to be general nor consequently to teach true Doctrine but by the Reception it meets with from the Church and so the Misrepresenters will be found to be those that soften and palliate Popery contrary to the sense of the most of that Communion I am sure Cardinal Poole and his Synod at Lambeth MDLVI were for Popery as it is at Rome they did not content themselves to fetch it from France For they receive the Bulla Coenae equalling its Authority even to the Decrees of General Councils and Apostolical Traditions and they profess to own the full extent of Power attributed to the Pope by the Council of Florence Decret 2. and they quote it in the usual form Quemadmodum etiam in gestis OEcumenicorum Conciliorum in Sacris Canonibus continetur not Quemadmodum c. as we are now taught to reade it according to the true Translation vid. Walsh Lett. to the Bishop of Lincoln p. 274. if such a nicety will make any material difference and this was done by Cardinal Poole by virtue of his Legantine Power in a
main and we must take part and leave part as the Popes have thought fit but there is a third sort so abominable that they are utterly condemned § II. I shall examin what agreement there is amongst Papists concerning the Authority of the several approved General Councils The second Gen. Council at Constantinop circa A.D. CCCLXXXI secundum Richer part 1. c. 5. p. 169. And here we need not go far The second General Council it self as was before observed has not escaped For Baronius An. CCCLXXXI says that the fifth Canon of that Council was not received by the Church of Rome and he suspects it is forged Bellarmin says it was not consented to by the Pope ſ Lib. 2. de Rom. Pontif. c. 18. and therefore void so says Albertus Pighius t In Diatriba de Conc. 6 7. p. 279. and Coriolanus v In Summa Concil The four reasons which Baronius brings to invalidate its Authority Binius has transcribed into his Notes which Labbé and Cossartius have printed in their Edition without the least censure or animadversion but in the margin over against the Canon add a Note of their own referring to some Epistles of Leo which are quoted by Baronius to disprove its Authority Now the onely fault they can find with this Canon is that it makes the Bishop of C. P. next Primate to the Bishop of Rome for this reason because that City was new Rome which would make the Pope's power and greatness depend upon the Preheminence that the City of Rome held in the Empire not upon any Divine Right And for no better reason they reject the twenty eighth Canon of Chalcedon The fourth Gen. Council at Chalced. circa An. D. CCCCLI Richer part 1. c. 8. p. 333. and would undoubtedly have rejected all the Canons of the first four General Councils if they had stood in the way of the Pope's Authority For the fifth Canon of C. P. is in all Copies and there is no more cause to suspect it than any other Canon of the Council The twenty eighth of Chalcedon with those that follow it is wanting indeed in some Copies but this as well as that of C. P. must be owned by all in the Church of Rome that hold a Council above the Pope for if the major part of the Church is of sufficient Authority to make them so these Canons are as authentick as any in all the Volumes of Councils * Du Pin dissert 1. p. 57. For the honour and jurisdiction of the Patriarch of C. P. is founded upon the Laws of the Empire and the consent of the universal Church The fifth General Council held at C. P. An. Do. DLIII and these Canons have generally been so far owned as to be inserted into the Books of Canons § III. The fifth General Council held under the Emperour Justinian about the middle of the sixth Century was opposed by Pope Vigilius x Baluz Nova Collect. Conc. Tom. 1. col 1546. to the utmost till he was forced to submit and retract his Heresie to recover himself from Banishment From whence a Query will arise How a Papist can be better assured that this Council is true than that it is false or Whether a Council can be first false and then without the least alteration in its Doctrine Infallible or How long time a Pope's Sentence must be past before its Effect of Infallibility be produced Whether one Pope may not retract another's Sentence as well as the same Pope his own And if so Whether Innocent the Eleventh for instance may not retract the Sentence of Pius the Fourth and so vacate the Council of Trent § IV. Albertus Pighius wrote a Book y Diatriba de Conc. 6 7. on purpose to prove the sixth and seventh Councils both forged The sixth Gen. Council held at C. P. circa An. Do. DCLXXXI vel ut alii putant DCLXX. Richer Hist Conc. Hist Gen. p. 1. c. 10. p. 525. The seventh was then newly published but from what Copy or upon what Authority he says was unknown Franciscus Turrianus undertook their defence Bellarmin is for compounding the business and is inclined z De Rom. Pontif. l. 4. c. 11. to think that many Forgeries may indeed be crept in Binius follows him onely he is more positive as his manner is to give us something that is his own Labbé and Cossartius let his Notes pass without censure All the stir is that the sixth Council condemned