name when he speaks of it at the time when it Persecuted the Christians and so cruelly shed the bloud of so many thousand Martyrs And what is most pleasant the Protestants are pleased to give to Christian Rome the name of Babylon and are not satisfied that Pagan Rome should be so called by St. Peter That being presupposed and all the weak batteries of our Adversaries so easily overthrown I had reason to say that if we knew not by other means that St. Peter had been at Rome yet all the reasons that are objected against it would never persuade a Man of sense of the contrary How must it be then at present when we have an invincible Argument to convince us of that truth which we ought never to abandon even though we could not disentangle our selves from the captious Arguments wherewith they assault us For that can never proceed but from the weakness of our mind and not the defect of the object which when it is once certainly known to be true is necessarily so always What is that invincible Argument then which ought to convince us of this truth It is that which as I have said I shall employ throughout this whole Histarical Treatise I mean Antiquity according to that great Principle which at first I laid down To wit that that which is newly broached if it be contrary to what hath been believed in the Primitive Church is false because ancient belief and that descends to us by Tradition especially when we trace it back to the age of the Apostles is always truth it self Now all Antiquity hath believed Blondel de la prim en l'Eglise Chap. 32. p. 823. that St. Peter was at Rome That is so true that Mr. David Blundel the most knowing of all our Protestant Ministers frankly confesses it And he must needs doe so for being a Man of such parts and so well read in the Ancients as appears in his Works he cannot deny but that almost all the Latin and Greek Fathers have asserted it Apud Prudent in peris toph Amongst the Latins Prosper Orosius St. Augustine Saint Jerome Prudentius Optatus Saint Ambrose Lactantius Arnobius St. Cyprian Hippolytus Tertullian and St. Irenoeus and amongst the Greeks Theodoret St. Cyril of Alexandria Apud Euseb l. 2. c. 24. Ibid. Ibid. c. 13. St. Chrysostom St. Epiphanius St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Athanasius Peter of Alexandria Eusebius Origene Clemens Alexandrinus Denis of Corinth Cajus contemporary with Tertullian and Papias a disciple and hearer of St. John Nor shall we mention all the other Writers who in all succeeding ages have constantly asserted the same thing insomuch that no Heretick nor Schismatick ever dreamt of calling it in question before our Protestants who are the Authours of that impudent and unjustifiable novelty which can never pass with a Man of sense in opposition to all venerable Antiquity and to the authority of so many great men who have constantly in all ages given testimony to that truth from our present times up to the age of the Apostles For to say as some have done That all the Fathers and these Learned men have been deceived by an equivocal word taking that part of the lesser Asia Quas omnes provincias aetas nostra Anatoliam vocat Vnde apud Barbaros pars illa in qua Asia Bithynia Galatia Cappadocia prima Rom. id est Romania sive Romaea appellatur Pars vero quae ad austrum est in qua Lycia Pamphylia Cilicia sunt Otto-Manidia id est Familiae Ottomani quibus illa successit quondam dicebantur Dominic Marius Niger Venet. Asiae Pomment 1. de Asia Minore where St. Peter Preached for the City of Rome and which as the Geographer Marius Niger writes was called Rom. or Romania it is a ridiculous extravagance and no less shamefull ignorance It is onely the Turks who since they became Masters of the Eastern Empire have called the neighbouring Countrey to Constantinople especially beyond the Bosphorus Romania or Rom. or Romelia as that Geographer says for others give that name of Romania or Romelia onely to Thrace This being so Can it be affirmed without disgrace that these holy Fathers who flourished many Ages not onely before the Conquest of the Turks but even before the founding of Constantinople have been deceived in imagining that St. Peter was at Rome because it hath been said that he Preached in the Countrey of Rom. See what extravagance they are capable of who to satisfie their passion dare confront their ridiculous novelty with Antiquity of which we may say with Pope Celestine I. Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem CHAP. III. That the Church of Rome hath been founded by St. Peter that he was the first Bishop of it and that the Popes are his Successours therein IT will not be difficult to confirm the truth of this by the same principle of Antiquity to which I confine my self in this Treatise For all the same Fathers almost Cyprian ad Corn. Ep. 55. lib. de unit Optat. Cont. Parm. l. 2. Ambros de Sacr. l. 3. c. 1. Hierom. de Script in Petr. alibi Hegesip apud Hier. de Script Ruffin invect Sulp. Sever. Hist Sacr. l. 3. August contra Petil. l. 2. c. 51. and ancient Authours who assure us that Saint Peter was at Rome say also that he founded that particular Church It is true that many of them joyn St. Paul with him in that function as it is done at present and there is reason for so doing because both of them Preached the Gospel there in different times and both at the same time Consecrated that illustrious Church by their Martyrdom But when they speak as they very often do of the Episcopacy and Chair of Rome they call it solely the Chair of St. Peter without joining St. Paul with him So that it is not to be doubted but that all Antiquity hath acknowledged St. Peter of all the Apostles to have been the first Bishop of Rome De la Primanté en l'Eglise p. 44. as Mr. Blondel confesses So also when Optatus Melevitanus St. Jerome St. Austin and the rest give a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome they place always St. Peter first and bring them down to him that possessed the See in their time to shew the uninterrupted Succession of Popes from St. Peter whose lawfull Successours they are and whose Chair they fill as the holy Fathers and Councils frequently say I know there are some who have said Hilar. in Frag. p. 23. Cypr. Ep. 43. Optat. contra Parm. l. 1. That Bishops being the Successours of the Apostles are in that quality all of them in St. Peter's Chair We say the same also and it must needs be granted for the reason that I shall alledge according to one of the Principles which I laid down at first in the first Chapter of this Treatise As the Universal Church is one and a body constituted of all particular Churches in
matter of Right but onely faithfully producing uncontroverted matters of fact which make appear what the belief of the Ancient Church was concerning that Point CHAP. VII What Antiquity hath concluded from St. Peter's being reprehended by St. Paul THAT Action which was of great importance and which notwithstanding is not mentioned by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles is related by St. Paul himself in a very few but very significant words But when Peter says he Galat. c. 2. in the second Chapter of his Epistle to the Galatians was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face because he was to be blamed For before that certain came from James he did eat with the Gentiles but when they were come he withdrew and separated himself fearing them which were of the circumcision And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel I said unto Peter if thou being a Jew livest after the manner of Gentiles and not as do the Jews why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews It is evident that St. Paul in that place rebukes St. Peter and that sharply too and that he not onely relates what he said unto him upon that occasion but also assures us that St. Peter was to be blamed and consequently had erred Now wherein had he erred according to Saint Paul It was not that he had lived with Jews according to the Law of Moses August Epist ult ad Hieronym concerning the distinction of meats for before the Synagogue was honourably interr'd the legal Ceremonies might still be observed when it was thought convenient as Saint Paul himself Act. 16.18.21 oftner than once observed them But it was in that he withdrew himself from the converted Gentiles and that living no longer with them for fear of offending these Jews that were come from Jerusalem he gave occasion to the other Jews and converted Gentiles to think that they were still obliged to observe the Law of Moses The truth is some of these new Christians amongst the Jews Act. 15. who were lately come to Antioch had caused a great deal of trouble in that Church because they maintained that all who had embraced the Faith of Jesus Christ were obliged to be Circumcised if they were not so before and to observe the Law of Moses without which they could not be saved St. Paul and St. Barnabas who at that time still Preached the Gospel at Antioch with all their might withstood those false Apostles and taught the contrary But when those poor Christians of Gentilism saw that the Prince of the Apostles who had far greater authority than St. Paul had wholly changed his conduct