either truth or untruth 15. But leaving the Cardinall in these bryars seeing by the upright and unpartiall judgement of the whole Catholike Church of all ages we have proved the Popes decree herein to be erroneous and because it is in a cause of faith heretical let us a little examine the two reasons on which Vigilius groundeth this his assertion The former is taken from those words of our Saviour whatsoever ye binde on earth whence as you have seene Vigilius and as he saith Gelasius also collecteth that such as are not on earth or alive cannot be judged by the Church 16. The answer is not hard our Saviours words being well considered are so farre from concluding what Vigilius or Gelasius or both doe thence collect that they clearly and certainly doe enforce the quite contrary for he said not Whatsoever yee binde or loose concerning those that are on earth or living in which sense Vigilius tooke them but Whatsoever concerning either the living or dead ye my Apostles and your successors being upon earth or during your life time shall binde or loose the same according to your censure here passed upon earth shall by my authority bee ratified in heaven The restrictive termes upon earth are referred to the parties who doe binde or loose not to the parties who are bound or loosed The generall terme whatsoever is referred to the parties who are bound or loosed whether they be dead or alive not to the parties who binde or loose who are onely alive and upon earth Nor doth our Saviour say Whatsoever yee seeme to binde or loose here upon earth shall bee bound or loosed in heaven for ecclesiae clave errante no censure doth or can either binde or loose either the quicke or the dead but he saith Whatsoever ye doe binde or loose if the party be once truly and really bound or loosed by you that are upon earth it shall stand firme and bee ratified by my selfe in heaven So the parties who doe binde or loose are the Apostles and their successors onely while they are upon earth the parties who are bound or loosed are any whosoever whether alive or dead the partie who ratifieth their act in binding and loosing is Christ himselfe in heaven For I say unto you whatsoever ye binde on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatsoever yee loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven 17. This exposition is clearly warranted by the judgement of the whole catholike Church which as we have before declared both beleeved taught and practised this authority of binding and loosing not onely upon the living but upon the dead also Of their binding the nocent wee have alleaged before abundance of examples for their loosing the innocent that one of Flavianus is sufficient The Ephesine latrocinie adjudged and condemned Flavianus a most holy and Catholike Bishop for an Hereticke under the censure of that generall Councel Flavianus died nay was martyred by them The Holy Councell at Chalcedon after the death of Flavianus loosed that band wherwith the latrocinious conspirators at Ephesus thought they had fast tyed him but because their key did erre they did not in truth They honored and proclamed Flavianus for a Saint and Martyr whom the faction of Dioscorus had murdered for an heretike the holy Councell feared not to loose him because he was dead their power to binde or loose was onely towards those that are upon the earth or living By which example and warrantie of that holy Councell our Church of latter time imitating the religious pietie of those ancient Bishops restored to their pristine dignitie and honor those reverend Martyrs two Flaviani in their age Bucer and Fagius after their death when a worse then that Ephesine conspiracy had not onely with an erring key bound but even burned them to ashes Now it is rightly observed by Iustinian that if the Church may after their death restore such as being unjustly condemned and falsly supposed to be bound died in their innocency and sincerity of faith it may also by the very same reason condemne and anathematize such after their death who died in their impiety or heresie being charitably perhaps but falsly supposed to have died in the communion of the Catholike Church 18. And truely whether soever of these censures either of binding or loosing the Church useth towards the dead as they both are warranted by the words of Christ and judgement of the Church so in doing either of both they performe an acceptable service to God and an holy duty to the Church of God For as wee professe in our Creed to beleeve the Communion of Saints which in part consisteth in loving praising and imitating all such as we know either now to live or heretofore to have dyed in the faith or for the faith of Christ so doe wee by the same Article of our Creed renounce all communion with whatsoever heretickes either dead or alive and therefore though in their life time they had never beene condemned for such but honored as the servants of God under whose livery they hide their heresies and impieties yet so soone as ever they shall bee manifested to have beene indeed and to have died heretikes we ought forthwith to forsake all communion with them not love them nor speake well of them much lesse imitate them but as Saint Austen saith he would doe of Cacilianus even after their death corde carne anathematizare not making them accursed For that the Church cannot do and themselves have done that already but declaring them to be accursed in truth excluded from the society of God Gods Church and to be such though dead as with whom we can have no more cōmunion then hath light with darknesse faith with heresie God and Beliall nay we should wish that if it were possible there might be such an antipathie and disunion betwixt us and them as is said to have been betwixt Eteocles and Polinices that even our dead bones and ashes might leape from theirs nor sleepe in one Church nor one earth with them from whom one day they shall be eternally severed by a wall of immortality and immortall glory 19. Vigilius his second reason is taken from the rules decrees and Constitutions of their Apostolicke See by name of Pope Leo Gelasius both whō Vigilius saith to have defined this that a dead man might not noviter be condemned was it not enough for Vigilius that himselfe was hereticall herein unlesse he drew his predecessors also into the same crime of defending yea defining heresies How much better had it beseemed him to have covered such hereticall blemishes of their Apostolike See and of so famous Bishops as Leo and Gelasius were if not with a lappe of his robe as the good Emperour would yet at least with silence and oblivion 20. And yet for all this if Vigilius and the defenders of his infallibility will give me leave I am for my owne
part willing to thinke better and more favourably of Leo and Gelasius in this matter specially of Leo whose authority when some defenders of the three Chapters objected to Pope Pelagius as according with them Pelagius replyed not onely that hee could no where remember any such thing in the bookes of Leo but that Leo indeed taught the quite contrary as consenting wholly with Saint Austen who professed that he would anathematize Caecilianus after his death if it could appeare that he were guilty of those crimes Which testimony of Pelagius as it fully cleareth Leo of this heresie so doth it manifest how unjustly Vigilius pretendeth his consent with him in this cause yea and the words of Leo which hee citeth doe declare no lesse In that Epistle Leo intreating of those who by the just censure of the Church were excommunicated or who did not performe the acts required in repentance saith If any of them die before hee obtaine remission quod manens in corpore non receperit consequi exutus carne non poterit hee cannot obtaine that to wit remission of his fault being dead which before his death he had not received And upon these follow the words cited by Vigilius Neither is it needfull that we shold fift the merits or acts of them qui sic obierunt who so die seeing our Lord hath reserved to his justice what the priestly ministerie could not performe to wit the loosing of that band of censure or of sinne under which they dyed Thus Leo who denieth not that men after their death may be condemned but that any who in his life time is not may after his death bee pardoned Hee speakes not of such as have not beene in their life time condemned of which onely Vigilius entreateth but of such who being unpenitent or condemned by the Church die in their sin or under that just censure therefore in the state of condemnation So neither doe the words of Leo signifie any such thing as Vigilius by them intended to prove and Pope Pelagius assureth us that Leo taught the quite contrary to that which out of Leo Vigilius in vaine laboureth to prove 21. The very like construction is to bee given of the words of Gelasius in both the places cited out of him by Vigilius In the former entreating of Acatius he thus saith Let no man perswade you that Acatius is freed from the crime of his prevarication for after he had falne into that wickednesse and deserved to be excluded and that jure by right from the Apostolike communion in hac eâdem persistens damnatione defunctus est hee persisting in this condemnation dyed Absolution cannot bee now granted unto him being dead which he neither desired nor deserved while he lived for it was said to the Apostles Whatsoever yee binde on earth But of him these are the words cited by Vigilius who is now under Gods iudgement that is who is dead in this sort it is not lawfull for us to decree ought else but that in quo eum supremus dies invenit wherein hee was found at the time of his death So Gelasius In which words it is evident that hee speakes not as Vigiâ—lius doth of such as in their life time were not condemned nor denieth hee that such may after their death when their heresie is discovered be condemned but of such as being in their life time justly condemned dye impenitent in that estate and of such he denyeth that after their death they can be absolved A truth so cleare that Binius sets this marginall note upon it Qui impoenitens mortuus est excommunicatus post mortem non potest absolvi He who dieth impenitent under the censure of excommunication cannot after his death bee absolved And Gelasius himselfe often repeateth the same most clearly in his Commonitorium to Faustus We reade faith he that Christ raised up some from the dead but we never reade that he forgave or absolved any who were impenitent when they dyed and this power he gave to Peter Whatsoever thou shalt binde on earth on earth saith he namin hac ligatione defunctum nusquam dixit absolvi For Christ never said that any who dyed being so bound should be loosed 22. The same is his meaning also in the other place alleaged by Vigilius In it he intreateth of Vitalis and Misenus who being the Popes Legates had communicated with Acatius and other hereticall sectaries and were for that cause both of them excommunicated by Pope Felix the next predecessor of Gelasius Misenus repenting was received into the communion of the Church Vitalis remaining impenitent died under that just censure when some of Vitalis friends desired the like absolution for Vitalis being dead Gelasius utterly refused to grant it and calling a Romane Synode it was declared in it That Misenus ought in right to be loosed but not Vitalis whom as they professed they gladly would but by reason of his owne impenitency wherein he dyed they could not helpe nor absolve but must leave him which are the words on which Vigilius relyeth to the judgement of God it being impossible for them to absolve him being dead seeing it is said Whatsoever ye shall binde upon earth such then as are not upon earth God hath reserved them not to mans but to his owne judgement Nor dare the Church challenge this unto it So Gelasius and the whole Romane Synode who doe not herein generally deny that any without exception may bee judged being dead for then they should condemne besides many other the holy Councell of Chalcedon which absolved Flavianus and bound or condemned Domnus and both after their deaths but limiting their speach to the present matter which they handled they teach that none who are dead to wit in such state as Vitalis dyed excommunicated and impenitent no such can after their death be judged to wit in such sort as the favourers of Vitalis would have had him adjudged that is absolved or loosed after his death from that censure and that the words of our Saviour doe forcibly conclude seeing whatsoever is bound upon earth is also bound in heaven and seeing such as die in that just bond of the Church are indeed reserved to the onely judgement of God the Church can pronounce no other nor milder sentence then it hath already passed of them That none at all after their death may be condemned by the Church Gelasins saith not and that is the hereticall position which Vigilius should out of Gelasius but doth not prove That none who at their death are justly bound by the Church and dye impenitent therein can after their death be loosed by the Church is a catholike truth which Gelasius teacheth and we all professe this Vigilius firmly by Gelasius doth but should not prove 23. So willing am I to quit Pope Leo and Gelasius from that hereticall doctrine wherewith Vigilius by his Apostolicall decree hath not onely himselfe eternally blemished the Romane See but