Pope Honorius for a Heretick and the seventh approves the Sentence and several times anathematizeth him whom these men would willingly acquit though there be as much evidence for it as can well be for any matter of Fact. The Anathema against him was solemnly pronounced every year till of late on the Festival of St. Leo the Second and every Pope anathematized him in the Profession of Faith which he made at his Consecration and sent it to the other Bishops a Garnerli Liber Diurnus in Professione Fides secundâ dissert in eandem Launoil Epist part 5. ep 2. p. 12. c. The Arguments of Baronius to prove the sixth Council corrupted are now laughed at b Du Pin dissert 5. p. 350. though F. Combesis c New Heresie of the Jesuites p. 91. was violently treated by Raynaud a Jesuite not long ago in a most malitious Satyr against the whole Dominican Order onely because he had exposed Baronius on this subject But Garnerius endeavours to palliate the matter by saying He was condemned onely for favouring Hereticks and conniving at them Natales Alex. formally proves d Sec. 7. that he spake like a Heretick and acted like a Heretick and communicated with Hereticks and yet at the same time proves he was no Heretick So impossible is it for Popes to be Hereticks For any other Bishop had certainly been an Heretick though he had done but half so much But Du Pin e Dissert 5. p. 349. has confuted all this Sophistry and so 't is to be hoped that now these Councils may be genuine in France where Honorius is an Heretick or at least anathematized for a Favourer of Hereticks but of what credit they are at Rome as to this Point is easie to be imagined He will scarce pass for a true Catholick there who had not rather part with two Councils than one Pope § V. But here we must not omit the Dispute betwixt the Greeks and the Latins concerning the Council in Trullo Synodus Quinisexta in Trullo circiter An. Dom. DCLXXXI secundum Labbé in Tom. Conc. called Synodus Quinisexta because it was a kind of Supplement to the fifth and sixth Councils The Greeks maintain against the Latins that this Council was General they alledge that the Pope's Legates were present and subscribed its Canons which the Pope himself indeed afterwards refused to doe but the Council styles it self General and if want of the Pope's approbation could
subreptum est illis nullus contra eum subscriptiones vestras occasionem Schismat is habeat omnia enim ut infecta irrita facimus c. Ivo Carnut Prolog p. 5. had yet been received into Communion by another Council much more ought men of an orthodox Faith and an unblamable life not to be condemned but restored to their former dignity which must suppose Photius to be a man of an orthodox Faith and an unblameable Life or else we must suppose his Argument nothing to the purpose But he proceeds to say that his Predecessours Nicholas and Adrian had been imposed upon and that all that had been done against Photius was to be accounted as if it had been never done Nor doth this depend upon Ivo's Authority onely but the second Canon of the Council which restored Photius is inserted by Gratian as a Canon of the eighth General Council for which he is severely handled by Baronius though others of the Roman k Rader apud Binium Conc. Vol. 8. Col. 1496. Communion have been wavering as to this matter and have written uncertainly and confusedly about it and Innocent the Third l Lib. 1. tit 9. c. 11. himself quotes the same second Canon in his Epistles 4. Baronius notwithstanding Raderus and Possevin whose Arguments Binius has collected in his Notes and generally the whole Roman Church are for maintaining the Authority of this fourth Council of C. P. and this is the last of the eight General Councils which every Pope is sworn to at his Consecration m Vid. II. Profess fid apud Garnerium in Diurne They argue that the Acts of that Council which restored Photius are corrupted which is a sure Argument when there is nothing else to say Well but they prove it from John's Epistles which are quite another thing in the Vatican MSS. than they are in these Acts but how does it appear that these Epistles are more authentick than the Acts why because these have been abused by Photius and how does that appear because Photius was a Villain as he was indeed one of the greatest Monsters of impiety that ever lived if all be true that his Enemies relate of him They say that his Mother when she went with child of him dreamt that she should bring forth a Serpent which with his noisome Breath should infect the whole East and many holy Men foretold the same thing in plainer language to her that she should be delivered of one who would be the ruine of the Church this troubled her so much that she often endeavoured to destroy her self rather than that such a Brat should ever be born into the World but her Husband prevented the design and she was at last persuaded by devout People about her to submit to the Providence of God so she was prevailed with to live and to her great sorrow was Mother of a Son who outwent all these Prophecies For the Legend must not end here He was an Impostour and used