after the arrival of these Jews that he ate no more of meats prohibited by the Law and that those of Antioch who were converted from Judaism and even Barnabas who was before for the liberty of the Gospel did the same as Saint Peter did and separated from them they thought that they onely did so because it was in reality found that these legal observations were necessary to Salvation and that they were obliged to keep them as well as the Jews And that made St. Paul tell Saint Peter that he compelled the converted Gentiles to Judaise because by his example which is a stronger and far more persuasive argument than words are he gave them to know that for all they were Christians yet they were still obliged to observe the Law of Moses which is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ whose yoke is easie and who by the New Law of Grace hath put us in the perfect liberty of the Sons of God And therefore Saint Paul on that occasion said That St. Peter and those who adhered to him in that conduct which made the converted Gentiles to err walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel Quod hoc ei coram omnibus dixit necessitas coegit Non enim erat utile errorem qui palam noceret in publico non emendare Aug. lib. de Expos Epist ad Galat. Si verum scripfit Paulus verum est quod Petrus tunc non ingrediebatur ad veritatem Evangelit id ergo faciebat quod facere non debebat Epist 19. ad Hier. c. 2. Petro dicenti quod fieri non debebat l. 6. contra Donat. c. 2. Take the words of St. Austine concerning that action of St. Peter in three or four passages of his works where he plainly calls it an errour St. Paul saith he was obliged publickly to reprove Saint Peter that he might cure all the rest by that remedy for an errour that did hurt to the publick was not to be rebuked privately If St. Paul said true says he in another place Saint Peter walked not then according to the truth of the Gospel and did what he ought not to have done It maketh nothing to the purpose to say as St. Jerome hath done that all that was but a design laid betwixt St Peter and St. Paul to bring the Jews to their duty by letting them see that their Protectour St. Peter submitted to that reprimand of St. Paul Besides that that way of proceeding suiteth very ill with the temper of St. Paul and agrees not at all with his words that dissimulation no ways justifies Saint Peter and makes St. Paul an Accomplice in his fault For it is not at all lawfull to dissemble in such a manner as that the dissimulation becomes the cause of a great scandal and stumbling-block Hieron Ep. 86. seq August Ep. 8. seq Consilium veritatis admisit rationi legitimae quam Paulus vindicabat facile concensu Cypr. ad Quint. Ep. 71. which makes people fall into errour by compelling them to Judaize St. Austine then who valiantly oppugns that opinion which so little favours those two great Apostles and who alledges for himself St. Ambrose and St. Cyprian is so persuaded that St. Peter on that occasion erred that he makes use of that Instance to excuse the errour of St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks which he reckoned to be invalid If St. Peter Si potuit Petrus contra veritatis regulam quam postea Ecclesia tenuit cogere Gentes Judaizare cur non potuit Cyprianus contra veritatis regulam quam postea tota Ecclesia tenuit cogere haereticos schismaticos Re-baptizari Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. contra Donatist c. 1. Peter saith he could compell the Gentiles to Judaize contrary to the rule of truth which the Church hath since followed Why might not St. Cyprian compell Hereticks and Schismaticks to be Re-baptized contrary to the rule of truth which the whole Church hath observed since And elsewhere he makes use of the same instance to condemn that errour of St. Cyprian I admit not says he that Doctrine of Cyprian Hoc Cypriani non accipio
Optatus St. Cyril of Jerusalem Saint Basil St. Austine and most Catholick Bishops of Aegypt Asia and Africa not to mention those who in the interval of almost Threescore years that was betwixt Pope Stephen and the Council had liberty to follow the party of St. Cyprian believed not in the Third Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church that the Pope was Infallible What can be answered to that Let us now consult the Council in Question or rather the Councils which have pronounced Sovereignly concerning that point of the Baptism of Hereticks You have three of them First the full Council which is the first Council of Arles to which the Pope St. Sylvester sent four Legats in the year 314. makes this Decree in the Eighth Canon upon occasion of the Africans De Afris quod propriâ lege utantur ut Re-baptisent placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de Haeresi venerit interrogent eum symbolum si perviderint eum in patre filio Spiritu Sancto Baptizatum manus ei tantum imponatur sic accipiat Spiritum Sanctum Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc Trinitatem Rebaptisetur who Rebaptized all Hereticks If any Heretick return to the Church let him be asked the Question and if it appear that he hath been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that hands be onely laid upon him to the end he may receive the Holy Ghost but if he answer not according to the Mystery of the Trinity let him be Re-baptized Moreover the great Council of Nice Twelve years after ordains in the Canon 19. that the Paulanists who return to the Church should be Re-baptized De Paulanistis ad Ecclesiam Catholicam confugientibus definitio prolata est ut iterum Baptisentur omnimodis Aug. de haer ad quod vult Haeres 44. because as St. Austine says these Hereticks the Disciples of Paulus Samosatanus who believed not the Trinity nor the Incarnation of the Word Can. 1. observed not the form of Baptism in Baptizing in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity But as to the Novatians who Baptized in the Name of the Trinity as Catholicks did the Council declares that it is sufficient to lay hands upon them In fine Can. 7. the first Council of Constantinople which is the second General ordains also the Montanists Sabellians and such other Hereticks who Baptized not in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity against which they blasphemed should be Re-baptized but not the Novatians the Quartodecimans nor yet the Arians and Macedonians because although these had not the true belief which ought to be had of that great Mystery yet they Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which St. Austine who hath Written after that Council of Constantinople assures to be sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament though the Faith of him who Baptizes be not pure So that saith he Manifestum est fieri posse ut fide non integraÌ„ integrum in quoquam maneat Baptismi Sacramentum ....... Quamoâ—rem nisi Evangelicis verbis in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Marcion Baptismum consecrabat integrum erat Sacramentum quamvis ejus fides sub iisdem verbis aliud opinantis quam Catholica veritas docet non esset integra Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. cont Donatist c. 14 15. if Marcion Baptized using the words of the Gospel in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost his Baptism was good though that Heretick under these words believed a thing quite different from what the Catholick Church teaches That being so there is no more to be done but to compare these Decrees of Councils with those of the Pope St. Stephen and of Saint Cyprian Si quis à quacunque Haeres c. manus ei tantum imponatur This Pope Decrees that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever he shall have onely hands laid upon him without being Re-baptized Si quis à quacunque Haeresi Qui ex quacunque Haeresi c. Baptisentur c. St. Cyprian says on the contrary that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever he ought to be Re-baptized These are two extreams directly opposite one to another The Three Councils take the middle course explaining the one and condemning the other They are not for Re-baptizing the Novatians and other Hereticks who Baptize in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity and they hold their Baptism to be lawfull and good according to the true Apostolical Tradition but they are also absolutely for Re-baptizing the Paulanists and all such who Baptize not in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thereby clearly defining that their Baptism is null And therein they explain and rectifie the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen adding but in formal terms an exception which is onely understood therein They plainly then declare on the one hand how the Decree of St. Stephen is to be understood and on the other that St. Cyprian Nondum veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium concilium who expressed himself clearly enough in his was deceived but very innocently because as St. Austine says L. 1. de Baptis Contra Donatis c. 7 8 9 17. the truth was not then discovered and declared by the Council Now seeing before that Declaration one might according to that holy Father freely follow the opinion of