life in great favour at Rome yet has he since been very ill treated by F. Raynaud a Jesuit at Lyons for his great caution and restraint in a matter of that importance p. 85 86. he shews that this Doctrine by degrees gained ground till the Jesuits growing daily more insolent proceeded to that extravagant Thesis of the College of Clermont wherein they dared to maintain publickly in the midst of Paris it self and in the face of the Parliament that Jesus Christ has given to all Popes whenever they shall speak è Cathedrâ the same Infallibility himself had as well in matters of Fact as of Right Great care is taken to suppress all Books which thwart this Doctrine and to publish and give credit to such as may infuse it Baronius and his Continuators are the Authours for History chiefly in vogue and these without coming near him in his Excellencies infinitely surpass him in his Faults He particularly observes Raynaldus to have been a Man without the Spirit of are Ecclesiastick without style without judgment without sincerity without credit yet he had the boldness to dedicate his eighteenth Tome to the French Clergy and presented it to the Assembly of the Clergy 1660 and though this Doctrine of the Authority of Councils is every where styled Schismatical and Heretical the Pragmatick Sanction vilified the Council of Basil outraged and all the Popes who possessed the See in Avignon during the Schism pronounced Antipopes who are the onely Popes that France has acknowledged though the most undefensible pretences of the Church of Rome are every where justified yet all the disfavour or discouragement that Book met with was that Raynaldus did not receive a Letter of thanks from the French Clergy as he expected but no Sentence being passed upon it this silence as my Authour observes will be one day taken for a tacit approbation and the Abettors of the Court of Rome believe with great reason that they have however gained a main point since there has been nothing positively done against such a Work presented to the whole Clergy besides the advantage gained by having such Books received and read without prohibition that may instill those Principles p. 94 c. whereas the Episcopal Decrees of the Bishops of France have been treated by the Bishops of Rome to that degree of indignity as to be ranged among the condemned Books without vouchsafing either to clear it with the Bishops before Censure or to render them any Account of what they thought amiss afterwards p. 71. After all the hideous outcries against Richerius when he requested of a certain Bishop one of Cardinal Perron's intimate Friends that he might have a fair hearing and liberty allow'd him to offer what he had to say in defence of his Book de Ecclesiastica Potestate the Bishop freely told him that he had made himself so many Enemies not by writing Errours but too plain and unpleasing Truths that though there was nothing could be disproved in his Book yet the Church-men had much rather have their sole dependence on the Pope than to have the perpetual trouble and dissatisfaction of appearing before Secular Judges Richer Pref. ad Conc. Gen. The Pope promised the D. of Espernon a Cardinalship for his Son if he would deliver him Richerius into the Inquisition whereupon he was thrust into Prison but the whole Vniversity of Paris interceded for him to the Parliament and upon a full hearing he was released but the Pope recompensed the Duke's good will with the promised reward to his Son. And when Richelieu requested a red Hat of Urban the Eighth for his Brother Richerius's retractation was the price must be paid for it The Apostolick Notary comes to Paris and is entertained by F. Joseph a Capuchin who having left his Convent then lived in the City This F. Joseph was Richelieu's Confessour and was employ'd by him to prepare all business first and then to bring it to him Butillerius Pater Josephus Capucinus negotia cruda accipiunt cocta ad Cardinalem deferunt Grot. Lett. 375. Par. 1. In Easter Week an acquaintance of F. Joseph's one of the Sorbon and a great Friend as he pretended to Richerius is sent to the good Man to invite him in F. Joseph's name to dinner that so he might give his opinion in a point of Controversie Richerius excused it saying he never frequented Feasts but he would wait upon him after Dinner but being pressed to come not to be uncivil he comply'd As soon as Dinner was done a Question was designedly mov'd concerning the Pope's Authority of which when Richerius discoursed modestly as his manner was F. Joseph tells him now says he you must either retract your Book which you formerly writ de Ecclesiastica Politica Potestate or die for it at that certain Ruffians rushed forth armed from behind the Hangings and threatned to