Enchantments he got Ignatius removed out of his Patriarchate and himself placed in his room he bad defiance to Popes and when they excommunicated him to be even with them he excommunicated them again when they deposed him he deposed them and never was behind-hand with them in any kind offices and this is thought to have been his greatest crime though besides n Bin. Not. ad Con. IV. C. P. ex Possevin Rader c. Col. 1498 c. he held that a man has two souls while his enemies acted as if they thought men to have none The Popes it seems had every one a touch at him in their turn for he was condemned by nine Popes and was under Excommunication XLV years o Conc. Tom. 8. col 1423. which is somewhat longer I think than F. Widrington or F. Walsh All this to be sure made him an abominable Schismatick p Ibid. Col. 1108. a Fornicator a Parricide a notorious Liar another Maximus q Ibid. Col. 1098. Cynicus another Dioscorus another Judas Antichrist r Anastas Praef. ibid. Col. 967. To speak all in a word he was a very Devil 5. After this heavy charge what wickedness can be imagined that will not be believed of Photius 'T is none of my business at present to make his defence which would be now the more difficult to be done because all f Vid. Can. 6. Col. 1101 1130 1354. the Acts and Writings for his Justification were sought out and burnt in this fourth Council of C. P. 'T is sufficient for me to observe that Pope Nicholas at first interposed as an Indifferent Arbitrator between him and Ignatius which sure he would never have done if Photius had been guilty of so notorious Crimes he was mainly concerned that himself had not been consulted as for any thing else 't is not easie to observe which side he most inclined to He writes to Photius and tells him he is glad to understand that he is orthodox but is sorry he should from a Laick immediately become a Bishop without passing through the inferiour Orders and this is the onely exception against him His Legates so far approve Photius's Cause that they communicate with him and condemn Ignatius for which indeed they were excommunicated when they came home because the Pope said they had gone beyond their Commission whether this were onely a pretence or that they had really exceeded their Orders In his Epistles to the Emperour as well as to Photius the Pope finds no other fault but that of a Laick he ought not to have been made Patriarch though there had been so late an Example of this in Tarasius besides Saint Ambrose and Nectarius So that the plain truth is Pope Nicholas would have the whole matter reserved to his own decision and he should be the Patriarch whom Nicholas would appoint To say that Photius t Praef. ad Syn. 8. init usurped upon Ignatius is but a Cavil for Ignatius had served John so before as Anastasius confesses and Nicholas v Nich. Ep. 5. does not deny it onely he again urges that himself ought to judge between them In his Epist to Bardas * Ep. 12. he compliments him highly telling him he was exceedingly troubled that a man of his extraordinary character for vertue and piety should be concerned for Photius which sufficiently overthrows the slander that the deposition of Ignatius was procured because he would not approve the Incest of Bardas but excommunicated him for it Pope Nicholas is not consistent with himself in the account he gives of the behaviour of his Legates in this affair sometimes he writes that they informed him * Ep. 6. that they were under restraint and were told of very hard usage designed them but this was onely Rumour in another Epistle he writes that they had been bribed to communicate with Photius and to depose Ignatius but that they both denyed they had done any such thing till at last Zacharias confessed
Prelates of that Church de Marca and Bosquet have endeavoured to explain this Canon so as to justifie their own Doctrine and Practice but Christianus Lupus was so little satisfied with the attempt that he exclaimes against it as becoming rather Eusebius of Nicomedia or Acacius of Caesarea than Bishops of the Gallican Church and whereas they alledge the Authority of Hincmare of Rhemes he plainly says that they might as well have alledged Luther's testimony against the Council of Trent Natalis Alex. interposes to mediate the business and would willingly make up the Debate with what success let Lupus's Party judge But still these Canons must be all acknowledged authentick though they are not in the Greek but if the Greek differ from the Latin in any thing material that goes in the least against the Church of Rome loud Outcries are presently made of Falshood and Forgery For the Charge here seems to lye not against Photius alone but against all the Greeks in general even from the second to the eighth General Council So Anastasius i Praef. in Conc. C.P. IV. col 972. complains that they had falsified the second the third the fourth the sixth the seventh General Councils and he suspects that they might use the same fraud as to the eighth Nay they did so The sly Greeks k Anastas not ad Action 1. col 989. stole away the Subscriptions which they had made in the beginning of