St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Decree of the Pope and that after that of the Council one had not the same liberty it is altogether evident that it must once more be concluded that it is because the ancient Church believed that a Council is Infallible and that the Pope is not CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius THESE two holy Popes Victor and Stephen whom so many Catholick Bishops of the Ancient Church have not believed to be Infallible had notwithstanding the truth on their side and in their favours the Councils decided But there are others who according to the unquestionable testimonies of the Ancients have fallen into errour whence it may be irrefragably concluded upon better reason that Antiquity reckoned them not Infallible I shall onely alledge seven or eight of the most evident instances which will be sufficient to prove that the Ancients acknowledged no other Infallibility amongst Men but what God hath given to his Church The first is Liberius who to get himself recalled from the Exile to which the Arian Emperour had Banished him and to remount the Pontifical Throne which Felix had usurped Ann. 357. solemnly approved Arianism This he did by condemning jointly with the Arians St. Athanasius the great defender of the Faith and scourge of Arianism besides by suppressing the Term Consubstantial which distinguished a Catholick from an Arian and which was in a manner the
followed in this Treatise what the Doctrin of Antiquity is as to that and that the Ancients have always believed that neither the Pope nay nor the Church have received any Power from Jesus Christ but only over things meerly Spiritual and wholly distinct from Temporals that therefore Kings and Sovereign Princes according to the appointment of God are not Subject as to Temporals either directly or indirectly to any Ecclesiastical Power as depending upon God alone who hath established them And that they cannot be Deposed upon any Pretext whatsoever by the Authority of the Church nor their Subjects absolved from the Oath of Allegiance and Obedience that they owe them This I shall briefly and solidly prove by matters of fact which cannot be denied CHAP. XXVII What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have Taught us as to that THERE is nothing in the Church of God more Ancient than Jesus Christ and his Apostles Now they are the first that have Taught us that the Church and the Popes have nothing at all to do with Temporal affairs I shall make no long Discourses here for proving of that truth which is so conspicuous at first glance that we need no more but Eyes to read the words that express it without any necessity of a Commentary to explain them Don't we read in the Gospel that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ John 17. and by consequent of his Church and his Vicar upon Earth is not of this World Matth. 22. That we must render to Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods That afterward Jesus Christ submits himself and his Vicar also to the Emperor by commanding St. Peter to pay the Tribute that was due to him for them both That he takes not the Crown from Herod Matth. 17. who did what he could to rob him of life which hath given occasion to the Church in one of her Hymns to say Non eripit Mortalia quia Regna dat Coelestia He deprives not Kings of their Temporal Kingdoms since he came into the World to give us the Kingdom of Heaven John 6. Is it not clear that he fled into the Desart when they talked of making him a King Luke 12. Who would not so much as judg of a difference betwixt two Brothers concerning their Succession And that he positively told his Apostles oftner than once that he would by no means have them like the Kings of the Gentiles who bear rule over their Subjects Matth. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. and far less have any Dominion or Jurisdicton over Kings May not we see in the Epistles of the Apostles an express command given to all sorts of Men without exception Every Soul Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. to be Subject to Sovereign Powers That the Powers that are are ordained of God That whosoever resists them resists the Ordinance of God and draweth upon himself Eternal damnation 1 Pet. 2. That all without exception must be subject to their King for so is the will of God and that we must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Rom. 13. This shews the falsity of the distinction of Buchanan and of his impious followers Buch. I. De Jure Regni apud Scotos who to answer those that objected to them the express command of God made to us in Scripture of obeying our Princes whoever they be and the example of Primitive Christians who according to the Law of God were always Loyal to the Emperors tho Pagans Persecutors and Enemies of their Religion have had the boldness to say that that was only fit in the first Plantation of the Church when Christians were too weak to take up Arms against Princes and to shake off their yoke They are to know that it was for fear of offending God and of bringing upon themselves Eternal damnation that they were Subject and Loyal to the Emperors and not for fear of their wrath and of the punishments which with so much courage they slighted when it was put to them to go to Martyrdom or to deny the Faith Buchanan ought at least to have read the fourscore and seventh Chapter of the Apology of Tertullian that he might have learnt this truth from that great Man that it was only to obey the command of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles that the Christians of his time were Loyal to their Princes and not at all because of their weakness and inability of acting and of rising in Arms against them to deliver themselves from their cruel and tyrannical Government If we would saies he Si hostes exertos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum copiarum vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas castella castra ipsa c. sola vobis relinquimus Templa cui Bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis qui tam libenter trucidamur si non apud istam disciplinam mâ—gis occidi liceret quam occidere revolt by openly declaring our selves your Enemies could we want Forces and a great number of good Troops we who fill your Towns your Isles your Forts your Camps your Armies in a word all but your Temples And though we were not equal in number yet what is it we might not undertake and with what courage and zeal could not we fight you we who suffer our selves to be inhumanly put to death with so much Joy if we had not learnt in the School of Christ that we had better suffer our selves to be Massacred than to kill Men in Rebellion and in waging War against our Princes who persecute us It was not then propter iram but propter conscientiam to satisfie their Conscience and obey the Law of God that these Primitive Christians inviolably kept their Allegiance which they owed to their Emperors though they were infidels and wicked This is it which we have plainly declared to us in the Gospel and in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul Whereupon the true Divines who in their Discourses are not conducted by the bare light of Human Philosophy which many times degenerates into Sophistry but by the Principles of Scripture that cannot deceive have in all times made this truly Theological Argument to which no Philosophical subtlety can be objected It is most evident by these clear and express passages of Scripture that Kings are ordained of God and that the Allegiance and Obedience that Subjects owe to them is of Divine Right Now neither Popes nor the Church can destroy and overthrow what God hath fixed nor dispence with that which is of Divine Right as manifestly appears in what concerns the essential parts of the Sacraments as for instance of Marriage of which it is said Quod Deus conjunxit homo non separet Therefore neither Popes nor Councils can ever depose Kings nor acquit their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance And this is the more convincing
