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
Three Chapters and forbids to condemn them But notwithstanding all his efforts that Council where he would not assist absolutely condemned them and because Vigilius would not consent to that condemnation he was banished by Justinian who some time after gave him his liberty and sent him home to his See because once more changing his conduct and opinions he condemned in Writing the Three Chapters Evagr. l. 4. c. 37. Phot. de septom Synodis according to the Decree of the Council and that was the fourth and last time that he had changed for as he was upon his return to Rome Appen Marcell he died in Sicily the year following However this last change did not cure the Schism that was formed in the Church about that point For though the Successours of this Pope had admitted the Decrees of that Council Greg. Pap. 1. Ep. 24. alib saepe which holds the fifth place amongst the Ecumenical Councils yet many Bishops and amongst others those of Africa and Istria Vict. Tun. Farund Herm. taking no notice in the least of that last change of Vigilius stuck obstinately to his former constitution whereby he had publickly declared for the Three Chapters forbidding all Believers to condemn them and though Pelagius II. who held the Holy See Two or three and twenty years after Vigilius did all he could to persuade and bring them to their duty and to undeceive them of their errour he could never succeed in it For they always alledged Pelag. 11. Ep. 7. quae est tertia ad Episc Istriae Dicentes quod in causae principio sedes Apostolica per Vigilium Papam omnes Latinarum Provinciarum principes damnationi trium capitulorum fortiter restiterunt ibid. Errorem tarde cognoverunt tanto eis celerius credi debuit quanto eorum constantia quousque verum cognoscerent à certamine non quievit ibid. that the Roman Church had formerly Taught them the contrary of what they would have them at present confess and that the Holy See by Pope Vigilius and the other Bishops of the West when that cause began to be debated had vigorously opposed the condemnation of these Three Chapters Whereupon that wise Pope told them ingenuously and convincingly That for that very reason they ought to condemn them because that vigorous resistance was an evident sign that the Romans and other Occidentals yielded not till at length they came to the knowledge of the truth which they had not known before and clearly saw that they had been mistaken in approving and maintaining Writings which ought to be condemned and he adds that it is a very laudable change to turn from errour to truth He moreover confirms that Argument by the examples of St. Peter and St. Paul St. Paul Quia diu veritati restitit unde ad confirmanda corda credentium in ejusdem praedicatione veritatis adjutorium sumpsit said he long resisted the truth of the Gospel and was the most zealous asserter of Judaisme against the Christians whom he persecuted By that he proves to the Jews and Gentiles that they ought to embrace Christianity because after so great resistance he would not have yielded to Jesus Christ if he had not clearly known the truth and that he had been in an errour before St. Peter continues he Diu quidem restitit ne ad fidem Gentes sine Circumcisione c. diu se à conversaram Gentium communione subtraxit c. Ab eodem Paulo pestmodum ratione suscepta cum vidisset quosdam c. dixit cur tentatis Deum imponentes jugum c. held long for the necessity of the legal observations compelling the Gentiles to Judaize He yielded afterward to reason and truth by the reproof that St. Paul gave him telling him that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel After that changing his conduct he powerfully withstood those who in the Council of Jerusalem would have subjected Christians to the yoke of the Ancient Law Would they have had reason then to have said to him Haec quae dicis audire non possumus quia aliud ante praedicasti when they saw him Teach the quite contrary to what he had Preached before We will not hear what you tell us at present because you formerly Preached to us quite another thing Not at all because these two Apostles having long resisted the truth of the Gospel each in his way and at length followed that truth changed from evil to good So goes on that Pope making a right application of these two instances to the point of the Three Chapters The Holy See ought not to be upbraided with a change Si igitur in trium capitulorum negotio alind cum veritas quaereretur aliud autem inventâ veritate dictum est cur mutatio sententiae huic sedi in crimen objicitur c. since after it hath found out the truth which it searched into it now condemns the Three Chapters which it approved before it found the truth It is in my Judgment very clear that Pope Pelagius in that place says plainly and without biass that as St. Peter and