this Council and though they restored them after they were discovered Omne quod ad laudem Serenissimi nostri Caesaris sancctissimus Dominus Hadrianus in Epistola sui decessoris Arsenlo Episcopo imminente adjecerat c. Guilielmus quidam alter Bibliothecarius continuator Anastasii in Adrian II. p. 389. yet at the end of the Council they had shewn them such another trick if Anastasius had not been too cunning for them They had already taken out some expressions which Adrian the Second foisted into an Epistle of his Predecessour and so they had robbed the Western Emperour of all the fine things which the present Pope had made his Predecessour say of him but Anastasius who with another as cunning as himself by great Providence as 't was thought was there found out the wrong done the Emperour and great Clamours were raised about it nor would the Legates at last subscribe otherwise than conditionally Vsque ad voluntatem ejusdem eximii Praesulis l Anastasii Continuat in Adrian II. p. 339. As far as it was the desire of that worthy Prelate which may convince us what a noise has used to be made of Forgery against the Greeks of whatever Party for Basilius and Ignatius we see are not exempted the whole Greek Church of all Ages is accused of these fraudulent Practices which assures us that there have been such Practices on one side and which side the fraud lyes may easily be determined if we consider that the passages pretended to have been forged were received by all other Churches and are not now denyed to be genuine by the most learned men in the Church of Rome as has been shewn T is no new thing to hear of Complaints of Forgery when any thing goes against the Church of Rome and Photius is not the first man that has been blackned to make the Charge find a more easie belief 6. Well! But Photius has before been guilty of making alterations in an Epist of Pope Nicholas m Epist 6 10. as that Pope complains Very likely and that he might be sure not to be discovered it was sent n Ibid. back again falsified to the Pope with the Acts of Photius's Council This is such an odd kind of Cheat that it lays one thing to his charge which his worst enemies never durst brand him with and is so great an Instance of Folly that it ruines all the rest of the Character they have been pleased to bestow upon him for it is acknowledged on all hands that he was peculiarly eminent for his Learning and for that which his Enemies call subtilty and his Friends wisedom That John the eighth did consent that Photius should be Patriarch is not denyed nor that he sent his Legates with Instructions for that purpose as both his Epistles and his Commonitorium certifie So far no Forgery is pretended but they say John never consented to the abrogating of the fourth Council of C. P. and that if the Legates consented to any such thing they went beyond their Commission but they rather incline to think that though the Legates were guilty of too much connivance and so betrayed the Trust reposed in them yet the Acts of the Council that restored Photius are falsified as the Epistles of John the eighth are in all those passages which speak any thing in derogation to this fourth Council of C. P. 7. But first it is certain that the restoring of Photius and the owning him not onely for a Patriarch but even for a Bishop onely is so far a derogation to this Council which fourth Canon decrees that Photius is no Bishop and pronounceth all his Episcopal Acts void so that the Council which afterwards by the consent and approbation of John the eighth acknowledges Photius for a Bishop and a Patriarch too does most certainly declare this whole Canon null and bids fair towards the justifying all that is pretended to be forged in John's Epistles I cannot think the Alterations in these Epist by whomsoever they were made are so ancient as Photius's time perhaps they may be much later than Ivo Carnutensis but if they be of so ancient date and if it be true that this Pope afterwards recalled his approbation and renounced communion with Photius and anathematized him and his own Legates for no other reason but because he was laugh'd at for a Tame-man o Bin. Not. in vit Joh. Octavi Andr. Schot Praef. ad Photii Bibliothecam and in mockery called a Woman Pope Pope Joan instead of Pope John if he was so weak and unconstant so soon to contradict his own Epistles and his Commonitorium which are confessed to have been sent on purpose to restore Photius for no other reason but because he was upbraided with casting such a reflexion upon his two Predecessours Nicholas the First and Adrian the Second the sworn Enemies of Photius he might then be willing to have his Epistles so altered as to make him most consistent with his Predecessours and with himself But much more would he be inclined to be consenting to such an alteration if there were other motives more forcible for the Truth is Photius was the great Champion for the Liberties of the Greek Church and therefore he must be sure to enjoy no favour from the Church of Rome which began to be as angry with Ignatius when he shewed himself in the same cause For the first breach between the Greek and Latin Churches was occasioned by contentions about Jurisdiction though afterwards it spread it self farther