Beato Petro Apostolotuo collatis clavibus animas ligandi atque solvendi Pontificium tradidisti This perfectly well expresses the nature of that Power of binding and loosing which reaches not beyond Mens Souls and the Spiritual But in the review that was made of the Divine Offices at Rome under Clement VIII about the end of the last Age and the beginning of this they who took the pains of revising and correcting them thought convenient to expunge that so essential a word Animas Wherefore Nay it is no hard matter to guess at the cause of it For it was under that Pontificate that the most famous new Doctors wrote with greatest earnestness and zeal for the new Opinion which gives to Popes at least the indirect direct Power over the Temporal of Kings CHAP. XXVIII What hath been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers of the Church as to that Point THAT absolute independence of Kings as to Temporals is Justified by the constant Tradition of the Church since Jesus Christ the Apostles and their Disciples and in all the Holy Fathers who with common consent teach us that all Christians without exception whether he be Apostle or Prophet In E. ad Rom. c. 13. as St. Chrysostome speaks ought to be Subject to their Sovereigns though they be Pagans and Hereticks as it is evident they themselves were As to that Point De const Mon. c. 21. or 17. In cap. 13. Rom. c. 25. let us consult Justin Athenagoras St. Ireneus St. Basil St. Gregory Nazianzen St. Ambrose St. Jerome and St. Chrysostome St. Austin in his fifth Book of the City of God and above all Tertullian in his Apology where he saies that Kings are under the Power of God alone In cujus solius potestate sunt à quo sunt secundi post quem primi And that they hold the second place being the next after God Is not that plainly enough said that betwixt God and Kings it is not lawful to put the Popes as to the Temporal In Ps 50. And thereupon it is that Cassiodorus and after him Venerable Bede have said that none but Kings can say to God as David did Tibi soli peccavi because they have no other Master nor Superior but God alone who hath right to Judge and punish them This they learnt from St. Jerome who interpreting the same verse of David hath these excellent words He speaks in that manner because he was King Rex enim erat alium non timebat alium non habebat supra se Hyer in Ps 51. he stood in awe of none but God alone and had no other Superior but him Hence it is that St. Chrysostome speaking of King Ozias who was severely rebuked by the High Priest Regi corpora commissa sunt sacerdoti animae ille egit hic exhortatur ille habet arma sensibilia hic Spiritualia Chrys hom 4. dc verb. Isa openly declares that the Power of Priesthood is confined to the sole Right that God hath given to Popes to admonish reprove exhort and to make use of their Spiritual Arms when it is necessary the care of Souls being joyned to their ministery but not at all that of the Body that is of the Temporal which God hath reserved for Kings That is the distinction which God hath made betwixt the two Powers the one wholly Spiritual and the other Temporal both which ought to keep within the bounds that the Master of both hath set to either of them Apud Athan. Ep. ad solitar And this the great Osius of Corduba so vigorously represented to Constantius the Arian Emperor when he wrote to him that as the Church hath no Power over the Emperor and that he who attempts any thing upon his Empire transgresses the commands of God so also doth the Emperor if he take to himself what only belongs to the Church It is written adds he Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and unto God the things that are Gods I know that the Modern Authors having none of the Ancient Fathers of the Church for them have thought at least that they may make use of the testimony of a great Saint who tho he be not of the number of those who flourished in the Ancient Church and therefore are the true evidences of her belief has nevertheless in a manner as great Authority as is needful to make his Judgment pass for a truth well confirmed This Father is St. Bernard Bernard l. 4. de consider c. 3. who upon these words of the Apostles to Jesus Christ Here are two Swords and upon the answer that he made to them it is enough saies that these two Swords signifie the two Powers Sed is quidem pro Ecclesiá ille ab Ecclesiâ exercendus est ille Sacerdotis is militis manu the Spiritual and the Temporal that the material Sword ought to be employed for the Church and the Spiritual by the Church this by the Hand of the Pope and that by the Hand of the Soldier Hitherto there is nothing at all that favours their Opinion But what they found upon are the following words sed sane ad nutum sacerdotis jussum imperatoris that is to say as they interpret it according to the will of the Priest and by the command of the Emperor But it is an easie matter to answer them first that that is a witty thought and an Alegory of St. Bernards invention For of all the Holy Fathers who have interpreted the Gospel unto us there is not so much as one that hath given to these words Here are two Swords that sense which is not at all literal which we are not obliged to follow nay and according to the Decree of the Council of Trent which we ought not to follow for fixing a Doctrin that we ought to embrace seeing it is not conform to the common interpretation of the Holy Fathers Secondly We 'll tell them that the words of St. Bernard ought to be understood according to those of Cesarius Cisterciensis who flourished in the same twelfth Age and who pursuing the same Allegory of St. Bernard saith that the two Powers the Spiritual and Temporal Unus gladius Spiritualis est qui Papae collatus est à Domino alter materialis quem tenet Imperator similiter à Deo collatus hoc duplici gladio regitur defensatur Ecclesia Dei are the two Swords that the Spiritual hath been given to the Pope and the material to the Emperor and that by these two Swords the Church is governed and defended it is plain enough that by that the Spiritual Sword is only given to the Pope In the third place Cesar Cisterc hom 2. in dom 2. advent if they would have us stick precisely to the words of St. Bernard we readily grant what they would have but at the same time we must ask them who hath told them that ad nutum Sacerdotis signifies according to the absolute will of the
Decision in controverted Points they have many times pronounced Sentences conform to those which the Popes had already past against one of the two Parties nevertheless they have examined them to know whether they were just or not which makes it apparent that they believed that they had a Superiority over the Pope altogether like to that which superiour Judicatures have over inferiour Take two famous Instances of this which puts the Truth thereof beyond all doubt Flavian Patriarch of Constantinople in his particular Council condemned the pernicious Doctrine of Eutyches who acknowledged but one Nature in Jesus Christ and the great Pope St. Leo by his Judgment confirmed that of the Patriarch as appears by the Letters which he wrote unto him wherein he wonderfully well asserts the Catholick Belief concerning the Distinction of two Natures the divine and humane in one only person in Jesus Christ against the Error of that Arch-Heretick who confounded them Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria who openly declared himself the Protector of Eutyches undertook his Business and prevailed so far by favour of Chrysaphius who could do any thing with his Master the Emperour Theodosius the younger that this Prince called the second Council of Ephesus there to examine what had been determined at Constantinople and Rome against Eutyches St. Leo who approv'd not this Proceeding that look'd like cabaling Quia etiam talium non est negligenda curatio piè ac religiosè Christiamssimus Imperator haberi voluit Episcopale concilium ut pleniori Judicio omnis possit error aboleri fratres nostros c. qui vice meâ Sincto conventui vestrae fraternitatis intersint communi vobiscum sententia quae domino sunt placitura constituant hoc est ut primitus pestifero errore damnato c. at first withstood it but consented thereunto at length for the sake of Peace hoping that all things would be carried in that Council according to Canonical Forms and that then the definitive Judgment that would be pronounced there would calm the Troubles of the Church Whereupon he sent his Legates thither with Letters to the Patriarch Flavian and to the Council wherein having declared what he had done against the new Heresie of Eutyches he adds that however seeing all care is to be taken to reclaim those who were gone astray and that the Emperour had appointed a Council to be held for that Effect to the end that Error might entirely be abolished by a more ample Judgment he sends a Bishop a Priest and a Deacon with an Apostolical Natory to assist thereat in his Name and there to settle by common Advice what was fit for the Service of God that is to say Si tamen sensus haereticos plenè aperteque propria voce subscriptione damnaverit St. Leo Ep. 15. ad Ephes Syn. that after so pernicious an Error should be condemned they would take into consideration the re-establishment of the Author of it always provided that he condemned his Heresie by Word and Writing This great Pope openly declares That that Opinion of Eutyches is Heresie Ep. 16. ad Flav. Nay he writes to Flavian that it is so manifest that there was no necessity to assemble a Council for condemning it and nevertheless he is content that one be held to the end that Error may be entirely abolished by a more ample Judgment But more still For that second Council of Ephesus by the Power of Chrysaphius and Violence of Dioscorus being become that infamous Den of Thieves where all Order was over-turned and Eutyches absolved this holy Pope who would have that Heresie thundred by a definitive Sentence made continual Instances to the Emperour Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria after the Death of Theodosius for calling of a new Council which was held at Chalcedon where after Examination of the Doctrine of Eutyches and the Letters of St. Leo they confirmed by their Sovereign Authority and by a supreme Judgment what the holy Pope had pronounced against that Heresie And