St. Paul had erred before their change to which they ought to adhere so Vigilius was mistaken in his constitution whereby he obliges Believers to maintain the Doctrine of the Three Chapters and that they must imitate the Holy See in its change Quid obstat si ignorantiam suam deserens verba permutet when having approved them with Vigilius it condemns them after he had discovered the truth which he knew not before These are the words of Pelagius II. I know very well that Cardinal Baronius says and labours to prove in his Annals that St. Peter upon that occasion erred not at all and committed not the least fault I shall not undertake to refute and overthrow his Arguments Baron ad Ann. 51. n. 39. as some think they have done with very little difficulty I dispute not at all in this Treatise where I am onely to relate matters of Fact It is enough then that I say It 's true that that great Cardinal is of that Judgment because he believed Saint Peter to be infallible In the mean time St. Austine so far from believing it thought he erred five times when he was in fear of being drowned and our Saviour told him Et cum in mari titubasset cum dominum carnaliter à passione revocasset cum aurem servi gladio praecidisset cum ipsum dominum ter negasset cum in si mulationem postea superstitiosam lapsus esset August de agone Christiano c. 30. O thou of little faith wherefore didst thou doubt when he would have diverted him from suffering for us and was rebuked by these piercing words Get thee behind me Satan When he cut off Malchus his Ear and three times denied his Master and last of all when he fell into that failing for which St.
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
Paul reproved him St. Austine then St. Ambrose St. Cyprian Pope Pelagius and even St. Paul speak positively to the contrary of what Baronius says as I have just now demonstrated This has made learned men argue from St. Austine who they think cannot be answered Either Saint Paul spoke truth when he said St. Peter was to be blamed that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel and compelled the converted Gentiles to Judaize or what he said was false If he spoke truth it is then true that St. Peter was not Infallible since he actually erred in that particular If he did not speak truth it must then be concluded that the Epistle to the Galatians which makes a part of H. Scripture is not the Word of God which is a manifest errour in matter of Faith Again when St. Paul spake in that manner either he thought as he spoke or did not If he believed what he said to be true it was his opinion then that St. Peter was not Infallible If he believed it not then must he in the same Epistle to the Galatians wherein he protests before God that he lied not have told a lie which is not to be said without Blasphemy since what he writes in that Epistle is the Word of God who cannot lie And thus it is made out that according to St. Paul those great Saints and that wise Pope who understood himself very well St. Peter was guilty of a notable mistake at that time when he insinuated to the Jews and Gentiles that they were obliged to keep the Law of Moses which the Church immediately after condemned in the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem For it is to be observed which a great many have not minded that as that Pope whose words I have cited does expresly say it was before that Council of the Apostles that St. Peter did that action which rendred him blame-worthy And who does not see that he had been incomparably more worthy of blame and reproof if as Cardinal Baronius will have it he had done it immediately after the Decree of the Council which had just then defined he himself having subscribed to the Decree that Christians were no more obliged to observe those legal Rites excepting in one small point and that for a certain time and that after he had spoken so well on that subject to free Christians from that Yoke he should have again endeavoured to subject them to it by obliging them to Judaize That would have been so strange a thing and so unbeseeming an Apostle and the Prince of Apostles that I make no doubt but that for the honour that is due to him it is far better to follow in that the judgment of that ancient Pope than the Opinion of this Cardinal who lived but in the last age It follows then from these matters of Fact which I have now most faithfully related that a great Pope and those Holy Fathers the most venerable and learned of Antiquity have not believed even according to St. Paul that St. Peter was infallible nor by consequent that the Popes who have no greater privilege and prerogative than St. Peter had have received that gift of Infallibility Inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oves meas August de Agon Christ lib. 30. Ita Ambrose l. de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Chrys hom 79. in Matth. 