Vigilius was banished p. 252. sect 18. Baronius his three reasons for Vigilius his consenting to the Synod after his exile p. 245. sect 8. First from the testimony of Evagrius sect ibid. the second from the fact of Iustinian in restoring Vigilius p. 247. sect 11. the third of Vigilius consenting to the Synod taken from the words of Liberatus He was afflicted not crowned p. 160. sect 30. C. COnstitution of Vigilius sent unto the Synod pag. 8. sect 4. in fine the summe of the Constitution was the defence of the Three Chapters p. 10. sect 8. c. The Councell refuteth the Popes decree and ground of it p. 14. sect 1 2. c. The Councell condemneth and accurseth the Popes decree p. 17. sect 6. and p. 22. sect 15 16 The Councels decree consonant to Scripture p. 26. sect 24. The fift Councell approved by succeeding Councels and Popes p. 27. sect 26. and how long p. 29. sect 29. c. Councells above the Pope p. 29. sect 30 31. The Cause of the Three Chapters a cause of faith p. 37. sect 3 4. c. professed by Baronius p. 42. sect 14. a tryall of mens faith p. 362. sect 4. The Councell proposeth their decree about them tanquam de fide p. 41. sect 13. The Churches in the East divided from the West about the three Chapters p. 39. sect 7. The fift Councell explaineth a former definition of faith made no decree to condemne any new heresie p. 46. sect 20 21. Fift Councell of authority without the Popes approbation p. 268. sect 5 6 c. it was neither hereticall nor schismaticall p. 269. sect 7. it was assembled with the Popes consent p. 272. sect 12 13. Corruptions crept into some synodall acts are not just causes of rejecting others of that Councell p. 378. sect 3. The Councell of Chalcedon held Christ to be unum de sancta Trinitate p. 382. sect 8.3 the Councell of Chalcedon not corrupted pa. 384. sect 6 7. The Constitution of Vigilius no part of the synodall acts p. 399. sect 1 2 3. not published in the Synod p 401. sect 4. Chrysostomes bones not translated from Commana to Constantinople p. 426. sect 3. Councell against Councell at Ephesus p. 113. sect 2. The Church may binde or loose a man after death p. 53. sect 15 16. The Church cannot loose those who dye impenitent p. 55. sect 20 21. Coronati non coronati as two sorts so two rewards of professors p. 263. sect 43. A Councell is approved though the Pope approve it not p. 275. sect 17 18. Generall Councels have sought the Popes approbation p. 287. sect 34. Cyrill cleares himselfe of Nestorianisme p. 123. sect 16. D. WHether a dead man may novitèr bee condemned is a question of faith p. 48. sect 3. That a dead man may be condemned is the judgement of Fathers p. 49. sect 6. the judgement of provinciall Synods p. 50. sect 7. the judgement of generall Councels p. ibid. sect 7. the judgement of Baronius p. 51. sect 10. Defenders of the Popes infallibility accursed by the Councell p. 24. sect 20 21 22. Dioscorus being hereticall judged Ibas his profession hereticall therefore the profession of Ibas must be orthodoxall Vigilius his reason p. 151. sect 29. Defenders of the three Chapters heretikes p. 171. sect 4. Divination or Mathematicall predictions not allowable p. 343. sect 28. Domnus his action not inserted at Chalcedon p. 44. sect 9. To dissent from the Pope in a cause of faith makes not one an heretike p. 171. sect 5. Many Doctrines of their Romish Church may be held except that of the Popes infallibility and yet the party that holds them no papist p. 182. sect 21. in fine E. EPistle of Ibas wholly hereticall p. 19. sect 8.9 and p. 24. sect 19. Eunomius approved not any part of this Epistle p. 20. sect 11. Eunomius approved the confession of Ibas p. 21. sect 14. The Epistle of Ibas not approved at Chalcedon p. 107. sect 2 3 4 c. The Epistle was truly the writing of Ibas p. 109. sect 5 6. At Ephesus a great rent and division between Iohn and Cyrill ibid. At Ephesus Cyrill was deposed by the Conventicle ibid. sect 3. The Emperour ignorant for a time of the division betweene Iohn and Cyrill p. 15. sect 4. The Emperour had knowledge of the division by a letter brought into the Court by â— beggar ibid. Eustathius full of forgeries p. 340. sect 24 25 c. Eutychius not banished for not consenting to the heresie of the Phantastickes p. 341. sect 25. Eutychius given to divination hereticall and what it was p. 343. sect 28 29. for these supposed to be banished ibid. Evagrius full of fables p. 345. sect 30. c. The Emperours Edict reviled by Baronius p. 363. sect 1. it was not repugnant to the orthodoxall faith it was no seminary of sedition ibid. sect 3 4. The Epistle of Ibas condemned by the Councell at Chalcedon p. 381. sect 1. the Epistle in Cedrenus not Iustinians p. 398. sect 1. Epistles writ to Dioscorus and Leo were forged and not Theodorets p. 417. sect 7 8. and p. 444. sect 8. Epistles by their erroneous inscription are not proved to be forged p. 429. sect 9 10. c. Epiphanius his writing against images read in the second Nicene Synod and by them rejected p. 109. sect 7. the booke was the booke of Epiphanius p. 112. sect 12. The explanation meant by Ibas was a condemning of the twelve chapters of Cyrill pa. 159. sect 42 43. a condemning of the faith p. 160. sect 44. the like explanation meant by Vigilius p. 166. sect 52. F. FAcundus set on by the Pope writ against the Emperours Edict p. 214. sect 4. Facundus and Baronius revile the Emperor p. 215. sect 4. Facundus an enemy to the Catholike faith p. 371. sect 13. The Foundation being hereticall poysons all which is built thereon p. 190. sect 29 30. Faith unto certainty of faith two things required p. 182. sect â—0 G. GOntharis not trecherously slaine by Bellisarius p. 448. sect 15. Gregory his words and meaning pretended by Basil about the three Chapt. explained p. 43. sect 16 17. c. H. HEretikes dying dye not in the peace of the Church pag. 59. and pag. 61. § 6. Heresie with pertinacy differs much from an error p. 61. in fine First in regard of matter p. 62. sec. 8. secondly for the manner ibid. sec. 9. thirdly in regard of the persons who erre p. 64. sec. 11. fourthly in regard of the Churches judgement ibid. sec. 12. Heresie in its owne habit doth lesse harme p. 103. sec. 27. Heretikes in words orthodoxall in sense and meaning hereticall p. 147. sec. 20. proved in Vitalis ibid. An hereticall profession may be in termes orthodoxall ibid. sec. 21. Heretikes pretend to hold with ancient Councels p. 201. sec. 4 5. Worst Heretikes are the moderne Romanists p. 204. sec. 10. Heretikes lyars in their profession pa. 207. sec. 15. Heretikes
every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest with certainty of faith which cannot be deceived every doctrine and position of faith then especially when it is published and declared by a Decree of the Church to bee a doctrine of faith Seeing by this Decree of faith which the Councell now made not onely the Popes Apostolicall sentence in a cause of faith is condemned to bee hereticall but all they also who defend it to be Heretikes and accursed and seeing all defend it who maintaine the Popes cathedrall sentence to be infallible that is all who are members of the present Church of Rome it hence inevitably ensueth that every Christian is bound to beleeve certitudine fidei cui falsum subesse non potest not onely the doctrine even the fundamentall doctrine of the present Church of Rome to be hereticall but all that maintaine it that is all that are members of that Church to be heretikes and accursed unlesse disclaiming that heresie they forsake all communion with that Church Baronius perceiving all those Anathemaes to fall inevitably upon himselfe and their whole Church if this cause of the Three Chapters which Vigilius defended and defined by his Apostolicall Constitution that they must be defended if this I say were admitted to be a cause of faith that hee might shuffle off those Anathemaes which like the leprosie of Gehazi doth cleave unto them thought it the safest as indeed it was the shortest way to deny this to be a cause of faith which not onely by all the precedent witnesses but by the judgement of their owne Cardinall and all the three notes set downe by him is undeniably proved to bee a cause of faith and that the Decree of the Holy Councell concerning it is proposed as a Decree of faith 14. I might further adde their owne Nicholas Sanders who though he saw not much in matters of faith yet he both saw and professed this truth and therefore in plaine termes calleth the defending of the Three Chapters an heresie Now heresie it could not be unlesse it were a cause of faith seeing every heresie is a deviation from the faith But omitting him and some others of his ranke I will now in the last place adde one other witnesse which with the favourites of Baronius is of more weight and worth than all the former and that is Baronius himselfe who as he doth often deny so doth he often and plainly professe this to be a cause of faith Speaking of the Emperours Edict concerning these Three Chapters he bitterly reproveth yea he reproacheth the Emperour for that he would arrogate to himselfe edere sanctiones de fide Catholica to make Edicts about the Catholike faith Again the whole Catholike faith saith he would be in jeopardy if such as Iustinian de fide leges sanciret should make lawes concerning the faith Againe Pelagius the Popes Legate sounded an alarum contra ejusdem Imperatoris de fide sancitū Edictū against the Emperors Edict published concerning the faith And yet againe Pope Vigilius writ letters against those qui edito ab Imperatore fidei decreto subscripsissent who had subscribed to the Emperours Edict of faith So often so expresly doth Baronius professe this to be a cause of faith which himselfe like the Aesopicall Satyr had so often and so expresly denied to be a cause of faith and that also so confidently that he shamed not to say Consentitur ab omnibus all men agree herein that this is no cause of faith whereas Baronius himselfe dissenteth herein confessing in plaine termes this to be a cause of the Catholike faith 15. The truth is the Cardinals judgement was unsetled and himselfe in a manner infatuated in handling this whole