in that he gloried when writing to Theodoret who had condemned in that Council the Heresie of Nestorius whereof he was suspected and that of Eutyches after he had congratulated with him in a most obliging manner he subjoyns upon his account these lovely Words We glory in the Lord Gloriamur in Domino qui nullum nos in nostris fratribus detrimentum sustinere permisit sed quae nostro prius ministerio definierat universo fraternitatis firmavit assensu ut verè à se prodiisse ostenderet quod prius à primâ omnium sede formatum toâ—ius orbis Judicium recepisset St. Leo Ep. 63. ad Theodor. who hath not permitted that our Brethren should do any thing to our Disadvantage but on the contrary hath confirmed by the Assent of the whole Council what had been before defined by our Ministery to shew that that Judgment has truly proceeded from him which being first rendered by the chief of all Sees hath been received by the Judgment of the whole Church Is not that to say that to know whether the Decisions of the Pope proceed from God or not they must be received by the whole Church and that by consequent the Council which represents it and which gives them their full force by its supreme Authority is above the Pope This appears still more clearly by one other Instance where it is to be seen that a General Council having examined a Judgment solemnly rendered by the Pope rescinds it and passes a contrary Sentence It is that which the fifth Council pronounced against the three Chapters and against the Constitution of Pope Virgilius whereby he had approved them forbidding all men whosoever to condemn them I have already spoken of that Action which standeth not in need of any long discourse to set it off in its full Force and Vigour In this Council the Doctrine of the Three Chapters and the Constitution of the Pope who approves them are examined He is prayed to preside in that Assembly and in the Examination that is made there of these Writings He refuses though he was then at Constantinople where the Council was held and with all his might still maintains those three Chapters and nevertheless they are condemned and are to this day reckoned to have been very lawfully and justly condemned nay he was afterwards necessitated to submit to that Decree as I have already said upon the Credit of very good Vouchers and if yet he did not submit to it it is still certain that the Council examined his Judgment and rescinded it After that can it be doubted but that the ancient Church believed that a Council is superiour to the Pope Let 's reflect a little upon what I said of the sixth Council which condemned the Heresie of the Monothelites In it was examined what the Pope St. Martin had decided concerning that Subject in his Council of the Bishops of Italy celebrated at Rome and what Pope Honorius had before him
the Iconoclaste Before that saith the same Author Popes were Subject to the Emperors and durst neither judg nor resolve of any thing that concerned them Imperatoribus suberant de iis Judicare vel quicquam decernere non audebat Papa Romanus Thus the Ancient Popes behaved themselves and so much they believed of their Pontifical Authority which does not at all reach the Temporal And to this you may add Onuphr Pavin in vit Greg. VII ex edit Gresser pag. 271. 272. that in the eight first Ecumenical Councils there is nothing to be found but what speaks the compleat submission that is due to Emperors and Kings but nothing that can in the least encroach upon or invalidate the absolute independence of their Temporal Power Now if in some of the Councils which succeeded the Pontificat of Gregory VII Kings have been threatned to be deposed and if an Emperor hath been actually deposed that was not done by the way of decision and though a Council had made a decision as to that yet it must only have been an unwarrantable attempt upon the Right of Princes and could have been of no greater Force than the Bulls whereby it hath been often enough offered at to dispossess them of their States but which have always been condemned and rejected as abusive For after all there will be reason everlastingly to say that which all Antiquity hath believed that the Church her self infallible as she is which the Pope according to the same Antiquity is not hath not received from her heavenly spouse the gift of Infallibility but as to matters purely Spiritual and wholly abstracted from the Temporal and the Kingdom of the World wherein Jesus Christ who hath said my Kingdom is not of this World would never meddle CHAP. XXX What hath always been the opinion of the Gallican Church and of all France as to that The conclusion of this Point and of the whole Treatise HItherto I have made appear what hath been the Judgment and Doctrin of Jesus Christ of his Apostles the Fathers Ancient Popes and of the Councils that is of all venerable Antiquity concerning that Power at least indirect which some would attribute to Popes Now seeing the most Christian Kingdom above all other States of Christendom hath always stuck close to the Ancient Doctrin of the Church which is the solid foundation of their Liberties Therefore it was that all the Bishops of France representing the Gallican Church the faculty of Theology of the great University of Paris so much respected in the World the chief Parliament of France and in imitation of it the rest acting in the Name and by the Authority of the King as Protector of the Canons and holy Decrees have even in this Kingdom maintained the Ancient Doctrin and upon all occasions condemned that pernicious novelty which is contrary to it This I intend briefly to prove The Gallican Church since the settlement of the most Christian Monarchy amongst the Gaules hath always inviolably observed the Rights of the Royalty in her Councils which were so often called by the sole Authority of Clovis and his Successors especially during the first and second race of our Kings And when the Popes would have attempted any thing upon their Temporal the French Bishops have always opposed it with all imaginable force and vigour Of this I shall give you some instances Lotharius Louis and Pepin Sons of Louis the Debonaire instigated by some who had a mind to make their advantage of the dissentions that they had sowed betwixt the Father and his Children Auct Anonym Vic. Ludou Pii rose in Arms against him and found means to engage into their party Pope Gregory IV. Ann. 832. who came in person to their Camp to favour their pretentions The Emperor on the other Hand accompanied with a great part of the Bishops of France failed not to advance with a Powerful Army in May the year following as far as Worms not far distant from the Camp of the Princes his Children Ut si more praedecessorum suorum aderat curâ—tontas necteret moras non sibi occurrendo Immediately he sent them some of his Bishops who exhorted them to return to their duty and who told the Pope in his name that if he was come according to the custom of his Predecessors he much wondered that he had so long delayed to come and wait upon him But when it was discovered that instead of keeping within the bounds of a bare Mediator for reconciling the Children to their Father so as it was believed he was come with a design to Excommunicate the Emperor and his Bishops if they obeyed not his Will and the Princes for whom he thereby manifestly declared himself against the Emperor Then these Bishops without being startled Nullo modo se velle voluntati ejas succumbere sed si Excommunicaturus adveniret Excommunicatus abiret cam aliter se babeas antiquorum Canonum autoritas made it known to him plainly that in that they would no ways obey him and that if he was come to Excommunicate them he should return Excommunicated himself seeing the Authority of the ancient Canons prescribes and ordains the quite contrary to what he attempts The truth is that expression seems to me a little too high but it cannot be denied but that it makes it clearly out to us that the Bishops of France would not at all suffer that the Pope should offer to enjoyn any thing concerning the Government of the State and the Temporal interests which were the Points that occasioned the War and besides that they were very well persuaded that Popes are Subject to the Holy Canons and by consequent to the Councils which have made them Moreover the great clashing that Philip the Fair had with Pope Boniface VIII who openly attacked the Rights of his Crown is very well known and it is also well known what the Gallican Church did for maintaining them and the cautions they took against the Bull unam Sanctam which raised the Popes in Temporals above all Sovereigns It is likewise known what decisions she gave Louis XII for the preservation of his Rights in the difference that he had with Julius II. and what the Clergy of France Assembled at Mante during the League Anno 1591. declared upon occasion of the Bull of Gregory XIV against Henry IV. To the Estates General at Paris 1614 1615. Now if Cardinal Duperron hath in his Speeches said something not altogether consistent with the Doctrin always maintained by the Clergy of France that is but the opinion of one private Doctor who hath oftener than once changed his sentiment and on that occasion transgressed the orders of the Ecclesiastical Chamber of the States General in name of whom he spake and who would have him only represent to the third Estate that it did not belong to them but to the Church to decide that Point of Doctrin concerning the Pontifical Power as it