murther him in this dreadfull surprize the poor old Man subscribed a Retractation ready prepared and drawn up for him and immediately was carried home where when he considered what he had done he wrote this Account of the business to his Friend Morisotus lamenting extremely his own timorousness and fainting under this Calamity so much more grievous than Death to him he had scarce sealed his Letter but flinging himself upon his Bed he dy'd Claudii Barthol Morisoti Epist ad Carelum in fin Vindic Doctr. c. Rich. lib. 4. p. 100. How little better Launoy fared is sufficiently known from an Account of his Life lately printed at London Whilst these are the proceedings against the Advocates for the Gallican Church its Adversaries are encouraged and their Works in high esteem The Abridgment of the Councils by Coriolanus was printed at Paris and revised by a Dr. of the Faculty though all the contrary Maxims to the Doctrine of the Gallican Church are set at the beginning of the Book as so many Catholick Doctrines And the Councils are published by men devoted to the Pope for the Jesuites have ever had the Government of the Royal Press and in printing the Councils have left in the Life of Boniface the Eighth these outragious words as the Advocate justly terms them against all France Philippum Pulchrum Galliae Regem justè excommunicavit and this printed at the King's House at his own Charges New Heresie p. 100. Nor is there the least intimation given that that Pope exceeded his Authority when he threatned to depose him vit Bonif. Octavi Tom. 28. pag. 676. And though Cossartius takes notice that Binius was mistaken in saying Philip was justly excommunicated whereas he was not indeed at all excommunicated yet is not one word said but that he might deserve to be excommunicated or any thing to the contrary but that the Pope did very well in threatning him with Deposition Conc. Labbé Tom. 2. part 2. p. 1389. The judicious Advocate abovementioned foresaw what was to be expected from this last Edition of the Councils which was then in hand for
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
distinguish betwixt Latria and Doulia as Bellarmin himself and then proves that neither of them may be given to Images That the Council of Frankford could be ignorant of the Doctrine established at Nice can seem probable to no man who considers that the Pope had caused the Canons of Nice to be translated into Latin that his Legates were present at Frankford and that they refused to consent to the Decree of that Council as Bellarmin and Baronius affirm To imply that the Bishops at Frankford did not understand Greek might pass well enough from Sirmondus but might have been spared by men of no greater accuracy in that Tongue than the two Cardinals if not one among them all were skilled in the Greek yet why could they not read the Translation why could they not consult the Legates The Cardinals perhaps might be sensible enough how liable men are to mistakes for want of a little Greek and Anastasius a Praefat. in septim Synod Concil Tom. 7. Col. 29. says the Translation was very perplext and hardly intelligible but I can never be persuaded that the Legates would stand by and deny their consent and yet not endeavour to undeceive the Council and at least advise them to send to Rome for Instructors Pope Adrian wrote himself in defence of the Synod of Nice which he had confirmed and so must be allowed to understand it and Greek could then be no very strange Language at Rome nor consequently at Frankford neither among three hundred Bishops gathered together from all parts of the West when the Pope had so lately renounced his Allegiance to the Greek Emperour and yet still a correspondence was held between Rome and C. P. by Adrian with Constantine and Irene and Tarasius b Concil Tom. 7. as appears by their Letters 5. But 't is in vain to argue from probabilities if the Canon it self as is pretended be grounded upon a mistake Allata est in medium quaestio de novâ Graecorum Synodo quam de adorandis Imaginibus Constantinopoli fecerunt in quâ scriptum habebatur ut qui imaginibus sanctorum ita ut Deifici Trinitati servitium aut adorationem non impenderet anathema judicaretur qui supra sanctissimi Patres nostri omnimodis orationem aut servitutem eis impendere renuentes contempserunt atque consentientes condemnaverunt The question about the new Greek Synods held at C. P. about Worshipping of Images was then debated therein it was written that whosoever should not pay that Service or Adoration to the Images of the Saints which he would pay to the B. Trinity should be anathematized whereupon our Holy Fathers by all means refusing to pray to them or pay them service despised and unanimously condemned it Here is first