Oxford so soon after I am yet to learn but it can be no wonder that our Clergy should at that time yield to any thing the Pope desired when the Archbishop of Canterbury had had so fresh an Instance of his Power who had been suspended in this very Council of Lateran and was willing to comply with any thing that might advance his Interest at Rome The Pope openly styled King John his Vassal and had reduced all Christendom to such dependence and obedience that there was not one of those secular Princes and States that gave their attendance at this Council but were some way or other obnoxious to him and stood in awe of him the Croisade left the Popes at liberty to play their own game at home and had gained them more in the East than could ever be gotten by all the Councils that were ever called Henry Brother to Baldwin Earl of Flanders was then possessed of Constantinople with the Title and Honour of Greek Emperour and the four Eastern Patriarchs were all Western Bishops one Frenchman and three Italians who held their Patriarchates of the Pope and were never owned in their respective Titular Sees Upon this account 't is rather strange that any demur should be made to this Pope's Dictates in Council or that this Council should not be every where reverenced as an Oracle than that one Nation which had smarted so much under the Pope's displeasure should acknowledge it in his Successour's days for Honorius the Third was no degenerate Successour to Innocent the Third and our Nation then had learnt to submit to harder terms than these yet sure there must be something in these Decrees very irksome which could not pass the Votes of an Assembly so entirely addicted to the Pope and here is no mention of the Doctrines of the Lateran Council in that of Oxford besides 't is remarkable that Richard Bishop of Sarisbury An. MCCXVII two years after the Council cites it c. 7. yet c. 4. where he gives an Exposition of the Catholick Faith does not follow this Council in putting down Transubstantiation for one Article of it And Sir Roger Twisden f Historical Vindication cap. 8. p. 165. shews that notwithstanding this Council of Oxford the fourth Council of Lateran was not received in England Not to dissemble any thing material in this business Mat. Paris himself g Ad Annum MCCXLVI relates that the Arch-deacon of Saint Albans quotes the twenty first Canon as a Canon of this Council and so Innocent the Fourth calls it but Alexander the Fourth takes not the least notice of this Canon when he reverses Innocent's Decree in favour of the Monks giving them liberty to hear Confessions without the consent of the Parish Priests nor do his Cardinals when he advised with them h Launoii explicat Tradit Eccles circa Canon utriusque sexûs c. 2. upon this occasion in the Instrument which they drew up about that Controversie make mention of any Canon of a General Council in favour of the Parish-Priests But whether it were that it could not be easily believed that so many men should meet together to no purpose or that Innocent's Decrees in the Lateran Council were mistaken for the Decrees of the Council it self or whether Innocent the Fourth having called it a General Council 't was thought no good manners to contradict him however it were in process of time the Canons were owned as genuine and some of them more early than one would expect as may be seen particularly of the twenty first Canon Omnis utriusque sexûs c. Yet after all a late Doctour of the Sorbon with the Approbation of the Faculty i Du Pin Dissert p. 573. has concluded from the foregoing Arguments that no Canons were made by the Council but that some Decrees onely being framed by the Pope and read in Council some of them to the major part seemed burthensome § X. The first Council of Lyons A. D. MCCXLV 1. Launoy k Ep. part 7. ad Raymundum Formentinum p. 228 c. proves against Bellarmin that the first Council of Lyons under Innocent the Fourth was not General because Innocent in his Sentence against Frederick though he often mentions the Council yet never calls it General or Universal or OEcumenical and so in his Epistles to the Arch-bishop of Sens and to the Chapter of that Church to the Bishops of England and to the Bishop of Ostia he never so much as once calls it General which certainly he would have done if he could have ascribed to it so great Authority but he called thither onely the King of France the Arch-bishop of Sens and his Chapter besides the Bishops of England and the Bishop of Ostia The Bishops of Italy Sicily Germany Arragon Castile and Portugal it doth not appear that he ever called For Odoricus Rainaldus in his Continuation of Baronius gives a Register of the Epistles which Innocent wrote upon this account but mentions none sent to any of these Bishops I omit says Launoy the Eastern Bishops Qui profectò vocati non fuere who assuredly were not called He shews that Bellarmin contradicts himself in this matter and goes against his own Principles tacitly