cause touching Vigilius and the fift generall Councell For having once resolved to deny this one truth that Vigilius by his Apostolicall sentence maintained and defined heresie and decreed that all other should maintaine it which one truth like a Thesean threed would easily and certainly have directed him in all the rest of his Treatise now he wandreth up and down as in a Labyrinth toiling himselfe in uncertainties and contradictions saying and gainsaying whatsoever either the present occasiō which he hath in hand or the partialitie of his corrupted judgement like a violent tempest doth drive him unto when the Emperour or his Edict to both which he beares an implacable hatred comes in his way then this question about the Three Chapters must bee a cause of faith for so the Cardinall may have a spacious field to declame against the Emperour for presuming to intermeddle and make lawes in a cause of faith But when Pope Vigilius or his Constitution with which the Cardinall is most partially blinded meet him then the case is quite altered the question about the Three Chapters must then bee no more a question or cause of faith for that is an easie way to excuse Vigilius and the infallibilitie of his Chaire he erred onely in some personall matters in such the Pope may erre he erred not in any doctrinall point nor in a cause of faith in such is hee and his Chaire infallible 16. There remaineth one doubt arising out of the words of Gregory by the wilfull mistaking whereof Baronius was misse-led He seemeth to teach the same with the Cardinall where speaking of this fift Synod hee saith In eâ de personis tantummodo non autem de fide aliquid est gestum In it was onely handled somewhat concerning those persons but nothing concerning the faith So Gregory whose words if they be taken without any limitation are not onely untrue but repugnant to the consenting judgement of Councels and Fathers above mentioned even to Gregory himselfe for speaking of all the five Councels held before his time he saith Whosoever embraceth praedictarum Synodorum fidem the faith explaned by those five Councels peace be unto them And if hee had not in such particular manner testified this yet seeing hee approveth as was before shewed this fift Councel and the Decree therof seeing that Decree clearly expresseth this to have beene a cause of faith grounded on Scriptures and the definitions of faith set downe in former Councels even thereby doth Gregory certainly imply that he accounted this cause for no other than as the Synod it selfe did for a cause of faith 17. What then is Gregory repugnant to himselfe herein I list not to censure so of him rather by his owne words I desire to explane his meaning There were divers in his time as also in his Predecessor's Pelagius who condemned this fift Councell because as they supposed it had altered and abolished the faith of the Councell at Chalcedon by condemning these Three Chapters and had established a new doctrine of faith Gregorie intreating against these whom he truly calleth malignant persons and troublers of the Church denieth and that most justly that this
the judgement of him who succeeds Peter in the Chaire non secus ac olim Petri infallibile to be no otherwise infallible then the judgement of Peter was And the gates of hell shall never be able to drive Peters successours ut errorem quempiam ex cathedra desiniant that they shall define any errour out of the Chaire This is saith Stapleton a certaine and received truth among Catholikes That the Pope when he decreeth ought out of his pontificall office hath never yet taught any hereticall doctrine nec tradere potest nor can he deliver any error yea if it bee a judgement of faith it is not onely false but hereticall to say that the Pope can erre therein They saith Canus who reject the Popes judgement in a cause of faith are heretickes To this accordeth Bellarmine It is lawfull to hold either part in a doubtfull matter without note of heresie before the Popes definition be given but after the Popes sentence he who then dissenteth from him is an hereticke To these may be added as Bellarmine testifieth St. Thomas Thomas Waldensis Cardinall Turrecremata Cardinall Cajetane Cardinall Hosius Driedo Eccius Iohannes a Lovanio and Peter Soto all these teach it to be impossible that the Pope should define any hereticall doctrine And after them all the saying of Gregory de Valentia is most remarkable to this purpose It now appeareth saith he that Saint Thomas did truly and orthodoxally teach that the proposall or explication of our Creed that is of those things which are to be beleeved doth belong unto the Pope which truth containes so clearely the summe and chiefe point of Catholike religion ut nemo Catholicus esse possit qui illam non amplectatur that none can be a Catholike unlesse hee hold and embrace this So he professing that none are to be held with them for Catholikes but such as maintaine the Popes infallibilitie in proposing or defining causes of faith 8. They have yet another more plausible manner of teaching the Popes Infallibilitie in such causes and that is by commending the judgement of the Church and of generall Councels to be infallible All Catholikes saith Bellarmine doe constantly teach that generall Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot possibly erre in delivering doctrines of faith or good life And this he saith is so certaine that fide catholica tenendum est it is to be embraced by the Catholike faith and so all Catholikes are bound to beleeve it Likewise concerning the Church he thus writeth Nostra sententia est it is our sentence that the Church cannot absolutely erre in proposing things which are to bee beleeved The same is taught by the rest of their present Church Now when they have said all and set it out with great pompe and ostentation of words for the infallibility of the Church and Councell it is all but a meere collusion a very maske under which they cover and convaie the Popes Infallibilitie into the hearts of the simple Try them seriously who list sound the depth of their meaning and it will appeare that when they say The Church is infallible Generall Councels are infallible The Pope is infallible they never meane to make three distinct infallible Iudges in matters of faith but one onely infallible and that one is the Pope 9. This to be their meaning sometimes they will not let to professe When we teach saith Gretzer that the Church is the infallible Iudge in causes of faith per Ecclesiā intelligimus Pontificem Romanum we by the Church doe meane the Pope for the time being or him with a Councell Againe They object unto us that by the Church we understand the Pope Non abnuo I confesse wee meane so in deed This is plaine dealing by the Church they meane the Pope So Gregorie de Valentia By the name of the Church we understand the head of Church that is the Pope So Bozius The Pope universorum personam sustinet sustaineth the person of all Bishops of all Councels of all the whole Church he is in stead of them all As the whole multitude of the faithfull is the Church formally and the generall Councell is the Church representatively so the Pope also is the Church Vertually as sustaining the person of all and having the power vertue and authoritie of all both the formall and representative Church and so the Churches or Councels judgement is the Popes judgement and the Churches or Councels infallibility is in plaine speech the Popes infallibilitie 10. This will further appeare by those comparisons which they make betwixt the Church or Councels and the Pope It is the assertiō of Card. Bellarmine as also of their best writers that there is as much authoritie Intensivè in the Pope alone as in the Pope with a generall Councell or with the whole Church though Extensivè it is more in them then in him alone Even as the light is Intensivè for degrees of brightnes as great in the Sun alone as in it with all the Starres though it is Extensivè more in thē that is more diffused or spred abroad into moe being in them then in the Sun alone Neither onely is all the authoritie which either Coūcell or Church hath in the Pope but is in a far more eminent manner in him then in them In him it is Primitively or originally as water in the fountaine or as light in the Sun Omnis authoritas est in uno saith Bellarmine seeing the governmēt of the Church is Monarchicall all ecclesiasticall power is in one he meanes the Pope and from him it is derived unto others In the Councell and the rest of the Church it is but derivatively borrowed from the Pope as waters in little brookes or as light in the moone starres In him is Plenitudo potestatis as Innocentius teacheth the fulnesse of Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie dwelleth in him in the rest whether Councels or Church it is onely by Participation and measure they have no more then either their narrow channels can containe or his holinesse will permit to distill or drop downe upon their heads from the lowest skirts of his garment So whatsoever authoritie either Church or generall Councell hath the same hath the Pope and that more eminently and more abundantly then they either have or can have 11. But for Infallibilitie in judgement that 's so peculiar to him that as they teach neither the Pope can communicate it unto Church or Councell nor can they receive it but onely by their connexion or coherence to the Pope in whom alone it resideth Potestas infallibilitaes papalis est potestas gratia personalis saith Stapleton Papall power and infallibilitie is a personall gift and grace given to the person of Peter and his successors and personall gifts cannot bee transferred to others In like sort Pighius Vni Petro atque ejus Cathedrae non
Sacerdotali quantocunque Concilio the priviledge of never erring in faith was obtained by the prayer of Christ for Peter alone and his Chaire not for any Councell though it be never so great To the same purpose saith Bellarmine If a generall Councell could not erre in their sentence the judgement of such a Councell should be the last and highest judgement of the Church but that judgement is not the last for the Pope may either approve or reject their sentence So Bellarmine professing the Popes onely judgement to be infallible seeing it alone is the last and highest after and above both Church and generall Councell All the infallibility which they have is onely by reason of his judgement to which they accord consent It hence appeareth saith Bellarmine totam firmitatem that the whole strength and certainty of judgement which is even in lawfull Councels is from the Pope non partim à Concilio partim à Pontifice it is not partlie from the Councell and partly from the Pope it is wholly and onely from the Pope and in no part from the Councell When the Councell and Pope consent in judgement saith Gretzer omnis infallibilitas Concilij derivatur à Papa all the infallibility of the Councell is derived from the Pope and a little after when the Pope consenteth with the Councell ideo non errat quia est Papa hee is therfore free from erring because he is the Pope and not because he consenteth with the Councell In like sort Melchior Canus The strength and firmitude both of the whole Church and of Councels is derived from the Pope and againe In generall Councels matters are not to bee judged by number of suffrages but by the waight of them Pondus antem dat summi Pontificis authoritas and it is the Popes gravity and authority which gives waight to that part whereunto he inclineth If he say it one hundred Fathers with him are sufficient but if his assent bee wanting a thousand a million ten thousand millions Nulli satis sunt no number is sufficient Nay if all the whole world be of a contrary judgement to the Pope yet