C. P. mistaken for Nice and then it is said that the same Worship is under Anathema commanded to be given to Images which is given to the blessed Trinity Sirmondus c Not. in Concil Francoford Conc. vol. 7. Col. 1066. is so ingenuous as to propose a way of reconciling the first mistake of C. P. for Nice by supposing that the Synod is said to have been at C. P. not that it was held in that City but because it was in the Constantinopolitane Empire and at the command of the Greek Emperour Constantine and his Mother Irene This I must confess seems to me strained but it were yet a grearer force upon the imagination to be told that Charles the Great with three hundred Bishops met together to condemn the Worship of Images decreed in a General Council about seven years before should yet not be certified where this Decree was made nor be able to distinguish Nice from C. P. and that the same Pope should send his Legates to both Synods and yet give them no better instructions than to suffer them to be ignorant in so late a matter of Fact which must be known all over Europe For when the Worship of Images which had undergone so much debate and had been the cause of so great Troubles and occasioned the calling divers Councils but had never the good luck to succeed was at last in a General Council enjoyned under Anathema and when the Popes Legates at their coming from the Council brought a Copy of it subscribed by Constantine and Irene which the same Pope that now sent his Legates to Frankford commanded to be translated into Latin and placed in his Library when the Pope himself had answered the objections propos'd by the Emperour against this very Council of Nice who can conceive that the whole Transaction should not be noised abroad and talked of in all places and among all persons and in all its circumstances so exactly known that it would have been impossible to have picked out three hundred men of any tolerable rank and conversation who could be ignorant that the General Council of Nice had at length decided the vexatious controversie about Images If its judgment had been acquiesced in as infallible or but of sufficient Authority to enforce any submission upon the conscience it certainly had been taken more notice of than to be unknown to any man of ordinary observation in its less material circumstances of time and place and number of Bishops the Doctrine however had been taught and practised every where among all sorts of People or if it had been rejected by some yet these would have found themselves obliged to give an account why they rejected it and so to enquire thorowly into it but to suppose so many Western Bishops with the Pope's Legates among the rest and the Emperour himself in the midst of them so grosly and even stupidly ignorant as to know neither the Doctrine it self nor the place where the Synod was held but seven years before is to cast too great a blemish upon the Western Church and would be apt to make men suspect that the Western Clergy at that time could make no pretence to the least share of infallibility either in a Council or out of it The Emperour's Book mentions the Greek Council as held in Bithynia and it were extreme weakness to imagine that Charles the Great after he had been at the pains to write a Book upon the subject or had ordered one to be written had not intelligence good enough to set the Synod right in the circumstance of place at least if any will be so free with him as to say he was rash enough to oppose he knew not what 6. But to free that wise and great Emperour and the whole Western Church from so stupid an absurdity It can be no wonder that the Decree concerning Image-worship should be related in the Council of Frankford as made at C. P. to him who remembers that the first meeting of the Nicene Fathers was at C. P. and that there first they began to Anathematize those who were against the worship of Images but finding C. P. too hot for them were forced to remove to Nice And this may give a
farther account why the Doctrine condemned in the Canon of Frankford doth not so exactly agree with the definition made at Nice where it is probable they might think fit to be more moderate and cautious in their expressions after they had experience how ill the Doctrine of Image-worship was thought of at C. P. and with how great difficulty it was like upon any terms to be received The Council of Frankford might be content to use the like moderation and not directly to oppose that Council in the face of his Legates which had after a sort been defended by the Pope himself since it was sufficient in the end of the Canon to add such a clause as excludes all worship of Images whatsoever Qui suprà sanctissimi Patres nostri omnimodis orationem aut servitutem