retracting in his eighteenth Chapter de Concil lib. 1. what he had said in his fifth of this Council and besides does abuse Palmerius and Platina whose Authority he brings to prove it General whereas neither of them say any such thing And thus says he has Bellarmin run himself into such difficulties as he will never be able to get clear of For if the Conditions required by him to make a Council General be true then is this not General if this be General then are not those Conditions rightly lay'd down nor the business truly stated But as for Palmerius and Platina who are falsly quoted he can never bring himself off unless he pretend negligence which indeed makes the case but so much the worse 2. This Council of Lyons is not in Nicolin's Councils printed at Venice MDLXXXV with the Approbation of Sixtus the Fifth under this Title Conciliorum omnium tam Generalium quà m Provincialium quae jam indè ab Apostolicis temporibus hactenus legitimè celebrata haberi potuerunt Caranza likewise and Sylvius either knew nothing of it or thought it not worth their taking notice of 3. But it is more considerable l Burnet's History of the Rights of Princes c. p. 309. that in the late contest between the Pope and the King of France the Court of Rome contending that the Regale are onely Concessions of the Church which were restrained in the Council of Lyons and that therefore they ought not to be extended to Churches which were not then subject to the French the Arch-bishop of Rheims in an Assembly at Paris of twenty six Bishops and six that were named to Bishopricks being chief of the Committy of six deputed to consider the affair of the Regale and make Report
in an Exception to reserve the Liberties of the Gallican Church entire And in the e Id. p. 348. Low Countries when Margaret Dutchess of Parma then Governess there required the Magistrates of every Province to make search whether any thing in the Decrees of the Council of Trent were contrary to the Rights of his Catholick Majesty or to the ancient customs of their Countrey they animadverted upon several Chapters particularly upon C. 5. Sess 24. which the French likewise particularly except against and they said it was an Innovation and the King might insist upon his Ancient Right 3. I think nothing can be a greater Evidence that this Council was not General than the opposition of National Churches in behalf of their particular Privileges in points of Reformation for a General Council may undoubtedly prescribe to particular Churches in matters of Discipline as the first General Councils did and oblige them to a compliance for the peace and benefit of the whole and the Council must be judge what is most conducing to that end To deny this Authority to a General Council is plainly to lay its Authority quite aside and to receive onely as much of it as particular Churches shall think fit for it were an extravagant thing to demand absolute obedience and submission in matters of Faith when points of Discipline are insisted upon against the express Decrees of the Council a Council may err in Doctrine but if it have any Authority this must extend at least to points of Discipline which are in themselves indifferent and may be altered as it shall seem most conducing to the good of the whole Church * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euseb de Vita Constantini lib. 3. cap. 20. Constantine after the Council of Nice not onely determined the Controversie against Arius but the time of keeping of Easter and other things of Order and Discipline to which all Churches submitted whatever eager Debates they had had amongst themselves before The erecting the Churches of Constantinople and Jerusalem into Patriarchates and the settling of Church-Government was performed in the four first General Councils yet nothing was objected against the Authority of Councils in such Affairs nor did the Churches placed under the Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople insist upon their particular Privileges onely the Church of Rome was unwilling to have Constantinople equalled to her self and therefore made a troublesome but fruitless opposition in the Council of Chalcedon 4. But if at this day the Church of France be so jealous of her Privileges in matters of Discipline we have much more reason to be carefull of the Privileges of our common Christianity in matters of Faith if she insist that her Bishops have Authority to decide the Causae Majores i. e. all Debates arising whether in matters of Faith or Discipline according to the Decrees of General Councils how can it be denied us to defend the Ancient Faith according to General Councils truly such if they reject the Decrees of Reformation how shall we subscribe Pope Pius's Creed nay how shall they subscribe it not by virtue of any obligation from this Church but because they otherwise think the Articles of it True and for the contrary reason we cannot subscribe them because we think them false so that the Authority of the Council of Trent is really laid aside on both hands and the merits of the cause must be the onely thing in Debate For to say