24. Cypr. de unit Eccles Hier. contra Jovin lib. 1. Vt Petrus quando ei dictum est tibi dabo claves in figura personam gestabat Ecclesiae quando dictum est pasce oves meas Ecclesiae quoque personam in figura gestabat August in Psal 108. Tract 1.118.129 in Joan. Ser. de 4. quaest apud poss c. 5. 6. Serm. 13. sup Matth. c. 2. As to the objections that are drawn from the words of Jesus Christ spoken to St. Peter Vpon that Rock will I build my Church I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not feed my sheep It is easie to answer them by saying that according to the common interpretation of the Fathers and especially of St. Austine they were spoken to St. Peter as representing the Church by the union of its Pastours with him as with their Head and who by virtue of that union make with him but one universal Episcopacy And the better to express that unity he applies himself and speaks to one onely that is to the head to whom he gave the Primacy over the rest So that when in that union or rather that unity he pronounces and defines jointly with them in a Council or with consent of the Church by her Bishops he cannot err the foundation stands always sure and the sheep are always well governed and well fed But because Cardinal Bellarmine and those who follow him will have these words I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not to be applied absolutely to the Person of St. Peter and without relation to the Church which he represents by virtue of his Primacy we must grant them what they pretend For the truth is they may be understood also in that sense but then they have a very natural and literal meaning which is that of almost all the ancient Fathers and Interpreters of Holy Scripture who say that in this place our Saviour onely spake of the time of his Passion when the Apostles were to be terribly tempted as he himself foretold them Then addressing himself to St. Peter told him that he had prayed for him not that he might not commit any sin of Infidelity for he committed a fearfull one against the confession of Faith by denying his Master thrice but that being recovered from his fall he might not lose the Faith for ever that by the example of his Repentance he might confirm therein his Brethren who were much startled and shaken and that afterwards he might persevere unto the end Non dixit non negabis sed ut non deficiat fides tua curâ enim illias factum est ne omnino Petri fides evanesceret Ne deficiaet fides tua hoc est ne in fine pereas humanam arguens naturam cum ex se nihil sit Chrys hom 63. Quid enim rogavit nisi perseverantiam usque in finem Aug. de Cor. Ge. c. 6. Vt non periret finaliter Hug. in c. 22. Luc. Non ut Petrus non caderet sed ut non deficeret quia quamvis reciderit resurrexerit Bonav in Luc. Ne penitus extirpetur aut finaliter deficiat Dion Carth. in Luc. Vt non finaliter deficiat fides tua Albert. Mag. in hunc locum This is the common interpretation of the Holy Fathers and particularly of St. Chrysostome and Saint Austine who often make use of
Churches And seeing it was not doubted but that Pope John XII in the manner he set about it acted with all his Authority and Force to introduce and establish that Error in the Church so also was it believed in that Fourteenth Age that the Pope teaching the Church might err and that he is not Infallible but when he pronounces from the Chair of the Universal Church as Head of it in a general Council or with consent of the principal Members of the Church who are the Bishops CHAP. XV. The Tradition of the Church of Rome as to that IT will be no difficult Task for us to prove that that Doctrine is conform to the constant Tradition of the Church of Rome as appears by the conduct of ancient Popes who in great Controversies about Faith after that they themselves had pronounced against Error have thought that for condemning it by a sovereign and infallible Sentence there was need of a Council or at least by another way the consent of the Church Vt pleniori Juâ—acio omnis possice ror aboleri Ep. 15. ad Ephes concil to the end that Error might be abolished by a more solemn and decisive judgment said the great St. Leo writing to the second Council of Ephesus though he himself had already condemned Eutyches in his particular Council which for that end he held at Rome This hath been confirmed by the Popes of the last Age when that after Leo X. had published his Bull against the Errors of Luther Solumque Concilium generale remedium à nostris praedecessoribus in casu simili usurpatum superesse Clem. VII in Bull. indict Concil 1533. Tam necessarium opus Pius IV. in Bull. confirm they declared in their Bulls speaking of the Council of Trent which was called for the supreme Decision of that Controversie that that was the last and necessary Remedy which had always been made use of by