eis impendere renuentes contempsorunt atque consentientes condemnarunt They might not be unwilling to spare the name of a Council that had gone before them in condemning the Heresie of Felix and Elipandus and after the dispute between the Emperour and the Pope the Emperour might perhaps think fit to try this expedient for an Accommodation of a thing that had been of so ill consequence and so might give order to omit the mention of Nice and not to engage the Pope's Legates at Frankford to condemn the same Popes Legates at Nice but nevertheless to have the thing it self condemned as effectually as if all the Fathers of Nice had been particularly named For it is observed that Charles the Great and his Son Lewis after him had a particular care to give the Popes good words and to keep fair with them when they most withstood their designs and thus Lewis carryed it in this very case of Images when the worship of them was condemned in the Council of Paris This is the account which to me seems most probable but however that the Nicene Council was condemned not onely at Frankford but generally in the West and shortly after in the East too is as clear as the light Maimburg and Natalis Alex. are so hard put to it after all their endeavours to palliate and reconcile these two Councils that they are forced to pretend that Charles the Great was enraged at Constantine the Greek Emperour because he refused to marry his Sister and so in revenge called this Council at Frankford in opposition to Constantine's Council at Nice and the Images and Image-worshipers it seems suffered all the hard names and bad usage at Frankford because Constantine loved Images better than the Lady An honourable revenge for Charles the Great to vent his spleen upon the poor Images which I suppose were all against the Match But the captious and frivolous cavils of those two Writers are particularly and fully answered by a Hist Imag. Sect. 6. 7. Spanhemius and are not much material to be here considered 7. 'T is certain the Council of Nice had been before condemned in Britain b Mabillon Praef. ad Acta Sanctorum Benedict part 1. § 4. p. 15. and Alcuinus had written against it and in the name of the Princes and Bishops had sent a Censure of it to the Emperour together with the Acts of the Council which the Emperour had before sent into Britain and this probably was the first Draught of the Opus Carolinum which Adrian replyed to A Synod at Paris owned by Sirmondus c Tom. Concil 7. Mabillon ibid. and Mabillon notwithstanding Bellarmin's pretended confutation condemned Image-worship and the Second Council of Nice with the two Epistles of Adrian one to Charles the Great in defence of it and another to Constantine and Irene to persuade them to call it Adrian wrote his Defence for the direction of the Francks and Anastasius d Praef. ad Synod VII informs us that the French were not reconciled to this Council nor to the worship of Images in his time and not onely Mabillon but Bellarmin e Bellarmin Script Eccl. in Jonas Aurelianens Mabillon ib. p. 16. himself confesses that Jonas Aurelianensis Agobardus and generally the French Writers of that age were against the worship of Images and condemned the Council of Nice which likewise had been done in the beginning of this Century DCCCXIV in a Council at C. P. called by Leo Armenius yet the Embassadours from the Greek Emperours to Lewis le Debonnaire in DCCCXXIV complain of the horrible abuses that were then got into that Church that the Greeks had thrown down Crosses in their Churches and set up Images in their room that they lighted Candles before them and offered Incense to them that they adored them with singing Hymns to them and asking help of them and by a most ridiculous superstition made them Godmothers to their Children and that some Priests had dared to doe what cannot be mentioned without horrour they scraped off the paint from Images and mingled it with the Wine at the Sacrament and had been guilty of other such like abuses others put the Sacramental Bread into the hands of Images and from them received the Communion and others forsook the Churches and in private houses made use of Tables set before Images to consecrate the Sacrament upon It was on this a Mabillon ib. p. 15.24 occasion that Lewis le Debonnaire called the Council above mentioned at Paris wherein a Book was compiled to shew that Images are not at all to be worshiped which he sent to the Pope but with order to mitigate some passages and to manage the controversie so dextrously as to give least offence to his Holiness These proceedings had such success that Nicholas the First in his Council held at Rome and in the relation he gives of it to Michael the Emperour and Adrian the Second in his Epistle