that a General Council properly speaking cannot abridge a particular Church of her Privileges is to say that a particular Church is above a General Council or at least exempt from its Jurisdiction This is well enough understood at Rome where Gerbais's Book in defence of the Gallican Privileges is condemned § XVIII I have done now with their Councils and have shewn how far Papists themselves have been from thinking them infallible or from acknowledging most of them to be General whatever credit they may have gained by the ignorance and superstition of latter Ages when every Assembly of Bishops greater than ordinary was esteemed a General Council and every General Council voted it self infallible For 't is certain that in the most ignorant Ages they first fansied themselves infallible and then took the liberty to say and doe what they thought fit and so imposed many superstitious conceits and gainfull Projects on the world for infallible Truths It now remains onely to consider whether we can meet with any better satisfaction from the consent of the present Roman Church and to enquire whether there be any expedient to reconcile these differences concerning the Authority of their several Councils But here we are so far at a loss that we find them in nothing more disagreeing than in the very Fundamental Point upon which all the Authority of Councils depends and so disagreeing in this they must be at an eternal disagreement concerning the Councils themselves For some making the Pope above a General Council others a General Council above the Pope and a third sort making them co-ordinate those that place infallibility in the Pope alone have little reason to regard a Council and those that place it in a Council alone do upon occasion as little respect the Pope or judge of General Councils by Bellarmin's Rule and seek no farther than for the Pope's confirmation but those that think it is in neither separately can acquiesce in the Determinations neither of Pope nor Council unless they both concur unanimously in their Determinations and whoever make the Church diffusive to be the Judge of what Councils are General and what are not so are still at a wider difference from all the rest § XIX Our English Papists seem generally to be of the last Opinion placing the Authority of the Church in the Agreement of the Pope with a General Council but making the Authority of General Councils to depend upon the Reception of the Church diffusive hereby placing the Authority Executively onely in General Councils confirmed by the Pope but fundamentally and radically in the Church upon whose Approbation all depends but by Church they understand onely the governing part of it and such as would have had a right to vote if they had been assembled in Council This is the Doctrine advanced in the Book so much valued by our English Papists The Guide in Controversies and because this way has most Artifice and Amusement in it they are willing to put the issue here though most of their Priests must needs have great Prejudices against it from a foreign Education For the French are of the second opinion and the Pope with all his Adherents of the first How well the Guide's Hypothesis has been accepted abroad I am not able to say but it will be best guessed at by the contest that has been about the two other opinions whether the Parties seem inclinable to admit of the Guide as a Reconciler § XX. The Jesuites are for no less than a Personal
Infallibility in the Pope and that in matters of Fact. This is the Dispute so hotly debated of late years between them and the Jansenists For the Pope having condemned five Propositions in a Posthumous Book of Jansenius entituled Augustinus Forms were drawn up to be subscribed under pain of Excommunication though the Propositions could no where be found in that Book But as the Flatterers of the Court of Rome first raised the Pope above a General Council to secure him against the Reformation in Capite Membris which the other Bishops have so often required so the Jesuites have extended his Infallibility yet farther even to matters of Fact and so whatever he determins must be right in all cases It was upon these grounds that Subscription was to be made to the five Propositions by the Seculars and by the Regulars of both Sexes and was enforced not onely by the Pope but by the Gallican Church Notwithstanding certain Divines and the Nuns of the Port Royal resused to make the Subscription enjoyned not that they made any scruple of the Doctrine it self which they were required to acknowledge but because the contrary to it was no where to be found in the Book condemned but the Pope they said had been imposed upon by those who pretended to have taken the Propositions out of that Book Hereupon arose a Controversie concerning the Infallibility of the Church and of the Pope the Jesuites maintaining that the Pope cannot be mistaken in a matter of Fact and that therefore the Propositions are in that Book whatever ordinary Readers may think of it his Holiness has determined so and he cannot be mistaken For they f Les Imaginaires les Visionnaires la Traitè de la foy humaine Octavo à Cologne 1683. p. 81 86 88. make no scruple to assert that the Pope is as infallible in matters of Fact as our Saviour himself that he saw with the eyes of the Church as they phrase it and discovered those Propositions by the illumination of the Holy Ghost This is but what the Jesuites maintained in that famous Thesis of Decemb. 