as the Canonist tels us the Popes sentence totius orbis placito praefertur is of more weight and worth than the judgement of the whole world So cleare it is that all their boasting of the authority and infallible judgement of the Church and of generall Councels wherein they please themselves more than ever the Iews did in crying so oft Templū Domini the Temple of the Lord that all this is nothing else but a Viser to hide or actually to draw into mens mindes the Popes infallibility they having no meaning at all to give or allow either to Church or generall Councell any infallibility but onely with a reference to the Pope to whom alone they annex it as a personall gift and peculiar prerogative and who like those leane and ill favoured Kine of Pharaoh hath devoured and quite swallowed up all the authority and infallibility both of Church and Councels yet thus much now is evident that seeing all who are of their present Romane Church beleeve and professe the Church and generall Councels to be infallible seeing their infallibility is none but onely by adhering and consenting to the Pope it necessarily ensueth that they all à fortiori doe beleeve and must professe the Pope to be infallible seeing on his the infallibility of both the other doth wholly and solely depend 12. Let me adde but one other proofe hereof taken from Supremacy of authoritie and judgement It is a ruled case in their learning Si errare non potest debet esse summus judex He who is infallible must be the highest and last Iudge and Vice versa He who is the last and highest judge must be infallible Supremacy and infallibility of judgement are inseparably linked To whomsoever Supremacy is given even for that cause infallibility of judgement is granted unto him also for seeing from the last or supreme Iudge there can be no appeale it were most unjust to binde Christians to beleeve his sentence who might be deceived most unjust to binde them from appealing from a judge that were fallible or from an erronious judgement Consider now to whom Supremacy of judgement in causes of faith belongeth To whom else but to the Pope whereas some dare affirme saith the Canonist that a Councell is above the Pope Falsissimum est This is most false The Successor of Peter saith Stapleton supra omnes est is above all Bishops Church generall Councels above all The Pope saith Bellarmine is simply and absolutely above the whole Church and above a generall Councell Hee further tels us that this assertion That the Pope is above a generall Councell is not only the judgment of all the ancient Schoole Divine the cōmon sentence of their Writers of whom he reckoneth thirteene and if it were fit three times thirtie might bee scored up with them but that it is the publike doctrine of their Church decreed in their Laterane Synod under Leo the tenth There the Councell saith he disertè ex professo docuit did plainly and of set purpose teach the Pope to bee above all Councels yea expressissimè rem definivit that Laterane Councell did most expresly define this and their definition hereof is Decretum de fide a Decree of faith for which cause in his Apology bearing the name of Schulkenius hee professeth that this is Articulus fidei an Article of faith such as every Christian is bound to beleeve that the Pope is Summus in terris totius Ecclesiae Iudex the Supreme last and highest Iudge of the whole Church here upon earth which he proves besides many other authorities by this very Laterane decree and by their Trent Councell The words themselves of those Councels make the matter plaine in that at the Laterane Councell they thus decree Solum Romanum Pontificem supra omnia Concilia authoritatem habere that the Pope alone hath authority above all Councels and this they say is taught not onely by Fathers and Councels but by the holy Scriptures thereby shewing that in this decree they explicate declare the Catholike faith which is one of the Cardinals notes to know when a decree is published by a Councell tanquam de fide as a decree of faith and they threaten the indignation of God and the blessed Apostles to the gainsayers of their decree A censure as heavy as any Anathema the denouncing whereof is another of the Cardinals notes that they proposed this decree as a decree of faith In the other at Trent the Councell teacheth that unto the Pope is given Suprema potestas in universa Ecclesia the Supreme power in the whole Church And this Supremacy is such that from all Councels all other Iudges you may appeale to him and hee may reverse
to be received in both kinds he then would receive it not in both but in one kind onely Blessed Luther it was never thy meaning either to receive it onely in one or to deny it to be necessary for Gods Church and people to receive it in both kindes Thou knewest right well that Bibite ex hoc omnes was Christs owne ordinance with which none might dispense Thou for defence of this truth among many was set up as a signe of contradiction unto them and as a marke at which they directed all their darts of malicious and malignant reproaches Farre was it from thee to relent one hare-bredth in this truth But whereas they taught the use of the Cup to be indifferent and arbitrarie such as the Church that is the Pope might either allow or take away as he should thinke fit upon this supposall and no otherwise didst thou in thine ardent zeale to Christ and detestation of Antichrist say that were the use of both or one kinde onely a thing indeed indifferent as they taught it to be if the Pope as Pope should command the receiving in both kindes thou wouldst not then receive it so lest whilst thou might seeme to obey Christ commanding that but yet upon their supposall as a thing indifferent thou shouldest certainly performe obedience to Antichrist by his authoritie limiting and restraining that indifferency unto both kindes as now by his authority hee restraines it unto one The summe is this To doe any act whether in it selfe good or indifferent but commanded to be done by the Pope as Pope to pray to preach to receive the Sacraments yea but to lift your eyes or hold up your finger or say your Pater noster or your Ave Maria or weare a bead a modell a lace or my garment white or blacke or use any crossing either at Baptisme or any other time to do any one of these or any the like eo nomine because the Pope as Pope teacheth that they are to be done or commands the doing of them is in very deed a yeelding one selfe to be a vassall of Antichrist a receiving the marke of the beast and a vertuall or implicit deniall of the faith in Christ. So extremly venemous is that poison which lyeth in the root of that fundamentall heresie which they have laid as the very rocke and Foundation of their faith 34. Hitherto we have examined the former position of Baronius which concerned Heresie His other concerning Schisme is this That they who dissented from Pope Vigilius when hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought to be defended were Schismatikes A most strange assertion that the whole Catholike Church should bee schismaticall for they all dissented from Vigilius in this cause that Catholikes should all at once become Schismatikes yea and that also for the very defence of the Catholike faith I oppose to this another and true assertion That not onely Pope Vigilius when he defended the Three Chapters and forsooke communion with the condemners of them was a Schismatike himselfe and chiefe of the Schisme but that all who as yet defend Vigilius that is who maintaine the Popes Cathedrall infallibility in causes of faith and forsake communion with those that condemne it that those all are and that for this very cause Schismatikes and the Pope the ringleader in the Schisme 35. For the manifesting whereof certaine it is that after Pope Vigilius had so solemnly and judicially by his Apostolicall authority defined that the Three Chapters ought to be defended there was a great rent and Schisme in the Church either part separating it selfe from the other and forsaking communion with the other First the holy Councell and they who tooke part with it anathematized the defenders of those Chapters thereby as themselves expound it declaring their opposites to be separated from God and therefore from the society of the church of God On the other side Pope Vigilius they who were on his part were so averse from the others that they would rather endure disgrace yea banishment as Baronius sheweth thē communicate with their opposites But I shal not need to stay in proving that there was a rent and schisme at this time betweene the defenders condemners of those chapters Baronius professeth it saying The whole Church was then schismate dilacerata torn asunder by a schisme Againe After the end of the Councell there arose a greater war then was before Catholikes so he falsly calls both parts being then divided among themselves some adhaering to the Councell others holding with Vigilius and his Constitution Againe Many relying upon the authority of Vigilius did not receive the fift Synod atque à contraria illis sentientibus sese diviserunt and separated or divided themselves frō those who thought the contrary Such were the Italian Africane Illirian other neighbour Bishops So Baronius truly professing a schisme to have bin then in the Church and Pope Vigilius to have beene the leader of the one part 36. But whether of these two parts were Schismatickes As the name of heresie though it bee common to any opinion whereof one makes choice whether it be true or false in which sense Constantine the great called the true faith Catholicam sanctissimam haeresim yet in the ordinarie use it is now applied only to the choice of such opinions as are repugnāt to the faith So the name of Schisme though it import any scissure or renting of one from another yet now by the vulgar use of Divines it is appropriated onely to such a rent or division as is made for an unjust cause and from those to whom hee or they who are separated ought to unite themselves hold communion with them This whosoever doe whether they bee moe or fewer then those from whom they separate themselves they are truly and properly to bee termed Schismatikes and factious For it is neither multitude nor paucitie nor the holding with or against any visible head or governour whatsoever nor the bare act of separating ones selfe from others but only the cause for which the separation is made which maketh a Schisme or faction and truly denounceth one to be factious or a Schismatike If Elijah separate himselfe from the foure hundreth Baalites and the whole kingdome of Israel because they are Idolaters and they sever themselves from him because he wil not worship Baal as they did If the three children for the like cause separate themselves from all the Idolatrous Babylonians in separation they are both like but in the cause being most unlike the Baalites onely and not Elijah and the Babylonians only and not the three children are Schismatikes Now because every one is bound to unite himselfe to the Catholike and orthodoxall Church and hold communion with them in faith hence it is that as out of Austine Stapleton rightly observes Tota ratio Schismatis the very essence of a Schisme consists in the separating from the