to Carolus Calvus mentions but six General Councils the seventh not being then received into the number not because it was not yet turned into Good Latin as the b Vid. Conc. vol. 8. p. 287.774 Annotator would persuade us but because it was not thought to contain sound Doctrine for since it was confirmed by the Pope what prejudice could that be to the reception though it had been in a Tongue as unknown to the Priests as that which their Prayers are in is to the People When Ado Archbishop of Vienne in the prosession of Faith which upon his promotion to that See he sent to Nicholas the First declared that he approved the four General Councils making no mention of the rest Nicholas notwithstanding sends him the Pall but withall writes to know what he thought of the fifth and sixth Councils not requiring him to say c Mabillon ibid. p. 27. any thing of the seventh And indeed all the Patriarchs of the East except the Patriarch of C. P. used to make mention in their Synodical Epistles but of six General Councils as the Encyclica of Photius shews and as Baronius d Tom. 10. ad Annum DCCCLXIII p. 247. who first published it does not
gainsay Which made the Authour of the e Mabillon ibid. p. 27. Annales Berliniani observe that the eighth Synod had defined concerning Images contrary to what the Orthodox had defined before For the controversie about Images was again under debate at C. P. when Nicholas the First f Nichol. I. Epist Conc. vol. 8. sent his Legate thither and their chief business was to decide it for they were to act nothing in the cause of Photius but onely to enquire how things had been managed Afterwards under Adrian the Second DCCCLXX while the eighth General Council was sitting there appears to have been another Synod opposing the worship of Images which they anathematize and it was one part of their business to establish that worship * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Tom. 8. col 1360. So that this Council of Nice was received neither in the East nor in the West during one Century after it was held Nay it has been lately shewn that till the fifteenth Century the veneration of Images was rejected by the most eminent persons of the Western Church g Fallibility of the Church of Rome demonstrated from the second Council of Nice c. 4. sess 6. Afterwards Images and the Council of Nice had a blessed time of it and the People grew fond of these which they call Laymens Books when their Priests could scarce reade any other And though it may well be expected that the extravagance of this dotage should be much abated since the Reformation especially in France where Popery is new modelled and refined to that degree yet even there sober men complain and lament but cannot remedy the excess of it in our days †Mabil ib. p. 28. Richer Hist Gen. Conc. Lib. 1. cap. 11. § 13. The eighth Gen. Council or the fourth C. of C. P. An. DCCCLXX The Dates of thse 3 Councils are according to Labbe's Edition VII 1. There are no fewer than four Councils which lay claim to the title of the eighth General Council and the Pope was present either in person or by his Legates in them all Three of these were held at C. P. The first DCCCLXI in which Ignatius Patriarch of C. P. was deposed the next DCCCLXX in which he was restored and Photius deposed the third DCCCLXXIX when after the death of Ignatius Photius was again placed in that See. The fourth * Vid. Not. ad Conc. C.P. IV. col 1491. Conc. vol. VIII which goes under the name of the eighth General Council is that of Florence of which I shall forbear to speak till we come to it in order 2. The Council of C. P. which condemned Photius is esteemed the eighth General Council by the Latins generally and that which restored him by the Greeks by Zonaras Balsamon Psellus Nilus c. Marcus Ephesinus h Sess VI. in principio in the Council of Florence maintains in the name of the whole Greek Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Marc. Ephes in Conc. Flor. Ses 6. col 87. Conc. vol. 13. that the Council of C. P. which restored Photius had nulled the Council which the Latins call'd the eighth General Council in which Ignatius was restored and Photius deposed and that this Council was confirmed by John the Eighth and that in the same Synod it was determined that the addition of Filióque should be taken out of the Creed and therefore from that time in the Great Church at C. P. they used he says to denounce Anathema to whatever had been written or spoken against the holy Patriarchs Photius and Ignatius To this the Cardinal Julian with whom Marcus Ephesinus had the Dispute could find nothing to reply for which he is very much blamed by another Cardinal who never was at such a loss but he always had something to say I mean Baronius 'T