seemed they had done in the first Article of their address That was the sole cause of the difference that was betwixt the two Chambers as that of the Clergy informed Pope Paul V. in the answer they made to his Brief of the last of January one thousand six hundred and fifteen Augebamur enim non mediocriter cum videremus ipses Catholicos zelo quodam minus prudenti abreptos cognitionem earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent ad se trahere de quaestionibus ejusmodi statuere velle quas nisi pastorum suorum vocibus edocti non debeant attingere Sed ea molestia è vestigio in laetitiam versa est postquam iidem nostris monitis justis rationibus adducti demum agnoverunt omnem hanc autoritatem penes Ecclefiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi preesse voluerit 7 Calend. Nartii We were not a little troubled say these Prelates to see even Catholicks transported with an undiscreet zeal offer to take cognisance of matters relating to Faith and to decide such kind of questions as they must needs first be instructed about by their Pastors before they can meddle with them But our grief was soon changed into gladness when these Gentlemen yielding to our Admonitions and just Remonstrances at length acknowledged that none but the Church hath that Authority and that none but the Pastors have from her received the Power and Right of instructing and guiding the Flock That was the thing in question and not at all the substance of the Article wherein the Clergy of France agreed though they judged it not a proper business to be proposed in the Estates especially at that time The truth is that Chamber of the Clergy was so far from invalidating in the least the substance of the Doctrin contained in that Article and in all times received in France concerning the absolute independence of our Kings as to Temporals that on the contrary they oftener than once protested that they acknowledged that independence Manifeste de ce qui se passa aux Estat Generaux entre le Clergi et le Tiers Estat 1615 and that it ought to be held for a Maxim That the King in Temporals can have no other Superiour but God alone Discours veritable de ce qui se passa aux Estats Generaux and that the Vicar of Jesus Christ hath no jurisdiction over matters purely Temporal So that although the Clergy declared that it belonged only to the Church to handle and decide a Point of Doctrin and Religion nay and that that was not an affair to be consulted about in the Estates Procés verbal de cequi s'est passé en la Chambre du Tiers Estat Avis donné au Roy en son Conseil par M. le Prince sur le Cahier du Tiers Estat yet they avowed that they believed in substance the same thing which the third Estate had proposed and which the late Prince of Conde a great Defender of the Catholick Faith most prudently represented to the King in Council the fourth of January the same year and which the University of Paris expressed in most significant terms in their Petition presented to the Estates upon the same occasion the two and twentieth of January To wit Discours veritable dece qui s'est passé c. That our Kings depend upon none but God us to Temporals and that there is no Power upon Earth that can depose them nor dispence with or absolve their Subjects from the Obedience and Allegiance that they owe to them under any pretext whatsoever That was their Doctrin which they would not have to be weakned or impaired in the Remonstrances which they had caused Cardinal Du Perron to make to the Chamber of the third Estate And certainly after so many proofs one cannot doubt of the Opinion of that learned Clergy always uniform as to that Point I might here produce a great many very convincing Testimonies but that would not be necessary now after that famous declaration which the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris by order of the King in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty two as representing the Gallican Church have made of their Judgment concerning the Ecclesiastical Power This is the first Article of it whereby they declare That God hath given to St. Peter and his Successors the Vicars of Jesus Christ and to the Church Power over Spiritual matters which belong to Eternal Salvation but not over Civil and Temporal The Lord having said My Kingdom is not of this World and Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and unto God the things that are Gods And that Apostolical Decree ought to remain firm and inviolable Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God That Kings and Princes then according to the Ordinance of God are not subject to any Ecclesiastical Power and that they cannot be deposed neither directly nor indirectly by the Power and Authority of the Keys of the Church that their Subjects cannot be exempted from the obligation that lies upon them to obey them nor be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance which they have taken to them and that that Doctrin ought inviolably to be observed as not only necessary for the publick Peace but also useful to the Church And as being conform to the word of God the Tradition of the Fathers and the examples of Saints This now is a positive Doctrin that saith all and all that I have written upon this Subject hath only been to exhibit the convincing proofs of all the parts of that Article which contains so excellent and solid a Declaration As to the sacred Faculty of Theology it hath never failed on any occasion to evidence its zeal for the true Doctrin authorising and confirming this by its Decrees and Censures of the contrary opinion from time to time renewed especially in the years 1413. 1561. 1595. 1610. 1611. 1620. 1726. And lately in the condemnation of an ultramontanean Jacobin by renewing the censure of the Book of Santarelli This appears still in a stronger and more Authentick manner Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod sammus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi antoritatem habeat imo Facultatem semper obstitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantum modo illam Authoritatem esse voluerunt by the six Propositions that were presented to the King in the year one thousand six hundred threescore and three in name of the Faculty By my Lord De Prefixe Archbishop of Paris Visitor of the Sorbonne Take here two of them which relate to that Article Esse Doctrinam Facultatem ejusdem quod Rex Christianissimus nullum omnino in temporalibus habet supersorem praeter Deum eamque esse suam antiquam Doctrinam à quâ nunquam
recessara sit The first That it is not the Doctrin of the Faculty that the Pope hath any Authority over the Temporal of the most Chrishian King that on the contrary it hath always opposed even those who would have that Authority only indirect The other That it is the Doctrin of the same Faculty that the most Christian King hath no other Superior in Temporal affairs but God alone and than that is the ancient Doctrin of the Faculty from which it will never swerve After all these Decrees of the Gallican Church and of the sacred Faculty have always been powerfully supported by the Edicts of the Kings and the thundring sentences of Parliament against all such as ever durst in France maintain and teach that pernicious Doctrin condemned by these Decisions and Censures Of 2 Decemb. 1561.4 Januar. 1594. 7 10 Jan. 1595. 27 May 26 Nov. 1610. 27 July 1614. 2 Jan. 1615. c. which in this Kingdom are reverenced as proceeding from God upon whose word they are grounded So that a Doctrin so well established and which all France look upon as the chief foundation of our Liberties can never be shaken much less overturned by Novelty which whatsoever effort it may make shall never amongst us prevail against Antiquity to which we will always stick close as to the Principle and solid Foundation of true Tradition And therefore also it is that the King as Protector of the Canons of the Councils received in France and of the Gallican Church in particular by his perpetual Edict registred in all the Parliaments not only prohibits all his Subjects and all strangers within his Kingdom to teach or write any thing contrary to the Doctrin contained in the Declaration of the Clergy of France but also commands all secular and regular Professors to submit to and teach it Wherein it is most evident that his Majesty does no more but what many Generals of Orders do who for preserving the uniformity of Doctrin in their Congregation as to Points which they look upon to be of great importance for the good and reputation of their Body oblige their inferiours to maintain and teach certain Opinions which the whole Order hath adopted against others who dispute them Much more ought it to be lawful for so great a King so zealous for Religion and for the Ancient Doctrin upon which are founded the inviolable rights of one of the most August Crowns of Christendom and liberties of the Gallican