unskilfull of the faith doubted to approve the fift Synod nay Concilium illud non observandum esse statuêre they decreed that the fift Synod should not be allowed or received What would so many Italian Bishops in an Italian Councell decree the quite contradictory to the Popes known judiciall sentence in a cause of faith the Pope decreed as Baronius saith that the fift Councell ought to be imbraced The Italian Synod decreeth that the fift Councell ought to be rejected Neither onely did they thus decree but as Bede noteth they continued in this opinion donec salutaribus beati Pelagij monitis instructa consensit untill being instructed by the wholsome admonitions of Pope Pelagius they consented to the fift Councell as other Churches did Now this Pelagius of whom Bede speaketh was Pelagius the second who was not Pope till more then 20. yeares after the death of Vigilius He to reclame those Bishops of Istria Venice and Liguria writ a very large and decretall Epistle which Binius compares to that of Leo to Flavianus wherin he declares every one of those Three Chapters to be repugnant to the faith and decrees of the ancient Councells By this decretall instruction of Pelagius the second were those Italian defenders of the Three Chapters after twenty yeares and more reduced as Bede noteth to the unity of the Church and to approve of the fift Councell Had Vigilius made as Baronius fancieth the like decree why tooke it not the like effect in those Westerne Bishops was there more then Apostolicall authority and instruction in the decree of Pelagius or was there lesse then that in the decree of Vigilius 6. Nay there is another speciall point to bee observed concerning that Epistle of Pelagius Elias Bishop of Aquileia and the rest who defended the three Chapters among other reasons urged the authority of Vigilius on their part therby countenancing their error in that they taught no other doctrine in defending those Chapters then the Apostolicall See had taught by Vigilius thus writ they in their Apology which they sent to Pelagius ayming no doubt at that Apostolicall Constitution of Vigilius published in the time of the Councell whereby hee decreed that the Three Chapters ought by all to be defended for that was it as the Cardinall saith which moved nay enforced all to follow that opinion and to defend the Three Chapters What doth Pelagius now answer to this reason Truly had Vigilius made any such later Decree as the Cardinall fancieth by which he had approved the fift Synod and so both condemned the three Chapters and repealed his owne former judgement in defence thereof neither could Pelagius have beene ignorant of that decree neither would he being so earnestly pressed therewith have omitted that oportunity both to grace Vigilius and most effectually confute that which was the speciall reason on which his opposites did relye Could he have truly replyed that Vigilius himselfe upon better advise had recalled his Decree made in defence of those Chapters and by his last Apostolicall judgement condemned the same Chapters this had cut insunder the very sinewes of that objection But Pelagius returnes them not this answer but knowing that to bee true which they said of Vigilius hee tells them which is a point worthy observing that the Apostolike See might change their judgement in this cause and this even by Pelagius himselfe is a cause of faith and that the ignorance of the Greeke in the Westerne Bishops was the cause why they so lately consented to the fift Synod And so though Vigilius had judged that the Three Chapters ought to be defended yet the successors of Vigilius might long after as they did teach and himselfe define that the same Chapters ought to bee condemned and that the fift Councell wherein they were condemned ought to bee approved A very strong inducement that Pelagius knew not and then that Vigilius made not any such Decree as the Cardinall commendeth unto us 7. For any Apostolicall Decree then whereby Vigilius after his exile recalled his former judgment or approved the fift Councell there was none as besides those reasons which the Cardinall himselfe giveth the persisting of the Westerne Churches in defence of those Chapters not onely after the death of Vigilius but till the time of Pelagius the second makes evident If Vigilius at all consented to the Synod after the end thereof it was onely by some private or personall but not by any decretall or Pontificall approbation And if the reasons or pretences of Baronius prove ought at all this is the most that can be collected from them And this though wee should grant and yeeld unto them yet can it no way helpe their cause or excuse the Popes Cathedrall judgment from being fallible onely it would serve to save Vigilius himselfe from dying an heretike or under the Anathema of the holy Councell For as they teach and teach it with ostentation as a matter of great wit and subtilty that the Pope may erre personally or in his owne person hold an heresie which onely hurts himselfe and not the Church but erre doctrinally or judicially define an heresie he cannot even so to pay them with their owne coine might it fall out at this time with Vigilius hee being wearied with long exile might perhaps for his owne person condemne the Three Chapters and approve the Synod which may be called a personall truth or a personal profession in the Pope the benefit wherof was onely to redound to himselfe either to free him from the censure of the Synod or procure the Emperors favour goodwill that he might returne home to his See but that this professing supposing he made it was doctrinall or Cathedrall delivered ex officio by the Pope as Pope so that by it he entended to bind the whole Church to doe the like neither Baronius nor any of all his favourers can ever prove Now were I sure that the Cardinall or his friends would be content with this grant of a personall truth in Pope Vigilius I could be willing to let it passe for currant without further examination But alas they are no men of such low thoughts and lookes their eyes are ever upon the Supremacie and Infallibilitie of the Popes judgement As personall errors hurt them not so personall truths helpe them not Baronius will either have this consent of Vigilius to bee Iudiciall Doctrinall Apostolicall and Cathedrall or he will have none at all And therefore to demonstrate how farre Vigilius was frō decreeing this I will now enter into a further discussion of this point then I first intended not doubting to make it evident that none of all the Cardinalls reasons are of force to prove so much as a private or personall consent in Vigilius to condemne the Three Chapters and approve the fift Councell after the end of the fift Synod or after that exile which the Cardinall so often mentioneth 8.
confirmation and approbation what it is in any Councell or any decree thereof which makes it to be and rightly to be esteemed an approved Councell or Decree I constantly answer that whatsoever it be it is no approbation no confirmation nor any act of the Pope at least no more of him than of any other Patriarke or Patriarchall Primate in the Church An evident proofe whereof is in the second Generall Councell for that ever since their Synodall sentence was made against the MACEDONIANS and ratified by the Emperour was esteemed by the Catholike Church an Oecumenicall and approved Councell and that before the Pope had consented unto it or approved the same For that Councell being assembled in May when Eucherius and Seagrius were Consuls an 381. continued till about the end of Iuly in the same yeare On the 30. of Iuly Theodosius the Emperour published his severe law against the Macedonians being then condemned heretikes Hee commanded that forth withal Churches should be givē to those who held the one and equall Majesty of the Father Sonne and Holy Ghost and were of the same faith with Nestorius Timotheus and other Bishops in that Synod but whosoever dissented in faith from them ut manifestos haereticos ab Ecclesia expelli they should all be expelled as manifest haeretikes and never be admitted againe In which law seeing the Macedonians are called manifest heretikes that is such as are convicted and condemned by a generall Councell it is doubtlesse that at the promulgating of this law both the Emperour and the catholike Church held that decree of the second Councel against the Macedonians to be the judgment of an holy lawful approved Oecumenical Synod such as was the most ample convictiō of an heretike manifestation of a heresie Now this Edict was published before Pope Damasus either approved that Councell or so much as knew what was done therein For the first newes what was done in the Councell came to Damasus after the Councell of Aquileia as after Sigenius Baronius declareth who after the Synod at Aquileia described saith Post haec autem After these things done at Aquileia when Damasus had received a message concerning the Councell at Constantinople c. that Councell at Aquileia was held on the fift of September when the other at Constantinople was ended a month before and how long after that time it was before Damasus approved that Councell at Constantinople whether one two or three yeares will bee hard for any of the Cardinals friends truly to explane Howsoever seeing it is certaine that the generall Councell was ended and the Decrees thereof not onely approved but put in execution by the Church before the Pope I say not confirmed that Councell but before hee knew what was done and decred therein it is a Demonstration that a generall Councell or a Decree thereof may bee and de facto hath beene judged by the Church both of them to bee of full and Synodall authoritie and approved by the Church when the Pope had confirmed or approved neither of both 20. Nay what if neither Damasus nor any of their Popes till Gregories time approved that Councell Gregory himselfe is a witnesse hereof The Canons of the Constantinopolitane Councell condemne the Eudoxians but who that Eudoxius was they doe not declare And the Romane Church eosdem Canones vel gesta Synodi illius hactenus non habet nec accipit neither hath nor approveth those Canons or Acts but herein it accepteth that Synod in that which was defined against the Macedonians by it and it rejecteth those heresies which being mentioned therein were already condemned by other Fathers So Gregory By whose words it is plaine that the Romane Church untill Gregories time neither approved the Canons nor Acts of that second generall Councell Even the condemning of Macedonius and his heresie was not approved by the Romane Church eo nomine because it was decreed in that Councell for then they should have approved the Canon against the Eudoxians and all the rest of their Canons seeing there was the selfe-same authority of the holy Councell in decreeing them all but the reason why they approved that against the Macedonians was because Pope Damasus had in a Romane Synod divers yeares before the second Councell condemned that heresie and what heresies were by former Fathers condemned those and nothing else did the Romane Church approve in that Councell as Gregory saith The inducement moving them was not the authority of the second Councell but the judgement of other Fathers for which they accepted of the second Councell therein and this was untill the dayes or time of Gregory for that is it which Gregory intendeth in the former words hactenus non habet nec accipit not meaning that till the yeare wherein he writ that Epistle which was the fifteenth Indiction the Romane Church received not those Canons or Acts for in the ninth Indiction that is sixe yeares before himselfe professed to embrace that second Councell as one of the foure Euangelists which also to have beene the judgement of their Church he witnesseth in the eleventh Indiction but untill Gregories time hactenus untill this age wherein I live was the second Councell the Canons or Acts thereof not had nor approved by the Romane Church And yet all that time even from the end of that Councell was both that Councell held for a generall lawfull and approved Synod and their Decree against Macedonius by the whole Church approved as a Decree of a generall and lawfull Councell such as ought to binde the whole Church 21. What wee have shewed concerning the Decree against the Macedonians and in generall for the second Councell that will bee much more evident in the third Canon of that Synod which concernes the Patriarchall dignity of the See of Constantinople his precedence to the Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and his authority over the Churches in Asia minor Thrace and Pontus all which was conferred on that See by that third Canon That the Church of Rome till Gregories time approved not that Canon is evident by Pope Leo who in many of his Epistles specially in that to Anatolius shewes his dislike of it yea rejects it as contrary to the Nicene Decrees which Leo there defineth but without doubt erroniously to bee immutable The Legates of Leo having instructions from him said openly in the Councell of Chalcedon touching the Canons of this Councell in Synodicis Canonibus non habentur they are not accounted or held for Synodall Canons and following the minde and precept of the Pope they most earnestly oppugned this third Canon Long before Leo did Damasus reject this Canon facto decreto in Synodo Romana making a Decree against it in a Romane Synod which is extant in their Vaticane as Turrian who belike saw the Decree doth witnesse Now seeing that Decree of Damasus was made statim post secundum Concilium