their Predecessors on the like Occasions Wherein all the Popes perfectly well agree with the fifth Council which for proving that necessity alledges the Example of the Apostles who decided in common with St. Peter the Question touching the Observation of the Law of Moses Nec enim potest in communibus de fide disceptationibus aliter veritas manifestari and then declares that otherways Truth cannot be found in Controversies that arise about the Faith It is evident by that that the Popes and that Council did not believe that the Pope was infallible for had they believed him infallible they would also have been persuaded that it was sufficient to consult that Oracle or that after his Responses and Decisions it would not have been necessary for abolishing Error entirely to have recourse to the determination of the Church represented by a Council But if it be said that there are some Heresies which the Popes alone have condemned and which have always been reckoned lawfully condemned without the Interposition of a Council it is easily granted but at the same time it may be said that that concludes nothing at all because in the three first Ages of the Church there were Heresies such as that of Cerinthus of the Ptolemaits the Severians Bardesanites Noetians Valesians and many others that single Bishops or particular Synods have condemned and which we are obliged to account Heresies tho neither Popes nor General Councils have had any hand in their Condemnation Not that these Bishops and Synods are infallible but because all the other Bishops who abominated these Heresies as much as they condemned them as they had done by approving all that they had done So when Popes have decided against any Doctrine which is afterward to be esteemed heretical it is so because they have defined with consent of the Church which hath received their Constitutions as we have in our days seen an illustrious Instance of it That which more confirms that ancient Tradition of the Roman Church is the great number of Popes who condemning some of their Predecessors after Oecumenical Councils have thereby declared that they themselves no more than others have not received of God the gift of Infallibility which he hath only bestowed upon his Church And indeed two great Popes of the last Times were so fully persuaded of this that they would not accept of it from the hands of men that would have attributed it unto them The first is Adrian VI. who in his Commentaries upon the fourth of the Sentences Art 3. de Mines confirm says positively and in a most decisive manner Certum est quod Pontifex possit err are etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem haeresiâ—â— per suam determinationem aut decretalem asserendo that he is certain the Pope may err even in matters belonging to the Faith teaching and establishing a Heresie by his Definition or by his Decretal which afterwards he proves by many Instances and very far from following Pius II. and changing Opinion as he did when he came to be Pope he persisted in it so constantly that he thought fit during his Pontificat that a new Edition of his Book should be printed at Rome exactly conform to that which he published when he was Doctor and Dean of Louvain wherein that Passage is entire without the Omission or Alteration of one single Word The second is Paul IV. who before his promotion to the Papacy had been great Inquisior Relat. Joann Hay Paris Theol. Addit aux mem de Casteluam c. 2. b. 6 the most severe and zealous that ever was for the preservation of the purity of the Catholick Faith against all Heresies Num matrimonium per verba de prasenti contractum quod est verum matrimonium verum sà cramentum juxta sanclorum Theolegorum sententiam authoritate nâ—stra dissolvi possit intelligo cum carnalis nulla conjunctio intercessit This Pope in the Year One thousand five hundred and fifty seven held a great Congregation of Cardinals Bishops and Doctors at Rome for the examining that important question Whether by the power of the Keys which Jesus Christ had given him as Successor to St. Peter he could dissolve the Marriage which the Mareschal of Montmorency had contracted in formal terms de praesenti with the Lady de Piennes Having proposed the matter to them by giving them to understand that the Question was about the deciding of a Point of very great Importance concerning a Sacrament he declared to them that he would not have them alledge to him the Examples of his Predecessors Non dubito quin ego decessores mei errare aliquando potuerimus non solum in koc sed etiam in pluribus aliis rerum generibus that he would not follow them but in so far as they were conform to the Authority of Holy Scripture and solid Reasons of Divinity For I make no doubt added he but that my Predecessors and may fail not only in this but in many other things Which he even proved by Testimonies