is plain the Bishop of Rhodes who in the next Session undertook to answer Marcus Ephesinus knew very little of the matter for he pretends to speak onely upon Probabilities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I say that this does not by any means seem probable He objects that the Pope nor his Legates did not preside in Photius's Council as if the Greeks had ever thought that necessary he makes no exceptions against any particulars in the Acts of the Synod as not authentick but would prove in general that there never was such a Synod because the Pope nor his Legates did not preside in it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. col 127. for if they had argues he there would have been some remembrance of that Synod in the Latin Church whereas the Epistles and Commonitorium of John the Eighth shew that there was such a Synod and that his Legates did preside in it and Baronius proves that his Legates for their compliance were excommunicated at their return to Rome 3. Nor is it a Pretence of the Greeks onely that this styled the fourth Council of C.P. wherein Photius was condemned is vacated but the Epistles of Pope John the Eighth to this very purpose are cited by Ivo Carnutensis i Parti 4. cap. 76 77. in his Collection of Decrees The Constantinopolitan Synod which was made against Photius is to be rejected Constantinopolitanam Synodum eam quae contra Photium facta est non esse recipiendam Joannes VIII Patriarchae Photino Illam quae contra Photium facta est Constantinopolitanam Synodum irritam fecimus omnino delevimus tum propter alia tum quoniam Adrianus Papa non subscripsit in ea De eodem Joannes Apocrisiariis suis Dicetis quod illas Synodos quae contra Phorium sub Adriano Papa Romae vel Constantinopoli sunt facta cassamus de numero sanctarum Synodorum delemus John the Eighth to Photinus the Patriarch We have vacated and entirely abolished the Constantinopolitan Synod which was made against Photius as well for other reasons as because Pope Adrian did not subscribe in it Of the same thing John to his Apocrisiarii Ye shall say that we vacate and dash out of the number of the holy Synods all those Synods which were held against Photius under Pope Adrian at Rome or at Constantinople The same Authour in his Prologue or Preface quotes another of Pope John's Epistles at large written to the Eastern Churches wherein he tells them that they had been too hasty in restoring Photius without his knowledge but for all that he was well enough contented and brings several arguments to shew that Photius might be restored notwithstanding any sentence which had passed upon him He there compares Photius's cafe not with that of the Donatists but of St. Athanasius St. Cyril and Polichronius of St. Chrysostome and Flavianus and then concludes that if the Donatists who had been cast out of the Church by a General Council Nullâ—s excuset pro Synodis contra eum peractis nullus sanctorum Praedecessorum meorum Nicolai Adriani sententias contra eutn causetur De ipso enim
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
a Richer Hist Conc. Gen. lib. 1. c. 7. § 9. For in the Epistle of Celestine to that Council in the Edition of Theodorus Peltanus it runs thus We have sent Arcadius and Projectus Bishops and Philip a Presbyter to you c. who having taken our care upon themselves shall be present at your Acts and shall confirm your Decrees by their suffrage and we doubt not but your Holiness will admit them to give their Votes and to a common consent and let whatsoever you shall decree be looked upon as definitions and decrees made for the common tranquillity of the Church b Ephes Cor. Act. 2. Misimus ad vos Arcadium Projectum Episcopos Philippum Presbyterum c. qui nostra in se cura suscepta Actis vestris intererunt quaeque à vobis sunt constituta suo calculo denuò confirmabunt non dubitamus autem quin sanctitas vestra illos ad communem consensum sententiaeque dictionem sit admissura quae verò decreveritis ea pro omnium Ecclesiarum tranquillitate habeantur definite decretáque And with this Edition of Peltanus agrees that of Antonius Contius though his be a different Version whereas the Roman Edition has it thus We have in our solicitude for the peace of the Church directed our holy Brethren and fellow Priests c. Arcadius and Projectus c. who may be present when every thing is done and who may execute those things which have been before decreed by us to whom we doubt not but your Holiness will give your Assent since what is done seems to be decreed for the security of the Universal Church c Edit Rom. Part. 2. Act. 3. Direximus pro nostra solicitudine sanctos Fratres Consacerdotes nostros c. Arcadium Projectum c. qui iis quae aguntur intersint quae anteà à nobis sunt