presently after the second Councell and was so strongly corroborated by Pope Leo this may perswade that none of their Popes before the dayes of Gregory would repeale the Decrees of those two Popes Their owne Nicholas Sanders goes further and saith That this Canon was not allowed by the Romane Church till the Councell at Laterane under Innocentius the third which is more than sixe hundred yeares after the death of Gregory and though he prove this by the testimony of Guilielmus Tyrius yet I insist onely upon the time of Gregorie whose words are very pregnant for this and the other Canons of that second Councel the Romane Church hactenus non habet nec accipit did not till these dayes embrace nor approve them 22. Now that this same third Canon was all that time held to be of full authority and approved by the Church as a Canon of an holy generall Councell which bindeth all notwithstanding the Popes did not approve it nay did even by their Synodall Decrees reject it there are very many and cleare evidences By warrant of that Canon did Anatolius in the Councell of Chalcedon and Eutichius in the fift Synod in the right of their See of Constantinople take place before and above the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch none in those Councels repining thereat nay those Synods and God himselfe as is there said approving that precedence And whereas this order had not beene observed in the Ephesine Latrocinie Flavianus Bishop of Constantinople being set after the Bishops of Antioch and Ierusalem the Bishops of the Councell of Chalcedon stormed thereat and said Why did not Flavianus sit in his proper place that is next to the Romane Bishop or his Legates By authority of the same Canon did Chrysostome when he was Bishop of Constantinople depose fifteene Bishops in Asia ordaine others in their roomes celebrate a Councell at Ephesus and call the Asian Bishops unto it none of which either could he have done or would the other have obeyed him therein had it not beene knowne that they were subject to him as their Patriarke by that Canon of the second generall Councell to which they all must obey And this was done about some twenty yeares after that Canon was made So quickly was the same in force and was acknowledged to bee of a binding authority In the Councell of Chalcedon when the truth of this Canon was most diligently examined Elutherius Bishop of Chalcedon said Sciens quia per Canones per consuetudinem I subscribed hereunto knowing that the See of Constantinople hath these rights in Asia and Pontus as a Patriarke to governe there both according to the Canons and according to custome and the like was deposed by many Bishops of Asia and Pontus They acknowledge nay they knew there was such a Canon they knew also that the custome and practice did concurrere cum lege did concurre with the Canon whereupon the glorious Iudges after full discussing of this cause testified and sentenced that the Bish. of Constantinople had rightfull authority to ordaine Metropolitane Bishops in the Diocesses of Thrace Asia and Pontus and the whole Synod consented to them first proclaiming Haec justa est sententia this is a just sentence this we say all and then in the very Synodal Epistle to Leo testifying the same to wit that they had confirmed that custome to the Bishop of Constantinople that he should ordaine Metropolitanes in Thrace Asia and Pontus and thereby had confirmed the third Canon of the second Councell This was the judgement of the whole Councell at Chalcedon that is of the whole Catholike Church in that age to which have consented all Councels and catholike Bishops ever since All these doe approve and judge to bee approved that Canon of the second generall Councell which the Popes and Romane Church not onely not approved but expresly and by Synodall decrees rejected 23. About some ninety yeares after this and an hundred sixty yeares after that second Synod did Iustinian the Emperour confirme the Canons both of that second and of al the former general Councels giving unto them force of Imperiall lawes Yea hee further commanded those Canons this third among the rest Dipticis inseri praedicari to be written in the Diptikes or Ecclesiasticall bookes and publikely to be read in the Churches in token of the publike and universall approbation of the same This the fift Councell testifieth as also Victor and Evagrius yea the Emperour himselfe also who both professeth that he will not suffer this custome to bee taken away and signifieth that all Patriarkes are knowne to keepe in their Diptikes and to recite those Canons in their Churches The Emperor doubted not but the Romane Church Patriarke as well as the rest had done this and yeelded obedience to so holy an Edict but the Romane Church deluded the Emperour herein none of them as Bellarmine tels us did after Iustinians time or as he accounts after the yeare 500 reclamare contradict or speake against that Canon which their silence the Emperour and others not acquainted with the Romane Arts did interpret to be a consent but Binius bewrayeth their policy they for peace and quietnes sake being loth to exasperate the Emperour did permit or connive at that honour conferred by the Canon upon the See of Constantinople yet nunquam à Romana Ecclesia approbatum fuit it was never thē not til Gregories time which is as much as I intended to prove it was never saith hee approved by the Romane Church which hee proves by a Decretall of Innocentius the third whence it is evident seeing that Canon of the second generall Councell was never as Binius avoucheth but certainly not till Gregories time approved by the Pope and yet was all that time approved by the catholike Church even by the great and famous Councell at Chalcedon al who approve it who are no fewer than the whole catholike Church it is evident I say that it is neither the Popes Approbation which maketh nor his Reprobation which hindereth a Councell or any Decree or Canon thereof to be an approved generall Councell or a Synodall Canon such as doth and ought to binde all that are in the Church 24. The Popes Approbation it is not but what it is which makes a generall Councell or Canon thereof to be an approved Councell or an approved Canon and for such to bee rightly accounted is not so easie to explane This in an other Treatise I have at large handled to which if it ever see the light I referre my selfe yet suffer me to touch in this place so much as may serve to cleare this and divers other doubts which are obvious in their writings concerning this point 25. That every Councell and Synodall decree thereof is approved or confirmed by those Bishops who are present in that Synod who consent upon
Bishops and therefore to bee called Episcopall there is also another confirmation added by Kings and Emperors which is called Royall or Imperiall by this later religious Kings not onely give freedome and liberty that those decrees of the Councell shall stand in force of Ecclesiasticall Canons within their dominions so that the contemners of them may be with allowance of Kings corrected by Ecclesiasticall censures but further also doe so strengthen and backe the same by their sword and civill authority that the contradicters of those decrees are made liable to those temporall punishments which are set downe in Ezra to death to banishment to confiscation of goods or to imprisonment as the quality of the offence shall require and the wisedome of that Imperiall State shall think fit Betwixt these two confirmations Episcopall and Imperiall there is exceeding great oddes and difference By the former judiciall sentence is given and the synodall decree made or declared to be made for which cause it may rightly be called a judiciall or definitive confirmation by the later neither is the synodal decree made nor any judgment given to define that cause for neither Princes nor any Lay men are Iudges to decide those matters as the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian excellently declare in their directions to Candidianus in the Councell of Ephesus but the synodall decree being already made by the Bishops and their judgement given in that cause is strengthened by Imperiall authority for which cause this may fitly be called a superemineÌ„t or corroborative confirmation of the synodall judgement The former confirmation is Directive teaching what all are to beleeve or observe in the Church the later is Coactive compelling all by civill punishment to beleeve or observe the Synodall directions The former is Essentiall to the Decree such as if it want there is no Synodall decree made at all the later is Accidentall which though it want yet is the Decree of the Councell a true Synodall Decree and sentence The former bindes all men to obedience to that Decree but yet onely under paine of Ecclesiasticall censures the latter bindes the subjects only of those Princes who give the Royall Confirmation to such Decrees and binds them under the pain only of temporal punishmeÌ„t By vertue of the former the contradicters or contemners of those Decrees are rightly to be accounted either heretikes in causes of faith or contumacious in other matters and such are truly subject to the censures of the Church though if the later be wanting those censures cannot bee inflicted by any or upon any but with danger to incurre the indignation of Princes By vertue of the later not onely the Church may safely yea with great allowance and praise inflict their Ecclesiasticall censures but inferiour Magistrates also may nay ought to proceed against such contemners of those Synodall decrees as against notorious convicted and condemned heretikes or in causes which are not of faith but of externall discipline and orders as against contumacious persons The Episcopall confirmation is the first in order but yet because it proceeds from those who are all subject to Imperiall authority it is in dignitie inferiour The Imperiall confirmation is the last in order but because it proceeds from those to whom everie soule is subject it is in dignity Supreme 32. This Imperiall confirmation as holy generall Councels did with all submission intreate of Emperours so religious Emperors did with all willingnesse grant unto them Of the great Nicene Councell Eusebius saith Constantine sealed ratified and confirmed the decrees which were made therein The second general Councel writ thus to the Emperour Theodosius We beseech your clemency that by your letters ratum esse