AN Historical Treatise OF THE FOUNDATION AND PREROGATIVES OF THE Church of Rome, And of Her BISHOPS.  
Written Originally in French By Monsieur MAIMBOURG, And Translated into English By A. LOVEL, A. M.  
LONDON, Printed for Jos. Hindmarsh, Bookseller to His Royal Highness, at the Black Bull in Cornhill. MDCLXXXV.   

The TRANSLATOR to the READER.  
I Should be thought perhaps, no less unmannerly than fanciful, if I offered any other reason of the Authors publishing this Book, than what he himself is pleased to give in his Epistle Dedicatory to his Great Master, the Most Christian King; which is, that he might thereby according to his duty, second the grand design of the King and his Gallican Church, in removing those obstacles that hinder the reconciliation of Dissenting Believers, and in confuting the mistakes of Authors, who have occasioned either a scandalous separation from the Unity of the Church, or a persistance in that Separation. Yet seeing the Book before it came out, and since it hath been Published, hath made no small noise at Rome, the French Court, and elsewhere; The Reader possibly, may think that so Public and Religious a design hath been either very ill Managed, or far worse Interpreted. I have nothing to say as to that, it being a matter above my reach; but I know the Ingenious will be apt to make remarks, such as are now a days very frequent; that no great matter ought, or, indeed can be brought about, if Religion came not in for a share, and if that turn not the World, it will be hard for any thing else to convert it. There is Religion, so called, that makes Turk's fight against Christians, and Christians not fight against Turks; that makes some States invade the Rights of the Church, and some Churches usurp upon the State; that makes the Godly Plot and fight for Peace sake, and the harmless Doves as innocent as Serpents. And since these and many other such Principles are now a days in great vogue over most part of the World; one may venture to say of the Religion which many, nay I would it were not, most Men practise at present, what the Great Author of our true Religion says of the Wind; It bloweth where it listeth, and Men hear the sound of it; but neither know whence it cometh, nor whither it goeth. And I should not be irreverent beyond example, if I called it downright Hocus Pocus.  
This may seem to the Reader an extravagance, and a start out of the road; but I had nothing else to say for myself in attempting to Translate a Book that, like a Quarterstaff, strikes on both Hands, pelts Protestant's and knocks down the Pope; save only that nothing of Modern Religion moved me to it (for, indeed, I find not that I have any inward call to labour in another's Vineyard) but perceiving that this is an Age wherein People either open their own Eyes, or desire they should be opened, I was very willing, since I am no loser, nor I hope the Government offended by it, to reach to others the Eyesalve that hath been handed to me. And, truly, if by impartial Readers, the issue of a Man's Religion should be tried by the verdict of the Author's Book, perhaps it would be no easy matter to decide the Point; since they'll find in it, too much either for a True Protestant, or a truly Jesuited Papist.  
How far this may justify my undertaking I cannot tell; but since the Bookseller can satisfy the Reader, with how great dispatch it hath been Translated, I hope, he will be so kind as to pardon the hasty mistakes of the Translator.  
A. Lovel.   

The Author's Epistle Dedicatory TO THE FRENCH KING.  
SIR,  
ONE of the greatest impediments that hinders the reunion of Protestants with the Roman Church, from which by a fatal Schism they are separated, is that false Opinion wherewith they are prejudiced, that we raise the Popes even above the Universal Church, in attributing to them what only belongs to her, and in giving them an absolute and unlimited Power not only in Spirituals, but also over the Temporal and Crowns of Princes.  
The Gallican Church, willing to help on that great zeal which Your Majesty makes so conspicuously successful for the Conversion of your Subjects who continue still in Error, hath thought that she could not do any thing to better purpose, than to remove that obstacle, by undeceiving them, and professing, as she hath done by a solemn Declaration upon a Point of that importance, her Doctrine which is in all things conform to that of the Ancient Church.  
It is the business of this Treatise, which is purely Historical, to make this out by matters of fact, against which no subtlety, argumentation, nor Artifice of Novelty can hold good. Nay, Sir, I dare even present it to Your Majesty as a Work that, perhaps, may be so happy as to contribute somewhat in making the Justice of your Edict known to the World, whereby, in quality of Protector of the Canons, you make the Ancient belief current in the most Christian Kingdom.  
This it is, Sir, that makes it truly to be said, that Your Majesty hath done more for the Church of Rome than the Kings your Predecessors, who have enriched her with the great Revenues she possesses, and who have raised her to the pinnacle of Temporal Grandeur and Dignities. For, indeed, all that Wealth and these Worldly Grandeurs belong not to her true Kingdom, which being that of Jesus Christ, ought not to be of this World. But in commanding by your Laws, that this Doctrine of Antiquity be maintained in France, to which the Gallican Church, which hath always vigorously defended the interests and just Prerogatives of the Church of Rome, hath in all Ages inviolably adhered: You most solidly establish the Primacy of the Pope against the Novel attempts of Heretics who dispute it, and do all that they can to snatch it from him. At the same time you take from them the pretext of their Revolt, by letting them see, that we believe not that which scandalises them, and which some late Divines attribute to him, of their own Head, against the manifest Judgement of Antiquity.  
That, Sir, is what may be called an effectual endeavour for restoring the true Kingdom of the Church of Rome to its Just Rights, from which Heretics, who have separated from it through erroneous Notions that have been given them of our Doctrine, have in little more than an Age rend away a great part of Europe. Your Majesty who hath wrought and still work so many Miracles, to render your Kingdom more Powerful and more flourishing than ever, and to grant us once more a general Peace, by making our Enemies accept it, upon the conditions you thought fit to prescribe to them, is apparently appointed of God to work the greatest of all, in pacifying the troubles of Religion, and in rendering to the Kingdom of the Church in France, its ancient extent, by the reduction of the remnant of our Protestants.  
For my own part, who have but very little longer to live, and, who, according to my Profession, can contribute nothing to your Conquests, but by my ardent Prayers: I shall reckon myself most happy, and shall die content, if I can but join a little by my Pen, to those which you daily Achieve for enlarging the Empire of the Church, by the Conversion of Heretics, which by most soft and efficacious ways you procure; And if by my Writings and particularly by this, I can make it known to all the World, as I hope I may, that I am as true a Catholic as a good French Man, and that I will die, as I have lived,  
SIR, Your Majesty's Most Humble, most Obedient, and Faithful Subject and Servant, LOVIS MAIMBOURG.   