Church to oblige his Subjects for preservation of Uniformity of Opinion within his Kingdom as to Points of that importance to maintain and teach the Doctrin of the Clergy of France in all things conform to that of the Ancient Church And so much I had to say in this Treatise wherein always following that Principle which both Catholicks and Protestants equally agree to I have held a mean betwixt the two extremes that ought to be shunned One is of those who blinded by the hatred which they have conceived against the Church of Rome from which they have separated would take from the Pope the Prerogatives which Antiquity hath believed were given him by Jesus Christ as Successor of St. Peter The other of those who through a zeal not according to knowledg nay and if I dare say with those Cardinals of Paul III. through a too great compliance with Popes attribute to them what Antiquity instructing us by the Fathers the Councils and even by the most Ancient and most holy Popes themselves have believed they never have received from Jesus Christ Seeing the mean is the place of Virtue and Truth I think one cannot mistake the way when he follows Antiquity for his guide which placing us with it self in that lovely mean will make us condemn our Protestants who are in the first extreme and abandon those who abandon themselves to novelty under the conduct whereof they are fallen into the other extremity Now if it be said to me that these new Authors who have fallen into that which I call the second extreme have only done so out of the great zeal which they have for Religion It will be easie for me to answer with the great Pope St. Leo That many times Men carry on their private interests under a specious pretext of Piety Privatae causae pietatis aguntur obtentu câ—piditatum quisque suarum Religionem habet velut pedissequam St. Leo Epist 25. ad Theodos Imper. and that every one maketh Religion to be the handmaid of his lusts and desires The truth is it may very well be that the lustre of the Purple wherewith at Rome the three Authors who have most highly exalted the Power of Popes by raising it beyond all the bounds that Antiquity prescribed to it were cloathed may have dazled the Eyes of that croud of Modern who have followed them and who for all that what ever they may have expected never received a like reward But not to Judge of the secret motives of their Heart which it belongs to God alone to dive into I had rather Answer with Vincentius Lirinensis one of the most zealous Defenders of the true Doctrin Mos iste semper in Ecclesiâ viguit ut quo quisque religiosior foret Vincent Lerin l. 1. Commonit c. 3. eo promptius novellis adventionibus contrairet It hath always been the custom in the Church that the more of Piety and Religion any one had the more ready he was to oppose all new inventions in Doctrin And to conclude my Work with the excellent words of the same Author I should be glad that Men would think that in composing it I have had no other design but to discharge the duty of a good Catholick by doing what he enjoyns me when he says Christianus Catholicus providebit ut Antiquitati inhaereat quae prorsus non potest ab ulla Novitatis fraude seduci The Catholick Christian will have great care to stick close to Antiquity which cannot be deceived by the artifice of Novelty FINIS Books Printed for and sold by Joseph Hindmarsh at the Black Bull in Cornhill over against the Royal Exchange THE famous History of Auristella Translated from the Spanish The whole Art of Converse Cicero's three Books touching the Nature of the Gods done into English A Breviary of the Roman History written in Latin by Eutropius Translated into English by several young Gentlemen privately Educated in Hatton-Garden The Countermine by Dr. Nalson History of Count Zosimus done into English Love Letters between a Noble Man and his Sister The Doctors Physitian or Dialogues concerning Health Translated out of French The Prerogative of Primogeniture by David Tenner B. D. Navigation rectified by Peter Blackborough The Works of Mr. John Oldham together with his Remains A Discourse of Monarchy as it Relates to the Succession of his Royal Highness James D. of York Seneca's Morals by way of Abstract by Mr. Lestrange Beaufions or a new discovery of Treason in an Answer to the Protestant Reconciler Familiar Epistles of Col. Hen. Martin The Rampant Alderman a Farce Dame Dobson or the Cunning Woman a Comedy Jovial Crew or Merry Beggar a Comedy Venice preserved a Tragedy Sir Hercules Buffoon a Comedy The disappointment a Play An Essay upon Poetry Choice new Songs never before Printed by Tho. Dirfey Gent. The Malecontent being the sequel of the progress of Honesty Vivat Rex a Sermon Preach'd at Bristol on the 9th of Septemb. 1683. by Mr. Kingston The History of the Civil Wars of France Written in Italian by H.C. D'Avila Translated out of the Original The Second Impression whereunto is added a Table FINIS
declared in relation to the same Controversie in his Epistles to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople one of the chief Authors of that Heresie The Judgment of St. Martin was approved in that Council and that of Honorius so severely censured that the Pope was there anathematised Whether these Letters were well or ill understood it makes nothing to our present purpose The Council passes Judgment upon him and no body ever objected against it in Antiquity This is sufficient to conclude invincibly that the Council is superiour to the Pope But is there any thing more convincing and decisive for fixing of this Truth than what was done in the case of the Donatists who by their Schism troubled all the Church of Africa Optat. Milevit l. 1. contr Parmen Euseb Eccles hist l. 10. c. 5. They applied themselves to the Emperour Constantine who was then in Gallia and desired of him Judges chosen from among the Bishops of the Gallican Church against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage because they would shun the Judgment of the Pope whom they distrusted August Ep. 162. ad Gelor Eleus Ep. 165. ad Generos 166. ad Donatist 167. alib saepe The Emperour nevertheless having protested that it belonged not to him to meddle in Ecclesiastical matters sent them back to the Pope to whom as Head of the Church it belongs to judge of greater Causes Pope Miltiades took for Assessors in this Judgment fifteen Bishops of Italy to whom he joyned three famous Bishops of the Gallican Church Maternus of Cologne Rheticius of Autun and Marinus of Arles whom the Emperour had sent him to be of the number of the Judges that the Donatists might not have cause to say that every thing had been refused them That Cause was solemnly judged in that Council of Rome Donatus Head of the Schismaticks appeared there with ten Bishops of his Party and alledged all that he had to say against gainst Cecilian who appeared also accompanied with ten other African Bishops and defended his Cause and that of the Church so well against the Authors of that Schism that they were condemned They were very willing to be judged by this Council imagining as St. Austin observes Ep. 162. that either they might gain their Cause by Artifices and Calumnies or that if they lost it yet they might still maintain their Party by complaining loudly in all places that the Pope and his Bishops who were prejudiced against them had judged partially The truth is they did so and pressed the Emperour so hard to give them new Judges and in greater number that that good Prince overcome by their extream Importunity Orabida furoris audacia Opt. loc cit which he called extream Fury granted their desine and seeing he passionately desired to restore Peace to the Church and utterly to abolish so fatal a Schism by a supreme Sentence that might for ever put an end to that great Contest he called the great Council of Arles Apud Arelatum eandem causam diligentius examinandam terruinandamque curasse August Ep. 162. Euseb l. 10. c. 5. August Ep. 167. ad Fest which St. Austin calls a full and universal Council because as Eusebius assures us and after him that holy Doctor there was there an infinite number of Bishops of all the Provinces of the Empire Ex omnibus mundi partibus praecipue Gallicanis Concil Arelat 11. Ganls The Legates of Pope Sylvester with the eighteen Bishops who had been at the Council of Rome were present there The Cause of the Donatists was examined there afresh with the Judgment which Pope Melchiades the Predecessor of St. Sylvester had given against them and they were again condemned by a definitive Sentence and without appeal in regard of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal for the Appeal which these Schismaticks who observed no measures brought to the Tribunal of Constantine August Ep. 162. was most unjust as was frankly acknowledged by that Emperour who said that if he at length took cognizance of that Cause to stop the mouth of these Hereticks and arrest the course of their Fury he humbly begg'd pardon of the Bishops whose Authority in what concerns the spiritual he should invade Whereupon St. Austin answering the Complaints that the Donatists of his time always made of Pope Melchiades Quae vox est omnium malorum litigatorum cum fuerint