jubeas confirmesque Concilij decretum that you would ratifie and confirme the decree of this Councell and that the Emperour did so his Emperiall Edict before mentioned doth make evident To the third Councell the Emperor writ thus Let matters coÌ„cerning religion and piety be diligently examined contention being laid aside ac tum demuÌ„ à nostrae pietate confirmationem expectate and then expect from us our imperiall confirmation The holy Councell having done so writ thus to the Emperour We earnestly intreate your piety ut jubâ—at â—a omnia that you would coÌ„mand that all which is done by this holy and Oecumenical Councell against Nestorius may stand in force per vestra pietatis nutum et consensum confirmata being confirmed by your roall assent And that the Emperour yeelded to their request his Edict against Nestorius doth declare In the fourth Councell the Emperour said We come to this Synod not to shew our power sed ad conâ—irmandam fidem but to confirme the faith And wheÌ„ he had signified before all the Bishops his royall assent to their decree the whole Councell cryed out Orthodoxam fidem tu confirmasti thou hast confirmed the Catholike faith often ingeminating those joyfull acclamations That Iustinian confirmed the fift Councell his imperiall Edict for condemning those Three Chapters which after the Synodall judgment stood in more force than before his severity in punishing the contradicters of the Synodall sentence partly by exile partly by imprisonment are cleare witnesses The sixt Councell said thus to the Emperour O our most gracious Lord grant this favour unto us signaculum tribue seale and ratifie all that we have done vestram inscribito imperialem ratihabitionem adde unto them your imperiall confirmation that by your holy Edicts and godly constitutions they may stand in firme force And the Emperour upon their humble request set forth his Edict wherein he saith We have published this our Edict that we might corroborare atque confirmare ea quae definita sunt corroborate and confirme those things which are defined by the Councell To all which that may bee added which Basilius the Emperour said in the eighth Synod as they call it I had purposed to have subscribed after al the Bishops as did my predecessors Constantine the great Theodosius Martian and the rest thereby evidently testifying not onely the custome of imperiall confirmation to have been observed in all former Councels but the difference also betwixt it and the Episcopall subscription the Bishops first subscribing and thereby making or declaring that they had made a Synodall decree the Emperours after them all subscribing as ratifying by their Imperiall confirmation what the Bishops had decreed 33. By this now it fully appeareth what it is which maketh any Synod or any Synodal decree to be and justly to be accounted an approved Synod or an approved Synodall and Oecumenicall decree It is not the Popes assent approbation or confirmation as they without all ground of truth doe fancy which at any time did or possibly can doe this It is onely the Vniversall and Oecumenicall consent of the whole Church and of all the members thereof upon any decree made by a generall Councell which truly makes that an approved decree
Synod because the Pope resisted the assembling and contradicted the decree and sentence thereof but for as much as it is not victory but truth which I seeke and the full satisfaction of the reader in this cause and seeing this point about the lawfulnesse of generall Councels is frequent and very obvious and such as being rightly conceived will give great light to this whole controversie about Councels I will crave liberty to lanch somewhat further into this deepe and explane with what convenient brevity I can what it is which maketh any Synod to bee or rightly to be esteemed a generall and lawfull Councell 2. As the name of Synod doth in his primary and large acception agree to every assembly so doth the name of Councell to every assembly of consultation The former being derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is all one with Coetus and imports the assembly of any multitude which meeteth and commeth together The later being derived of Cilia whence also supercilium imports the common or joynt intending or bending their eyes both of body and minde to the investigation of the truth in that matter which is proposed in their assembly But both of those words being now drawne from those their large and primitive significations are by Ecclesiasticall writers and use of speech penes quem jus est norma loquendi restrained and appropriated onely to those assemblies of Bishops and Ecclesiasticall persons wherein they come together to consult of such matters as concernes either the faith or discipline of the Church Of these because some are lawfull others unlawfull Synods if we can finde what it is which maketh a generall and lawfull Councell it will bee easie therby to discerne which are unlawfull Synods seeing it is vulgarly and truly said that Rectum is index sui obliqui 3. That a Synod be generall and lawfull there are three things necessarily and even essentially required the want of any one of which is a just barre and exception why that Synod is either not generall or not lawfull The first which concernes the generalitie is that the calling and summons to the Councell be generall and Oecumenicall so that all Bishops be called and when they are come have free accesse to the same Councell unlesse for some fault of their owne or some just reason they ought to bee debarred For if the calling to any Synod bee out of some parts onely of the Church and not out of the whole the judgement also of such a Councell is but partiall not generall and the Councell is but particular not Oecumenicall seeing some of those who have judicatory power are either omitted or unjustly excluded from the Synod The want of this was a just exception taken by the Pope Iulius against that Councell of Antioch wherein Athanasius was deposed by the Arian faction and Gregory of Cappadocia intruded into his See why it neither was nor could be esteemed generall or such as should binde the whole Church by the decrees made by it for said Iulius they did against the Canons of the Church 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because they did not so much as call him to that Synod whereas the Canons of the Church forbid that any decree which should have power to binde the whole Church should bee made without the sentence judgement and consent of the Bishop of Rome either attained or at least sought for The Canon which Iulius mentioned might well ordaine and if there were no such Canon yet even reason and equity doe teach that such decrees as concerne the whole Church and are to binde them all ought to be made by the helpe judgement and advise of them all according to the rule Quod omnes tangit ab omnibus approbari debet The wilfull omission of any one Bishop much more of the Bish. of Rome who then was the chiefe Patriarch in the world declares the Councell not to be generall seeing unto it there was onely a partiall and not a generall summons or calling 4. As this first condition is required to the generality so are the other two for the lawfulnesse and order of Synods For if the Apostles rule Let all things be done decently and in order must bee kept in every private and particular Church how much more in those venerable assemblies of Oecumenicall Councels which are the Armies of God of the Angels of all the Churches of God amōg whom doth and ought to shine gravity prudence and all sacred and fitting orders no lesse than in the coelestiall Hierarchy and in the very presence of the Majesty of God If they bee gathered in Gods name how can they be other than lawfull and orderly Assemblies seeing God is not the God of confusion or disorder but of peace in all Churches Now the lawfulnesse and order of Synods consists partly in their orderly assembling and partly in their orderly government and proceedings when they are assembled whensoever the Bishops of any generall Councell first assemble together by lawfull authority and then are so governed by lawfull authority also that orderly lawfull and due synodall proceedings be onely used therein as well in the free and diligent discussion of the causes proposed as in the free sentencing thereof the same is truly and properly to bee called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a lawfull Synod But if either if these conditions be wanting it becomes unlawfull and disorderly If the Bishops assemble together either not being called or if called yet not by such as have right and authority to call them though this in a large acception may bee called a Synod that is an assembly of Bishops yet because they doe unlawfully disorderly assemble together it is in propriety of speech to be termed a Cōventicle a riotous tumultuous seditious assembly even such as that was of Demetrius the other Ephesiās who without calling and order 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 rusht run headlong together to uphold the honour of their great Diana which both the Spirit of God condemneth as a confused or disorderly assembly and the more wise among them taxed as a riotous and seditious tumult If being lawfully called yet they either want a lawfull President to governe them or having one yet want freedome and liberty either in discussing or giving judgement in the cause such a Synod though in respect of their assembling it be lawfull yet in respect of their proceedings and judgment it is unlawfull and disorderly and therefore in propriety of speech to be termed a conspiracy because those men conspire and band themselves as did the Councell of the Priests with Pilate by unjust and unlawfull meanes to suppresse the truth and oppresse innocency 5. But unto whō belongs that right to call general Councels whē they are called to see orderly synodal proceedings observed therein To whom to whom else but only to those who have Imperiall Regal authority whether they