12. MDCLXI in the College of Clermont as a Catholick Truth repugnant to the Greek Heresie concerning the Primacy of the Pope viz. That Jesus Christ hath given to all Popes whenever they shall speak è Cathedra the same infallibility himself had both in matters of Right and of Fact. The Nuns of the Port Royal and all others that refused to sign the Formulary wherein the five Propositions of Jansenius are condemned were used with great severity and the Archbishop of Paris would not be dissuaded from imposing the Subscription But however the Church of France might stand affected towards the Pope at that time and in that affair yet the opinion against the Pope's Infallibility is so generally maintained in that Church that it is almost peculiar to it and is termed g New Heresie of the Jesuites p. 79. by the Jesuites Sententia Parisiensis A.D. MDCLXXXII the French Clergy in a Synod held at Paris determined that a General Council is above the Pope according to the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Sessions of the Council of Constance Against this Determination Emanuel à Schelstrate the present Vatican Library-keeper wrote a Book printed at Antwerp An. Dom. MDCLXXXIII wherein he endeavours to shew from ancient Manuscripts that those Decrees of the Council of Constance which have passed so long upon the World for authentick and were so often approved and confirmed in the Council of Basil are notwithstanding false and he sticks not to affirm that they were partly falsified by the Council of Basil and partly obtruded upon the Council of Constance against the consent of a great number in it and in the absence of others and so have been imposed upon the Church ever since in so many Editions and by so many Licences and Approbations particularly by the Bull of Paul the Fifth before the Roman Edition of the Councils and had the good luck never to be discovered by any before himself when he now sets himself to oppose the Determination of the French Clergy 2. But M. Schelstrate is not the onely man that opposed the Gallican Church in this Controversie For George Szelepechemy Archbishop of Gran and Primate of Hungary put forth his Synodical Letter containing a Censure of the four Propositions in which h Vide Not as in Censur Hungaricam 4. proposition Cleri Gallicani apud Edmun Richer Vindicias Doctrin major Schol. Paris is this assertion Ad solam sedem Apostolicam divino immutabili privilegio spectat de controversiis Fidei judicare It onely belongs to the Apostolick See by a Divine immutable Privilege to judge of Controversies in the Faith. And he with his Bishops were so zealous in the defence of that Doctrine that they profess in the conclusion they would spend the last drop of their Bloud rather than depart in the least from it This Proposition Jan. 30. MDCLXXXIII the Parliament of Paris delivered to M. Edmund Pirot Syndick of the Faculty to be examined which when the Faculty had received from him on the first of February they chose certain of their body to study and consider the Point and then after due deliberation to give their Judgment upon it This they did March the first and asterwards for three months together in their several Assemblies which were no less than fourty five in number the Question was propounded to be disputed upon and when they had by this means throughly debated and concluded the Controversie they declared That the Proposition as it excludes Bishops and General Councils from that Authority which they have immediately from Christ in judging in matters of Faith is rash erroneous contrary to the practice of the Church and to the Word of God as well as to the constant Doctrine of the Faculty This answer the Faculty of the Sorbon gave to the question May the eighteenth and then reviewing it the day following confirmed it moreover from the several Censures which had been formerly passed by their Body in this and former Ages upon such Tenets Thus that Reverend and Learned Society i Censura sacrae Facultatis Theolog. Paris ad dandum Senatui responsum data in propositionem de qua ille quaesierat quid ipsa sentiret Parisiis 1683. made the most deliberate and solemn determination that could be possibly made in any case But the controversie would not end here for another Authour under the name of Eugenius Lombardus took the Propositions into Examination MDCLXXXV and in contradiction to them asserts that the Pope has Authority to depose Kings that he is above a General Council that he is Infallible when he determines è Cathedra that he can dispense with Oaths and Vows made to God Almighty And the same year M. Maimbourg answered M. Schclstrate but Schelstrate replyed the year following and so the dispute is still depending unless we can suppose the desence of