statuta exequantur quibus praestandum à vestra sanctitate non dubitamus assensum quando id quod agitur videtur pro Vniversalis Ecclesiae securitate decretum And according to the Roman Edition is the Greek of Hieronymus Comelinus An. MDXCI and all the Editions of the Councils ever since the Roman It is very pleasant to observe that Binius in his Notes upon the Council of Chalcedon quotes the Sentence against Dioscorus to prove the Pope's Supremacy and that it might be sure to make for his purpose he quotes it otherwise than it is printed in his own Edition which though Mr. Crashaw gave notice of it in his Letter to Binius yet remains unalter'd still in Labbé's Edition Pithoeus finds d De Process Sp. Sancti p. 35. fault with Surius for omitting the Acts of that debate which after the fourth General Council of C. P. was concluded and subscribed arose between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Popes Legates concerning the Right of ordaining the Archbishop of Bulgaria cujus altercationis non contemnenda Acta à Laur. Surio viro alioqui diligenâ—iae fidei multae in postrema conciliorum Editione praetermissa fuisse non injuria moereor doleo sic enim sentio quod bonâ omnium veniâ dictum velim Christianam veritatem quae Deum autorem ac vindicem habet suâ simplicitate contentam non indigere illis artibus quae nec in humanis quidem actionibus bonus vir ac probus facilè admiserit and if he had lived to this day he would have made the same or greater complaints For Binius and Labbé will scarce pass for honester men than Surius in this or in any other case 4. But to come lower where we may expect a more exact account of things In the Council of Basil the famous * James ibid. p. 101. Lindwood made an Appeal upon account of the Temporalities of our Kings The like Appeal was made by Thomas Bishop of Worcester sent thither in Commission from the King and by Peter Partridge Chancellor of Lincoln in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the whole Clergy of the Land all which is omitted by the Publishers of the Councils and not put into the very last Edition though Dr. James had taken notice of the omission I need not mention the Decree which Caranza has bestowed upon the Council of Florence to introduce the Apocrypha into the number of Canonical Books of Scripture though he f Coci Censura p. 246. is not the onely man that has made use of this Artifice which they are now indeed ashamed of as men always are of Impostures when they are once discovered yet still Caranza is the Authour readiest at hand and is as constant a supply for Councils as the Breviaries are for Fathers But I shall wave all other Instances and hasten to the Council of Trent which gave the finishing hand to all the rest and is it self no very eminent example of fair dealing I take it to be no more an Instance of the Sincerity than of the Infallibility of that Council that the Tridentine Fathers durst not trust the World with a view of their Acts and all the accounts we have had from private hands have been very little for its credit The History of Palavicini has justly been said to be more prejudicial to the Council than that of Father Paul for the latter onely shews how much is to be said against it whereas the former demonstrates how little can be offered in its defence But not to insist upon this who would suspect that the little Book of the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent might not be allowed us entire g Vid. Richerium lib. 4. part 2. Hist Gen. Conc. yet in the French Edition published at Paris MDLXIV by Gentianus Hervetus as soon as he came from the Council and in the Antwerp Edition the same year Cardinal Morone the Pope's Legate concludes the Council in these words Placuit omnibus Patribus finem huic sacro Concilio imponi confirmationémque à Sanctissimo Domino nostro peti tribus duntaxat exceptis qui confirmationem se non petere dixerunt ideóque nos Apostolicae sedis Legati Praesidentes eidem sacro Concilio finem imponimus confirmationem verò quamprimùm à sanctissimo Domino nostro petemus Vos autem Illustrissimi Reverendissimi Patres post gratias Deo actas ite in pace It pleased all the Fathers to put an end to this sacred Council and to beg a Confirmation from the Pope excepting onely three who said they would not desire a Confirmation and therefore we the Legates of the Apostolic See and the Presidents of this holy Council do put an end to it and we shall beg a Confirmation with all speed from the Pope You therefore most Illustrious and Reverend Fathers go in peace But in the Roman Edition printed the same year by Manutius these words Placuit omnibus Patribus c. tribus duntaxat exceptis c. are left out and after the Question put to them by the Legate whether