and without whose consent first obtained they may in no place of his Kingdome assemble together without the note of tumult and sedition This Nicene Canon as all the rest when Constantine and other suceeding Emperours and Kings approved as who hath not approved that holy Councel they then gave unto it the force of an Imperiall law according to the rule omnia nostra facimus quibus nostram impartimar authoritatem wee make that our owne Act and our law which wee ratifie by our authoritie And Iustinian more plainly expressed this when he said Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas regulas we enact that the holy Canons of the Church set downe in the former Councels the Nicene the Constantinopolitane Ephesine and Chalcedon shall have the force and stand in the strength of Imperiall lawes By this Imperiall assent it is that when the wisedome of Christian Emperours and Kings doth not otherwise dispose of calling Synods in their dominions Primates may call the same two or moe or fewer in any yeare as necessitie shall perswade but whensoever they call any the same are called assembled and celebrated by the force of that Imperial authoritie which Kings and Emperours have either given to that Nicene Canon or which they in more explicite manner shall impart unto the Primates or Bishops in their Kingdomes 27. Now if Provinciall Councels may not nor ever are lawfully held in Christian Kingdomes without this authority how much lesse may generall and Oecumenicall the occasions of which being rare and extraordinary the calling also of them is extraordinary and both for the time place meerly arbitrary at the will of those who have Imperial or regal authority To say nothing how inconvenient it is even in civill government and how dangerous unto Christian States that all the Bish. of a Kingdome should leave their own Churches naked of their guides and Pastours and goe into farre and forraigne Countries without the command of their Soveraigne Lords especially goe at the command of an usurping Commander and that also if he require though their owne Soveraignes shall forbid or withstand the same of the mischiefe and danger whereof the example of Becket among many like may be a warning to all Kingdomes But leaving that to the grave consideration of others thus much now out of that which hath beene said is evident that seeing all those ten forenamed Synods were called and assemble by no other authority than Pontificall and seeing lawfully assemble they could not but onely by Imperiall it hence clearly ensueth that for defect of lawfull calling and assembling they are all of them no other than unlawfull Councels Againe seeing no Synods are congregated in Christs name but such as are assembled by him who hath from Christ authority to assemble them which in Christian Kingdomes none hath as wee have shewed but onely Kings and Emperours and seeing none of those ten were assembled by them it hence further and certainly ensueth that never one of those ten were gathered in Christs name and if not in Christs then sure in no other but in the name of Antichrist and so all of them in respect of their calling not only unlawfull but even Antichristian Councels 28. After their calling consider their proceedings for as those Councels were unlawfully assembled so were they also unlawfull by defect of the other essentiall condition which is due and synodall order for they all not onely wanted synodall freedome and order but which is worse they wanted that which is the onely meanes to have synodall freedome and order observed in any generall Councell and that is the Imperiall Presidencie in none of them was the Emperour in them all the Pope was President In the first Later ane Calistus in the second Innocentius the second in the third Alexander the third in the fourth Innocentius the third and the like might bee shewed in the rest but that Bellarmines words may ease us of that labour who speaking of all those ten Councels saith In eis omnibus sine Controversia Pontifex Rom. praesedit the Pope without doubt was President in them all 29. Nor was this an Episcopall Presidencie a preheminence only precedence before other Bishops in the Synod such as any Bish. to whoÌ„ the Emp. pleased to confer that dignity might lawfully enjoy when he gave it to none by name it then by his tacit consent or permission fell as it were by devolution upon the chiefe Bishop that was present in the Councell Such a Presidencie though it bee not due to the Pope seeing in the ancient Councels hee neither had it nor grudged that other should have it yet are wee not unwilling to allow that unto him if contenting himselfe therewith hee would seeke no more But the Presidencie which hee now desires and in all those ten Councels usurped is meerely Imperiall the Presidencie of governing the Synod and ordering it by his authority and power the very same which in all the generall Councels for a thousand yeares after Christ the Emperour held and had it as one of his Royalties and Imperiall rights none of all the Catholike Bishops in those Councels ever so much as contradicting much lesse resisting the same For any Bishops most of all for the Pope to take upon them such a Presidencie utterly overthrows all liberty and order in Councels for by it all the Bishops are to be kept in awe and order and the Pope who of all other is most exorbitant and farthest out of square ought by this to be curbed reduced in to order Even as when Catiline took upon him to bee the Ruler and guide to his assembly and a punisher of disorders among them though all the rest willingly submitted themselves and that with a solemne oath to bee ordered by him in their actions yet for all this order they were no free Romane Senate but a Conjuration of Conspirators striving to oppresse the Romane State liberties and ancient lawes Right so it is in these Synods when the Pope who is the Lord of misrule and Ring-leader of the Conspirators takes upon him this Presidencie to order Councels though the â—est not onely consent but binde themselves by a sacred oath to be subject to his authoritie this very usurpation of such Presidencie doth eo ipso exclude and banish al liberty synodall order makes their assemblies meere Conjurations against the truth and ancient faith of the Church 30. How could it now be chosen but that whasoever heresie the Pope with the faction of his Catilinarie Conspiratours embraced should in such Councels prevaile against the truth The Imperiall authority was the onely hedge or pale to keepe the Pope within his bounds that being once removed he said he did he decreed what he listed The rule of his Rigiment was now the old Canon of Constantius Quod ego volo pro Canone sit the proofe of all their decrees was borrowed
Iudge in his owne cause The Councell and by name the Popes Legates to whom the rest therein assented tooke this just exception thereat and said Non patimur we cannot indure this wrong to be done ut iste sedeat qui judicandus advenit that Dioscorus who is to bee judged sit as a Iudge in his owne cause upon which most just and equall motion the glorious Iudges who were Presidents for order commanded Dioscorus to remove from the Bench as I may say of Iudges and to sit in the middle of the Church which was the place both for the Accusers and Rei and Dioscorus accordingly sate there as the glorious Iudges had appointed Vpon the very same ground of equitie did the religious Emperour command in the second Ephesine Synod that if any question or cause fell out to be debated concerning Theodoret whom he commanded to be present that then absque illo Synodum convenire the Synod should assēble judge that cause without Theodoret he should have no judicatory power in his own cause And the like he further cōmanded cōcerning that holy Bish. Flavianus He some others had before in the Synod at Constantinople beene Iudges against Eutiches and condemned him An higher even that generall Councell at Ephesus which proved a Latrociny in the end was called to examine that judgment of Flavianus and the rest whether it was just or no. The Emperour commanded those who had beene Iudges of late in loco eorum esse qui judicandi sunt now to bee in the place of Rei such as were to bee judged A demonstration that if Theodosius or Martian or such like worthy and equall Iudges as they were at Chalcedon had been Presidents for order in their Trent assembly the Pope though hee had beene as just and orthodoxall as Flavianus much more being in impiety and heresie farre superiour to Dioscorus should not have beene permitted to sit among the Bishops of the Councell nor have so much as one single decisive suffrage or any judicatory power in his owne cause much lesse have had such a supremacie of judgement that his onely voyce and sentence should over-rule and over-sway the whole Councell besides 35. The other example is this Athanasius Bishop of Paros being accused of sundry crimes was called to triall before a Provinciall Councell at Antioch held by Domnus Bishop of that See unto whose Patriarchall authority Athanasius was subject when hee refused to come after three citations hee was deposed by that Synod and Sabinianus by the same authority made Bishop of Paros in his roome In the Councel at Chalcedon Athanasius came complained of wrongfull extrusion and desired of the generall Councell that his Bishopricke might be restored unto him pleading for his refusall to come to trial at the Synod at Antioch nothing else but this that Dōnus who was the chiefe Iudge in that Synod was his enemy and therefore hee thought it not equall to be tryed before him though he was his owne Patriarch The glorious Iudges gave order that the accusations against Athanasius should within eight moneths bee examined by Maximus then Bishop of Antioch and a Synod with him and if he were found guilty of those crimes or any other worthy deposition he should for ever want the Bishopricke But if either they did not within such time examine the cause or examining it finde the accusations untrue that then the See of Paros should be restored unto Athanasius as unjustly deposed and that Sabinianus should remaine but a substitute unto him untill Maximus could provide him of another Bishopricke Thus ordered the secular Iudges and the whole Councell of Chalcedon approved this sentence crying out Nihil justius nothing is more just nothing is more equall this is a just sentence you judge according to Gods minde O that once againe the world might bee so happy as to see one other such holy Councell as was this of Chalcedon and such worthy Iudges to be Presidents thereof All the Anathemaes and censures of their Councell at Trent where the Romane Domnus our capitall enemy was the chiefe nay rather the onely Iudge would even for this very cause be adjudged of no validity nor of force to bind I say not other Churches such as these of Britany but not those very men who are otherwise subject to the Popes Patriarchall authority as Athanasius was to Domnus Such an holy Councell would cause a melius inquirendum to be taken of all their judgements and proceedings against the Saints of God and unlesse they could justifie which while the Sun and Moone endureth they can never their slanderous crimes of heresie imputed unto us and withall purge themselves of that Antichristian apostasie whereof they are most justly accused and convicted not onely in foro poli but in their owne consciences and by the consenting judgement of the Catholike Church for six hundred nay in some points for fifteene hundred yeares after Christ they should and would by such a Councell bee deposed from all those Episcopall dignities and functions which they have so long time usurped and abused unto all tyranny injustice and subversion of the Catholike Faith 36. As the proceedings in that Councell were all unlawfull on the Popes part so were they also both unlawfull and servile in respect of the other Bishops who were assessors in that Assembly Could there possibly be any freedome or safety for Protestants among them being the children of that generation which had most perfidiously violated their faith and promise to Iohn Hus in the Councell of Constance and murdered the Prophets Among whom that Canon authorizing trecherous and perfidious dealing stood in force Quod non obstantibus that notwithstanding the safe conducts of Emperours Kings or any other granted to such as come to their Councels Quocunque vinculo se astrinxerint by what bond soever they have tyed themselves by promise by their honour by their oath yet non obstante any such band they may bring them into inquisition and proceed to censure to punish them as they shall thinke fit and then vaunt and glory in their perfidiousnesse saying Caesar obsignavit Christianus orbis major Caesare resignavit The Emperour hath sealed this with his promise and oath but our Councell which is above the Emperour hath repealed it it shall not stand in force 37. Could there be any freedome or liberty among those who were by many obligations most servilely addicted to the Pope The Apulian Bishops crying out aliorum omnium nomine in the name of all the rest in their Councell Nihil aliud sumus praeterquam creaturae mancipia sanctissimi patris O we are all but the Popes creatures his very slaves The complaint of the Bishop of Arles might here be renewed which he made of such like Councels at Basil that must bee done and of necessity be done and decreed in Councells quod nationi placeat Italicae which the Italian nation shall