etiam manifestissimâ veritate superati Ibid. as their Ancestors had done jeered them pleasantly saying that they acted like bad Lawyers who having lost their Cause blame their Judges and complain to all men that they have been unjustly condemned when they have even been convicted by the most manifest discovery of the Truth Ecce putemus illos Episcopos qui Romae judicarunt non bonos Judices fuisse restabat adhuc plenarium Ecclesiae Vniversalis concilium ubi etiam cumipsis judicibus causa posset agitari ut si male judicasse convicti essent torum sententiae solverentur Ibid. Then to confound them he adds these great Words which plainly decides the Question that we examine and to which nothing can be replied Suppose that the Judges who condemned your Ancestors at Rome had judged amiss was not there still the full Council where that Cause might be again examined with the same Judges who had already judged it that if it had been found that their Judgment was not just their Sentence might have been rescinded I freely confess that I cannot see how it can be better made out that the Pope's Tribunal is subject to that of a full and general Council which may confirm or rescind a Sentence past at Rome as a supreme Court can confirm or rescind the Judgment of an inferiour So when the same St. Austin says in another place speaking of the Pelagians Jam enim do hac causâ duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem Apostolicam inde etiam rescripta venerunt causa finita est August Serm. 2. de Verb. Dom. c. 10. We have Rescripts come from Rome the Cause is ended that 's to be understood that it is ended at Rome whither these Hereticks after they had been condemned in the Councils of Africa appealed to the Pope and thought to have gained their Cause by their Artifice which had once succeeded with them It was not judged supremely but in the Council of Ephesus We must then of necessity conclude that it cannot more clearly he seen than in those Instances which I have now alledged of universal Councils which have judged the Sentences of Popes That it was believed in the ancient Church before Saint Austin and in his Time and after him without the least doubting that a general Council is above the Pope And that 's the thing I was to prove CHAP. XIX That the ancient Popes have always acknowledged and protested that they were subject to Councils BUT that I may farther prove it upon as solid a ground and which ought to be the more plausible and
less to be rejected because I shall produce as Evidences for this Truth those who are most concerned in the Affair I need say no more but that the ancient Popes whom of late in spight of themselves they would have elevated above Councils do themselves protest that they are subject unto them and that they ought to obey them in matters belonging to Faith the Regulation of Manners the universal Good and general Discipline of the Church Is there any thing clearer and more sincere as to that Subject than the Testimony of Pope Syricius Successor to Damasus The Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian the younger Ann. 390. had called a great Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Capoua Ambros Epist ad Theoph. Alexand. Epist Syricii ad Anys Thessalon for quenching the Schism of Antioch which after the Death of Meletius and Paulinus still continued by the Election that the two different Parties of that Church made of Flavian to succeed to Meletius and of Evagrius Successor to Paulinus Seeing Flavian appeared not the Council delegated Theophilus of Alexandria to judge and determine that great difference with consent of the Bishops of Egypt and at the same time since the Council was informed against a Bishop of Macedonia called Bonosus accused of Heresie and Impiety against the holy Virgin who durst not appear the Council committed the Tryal of the Cause to Anesius of Thessalonica that he might determine it in a Synod which he should hold with the Bishops of Macedonia and Illyrium These whether to discharge themselves of the Judgment which they well foresaw they must of necessity pass against one of their Brethren Cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis Judicium ut finitimi Bonoso atque eâ—us accusatoribus Judices tribuerentur advertimus quod nobis Judicandi forma competere non possit Nam si integra esset bodie synodus recte de iiâ— quae comprehendit scriptorum vestrorum series decerneremus Vestrum est igitur qui hoc recepistis Judiâ—ium sententiam ferre di oâ—nibus vicem enim Synodi recepistis quos ad examinandum Synodus elegit Primum est uti ii judicent quibus judicandi faculias est data vos enim totius ut scripsimus Synodi vice decernitis nos quasi ex Synodi authoritate judicare non convenit or out of the Veneration that they had for the Holy See referred that Judgment to Pope Syricius But he wrote back to them that if the Council had determined nothing about the Cause of Bonosus he would have pronounced a just Judgment concerning what they had written to him of that Bishop but that since the Council had commissionated them to take Cognisance of that Cause by a decisive Judgment with the Bishop of Thessalonica he frankly confessed that he had no Power to judge of it It is you said he who are to supply the place of the Council in that Judgment and who received the Power to determine it to whom it belongs to pronounce about that Affair Epist Syricii ad Anys Thes in collect Roman bipertit veter monument Romae 1662. seeing you represent the Council which hath transferred its Authority upon you and not to me who have it not There is a Pope of the fourth Age who ingenuously confesses That the Delegates of the Council much more the Council it self have greater Power than he hath and who by consequent acknowledges that the Authority of Councils is above that of Popes Innocent I. who three Years after Syricius was Pope and who had observed his Conduct in relation to the Council of Capoua walked also according to the Tradition of the Roman Church Chrys Ep. ad Innoc 1. Ep. Inn. ad Jo. Chrys apud Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Innoc. Episc ad cleric Constant Pallad dial de vit Chrysost c. 2. and the Example of his Predecessors who never thought that their Power was equal and far less superiour to that of a Council For in the great Persecution that Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria rais'd against St. John Chrysostom who was condemned and deposed in a Synod of Bishops of the Faction of Theophilus Theophili Judicium cassum irritum â—sse decrevit dicens oportâ—re conflare aliam iâ—repâ—ehensiâ—ilem Synodum occiâ—entalium sacâ—rdotum cedentibâ—s aâ—ciâ—is primun dâ—inde inimicis neutraâ—um quippe partiam ut plurimum â—ectum esse Judicium Pallad loâ— cit and Enemies to that Saint seeing the Pope and Western Bishops had been written to on both sides that holy Bishop did indeed rescind that Judgment past contrary to all the Forms and Rules of Councils by incompetent Judges against an Absent who had judicially appealed to a lawful Council but as to the Substance of the Affair and the Accusation in hand he would never meddle in it He thought that considering the Importance of the Affair wherein the Honour and Dignity of a Patriarch whose Faith had always been so pure and his Learning and eminent Sanctity in so high a Veneration over all the Church was struck at Quodnam remedium hisce rebus afferemus necessaria erit Synodalis cognitio nothing but an impartial Council wherein the Friends and Enemies of neither side should be present could pronounce a definitive Sentence concerning the matter Ea sola est quae hujusmodi procellarum impetus retardare potest Innoc. This he wrote to both Parties and in the Letters which he directs to St. Chrysostom to his Bishops and Clergy of Constantinople he says positively that that Council Cum opem ipse ferre non posset Pallad even the same to which that holy Patriarch had appealed was absolutely necessary for determining that great Affair by a supreme Sentence that there was no other Remedy but that for the Evils that afflicted them that he could not help them otherwise Multum deliberamus quonam modo synodus Oecumenica congregari possit per quam c. Expectemus igitur vallo patientiae communiti c. that an Oecumenical Council alone could restore Peace to the Eastern Church and calm so furious a Tempest and that in the mean time it behoved them to arm themselves with Patience and have recourse only to God expecting till that Council should be called wherein he laboured incessantly searching out the Measures that might be taken for having it called Could that Pope express himself in clearer terms that a general Council hath an higher power and of larger Extent than his own and that by consequent it is above him However if I mistake not there is somewhat that strikes higher in what Innocent III. one of his Successors no less zealous than he was for the Grandeur and Rights of the Holy See wrote to Philip August This Prince who had a great desire to have the Marriage which he had contracted with the Queen Ingerbuge dissolved instantly pressed the Pope to declare it null that so he might be free to marry another That wise Pope writing back to