A TABLE OF The Chapters and of their Contents.  

CHAP. I. The design, and draught of this Treatise; and the Principle upon which it moves. 

THE true Church is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. The definition thereof. It's unity in the multitude of particular Churches which make but one Episcopacy and one Chair, by the communion they have with a chief Church, which is the centre of their Unity. Antiquity is to be followed against Novelty in Doctrine that is contrary to it. Upon this Principle it is proved in this Treatise against the new Opinions, what Antiquity hath believed of the first Foundation, and Prerogatives of that chief Church which is the Church of Rome. Page 1.    
CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome. That St. Peter hath been at Rome. 

A Refutation of the Erroneous reasons that some Protestants allege for overthrowing that Truth. St. Luke hath omitted a great many other things which notwithstanding are true. The true Chronology which agrees with the progress and coming of St. Peter to Antioch and Rome, against the wrong Chronology contrived to subvert it. There were Christians at Rome when St. Paul arrived there. All Antiquity hath believed that St. Peter was at Rome. The Extravagance of those who have said that the Fathers were mistaken in taking the Country of Rome or Romania for the City of Rome. Page 15    
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 Successors in that Bishopric. 

THAT truth acknowledged by all Antiquity. In what sense Bishops sit in St. Peter's Chair, and are his Successors; and how Popes are in another manner. Page 31    
CHAP. IV. Of the Primacy of St. Peter, and that he hath been established by Jesus Christ Head of the Universal Church. 

THE true interpretation of these words Thou art Peter and upon that Rock will I build my Church. How the Church is built upon Jesus Christ, upon the confession of his Divinity, and on the person of St. Peter. His Primacy of Jurisdicton over all Believers, proceeds from the confession of Faith which he made for all the rest. All Antiquity hath acknowledged that Primacy of St. Peter, and of all his Successors in the Bishopric of Rome. Page 37    
CHAP. V Of the Rights and advantages that the Primacy gives to the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops. 

WHAT the Council of Florence decided as to that. The superintendence of the Pope over all that concerns the Government and good of the Church in General. The right he hath of calling Councils for the Spiritual, and presiding in them. That appeals may be made to his Tribunal, and that he ought to judge of greater causes. An illustrious instance of that Supreme Authority of the Pope in the History of Pope Agapetus, of the Patriarch Anthimius and the Emperor Justinian. The prodigious Ignorance of Calvin in Ecclesiastical History. The System of his Heresy quite contrary to the Doctrine of Antiquity. What are the Prerogatives of Popes, that are disputed amongst Catholics. Page 51    
CHAP. VI The state of the Question concerning the Infallibility of the Pope. 

WHether or not when he defines without a Council, and without the consent of the Church he may err. p. 72    
CHAP. VII. What Antiquity hath concluded from that that St. Peter was reproved by St. Paul. 

WHether St. Peter was blame-worthy. His action is called an error by St. Austin. The opinion of St. Jerome refuted by that holy Doctor. He compares the Error of St. Cyprian with that of St. Peter. The History of the Error of Vigilius in regard of the three Chapters, and his change compared by Pelagius II. with the Error and change of St. Peter. The Schism of the Occidentals founded upon the constitution of Vigilius. According to Pope Pelagius, for quenching that Schism; the Holy See is to be followed in its change, as believers were obliged to imitate St. Peter in that which he made from evil to good. St. Paul believed not St. Peter to be infallible. It was before the Council of Jerusalem that St. Peter was reproved by St. Paul. The true interpretation of that passage, I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not. p. 77    
CHAP. VIII. What follows naturally from the great contest of Pope Victor with the Bishops of Asia. 

DIfferent customs in the Church concerning the celebration of Easter, and of the Fast before that Feast. The good intelligence betwixt Pope St. Anicetus and St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, notwithstanding the diversity of their customs. The Decree of Pope Victor rejected by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus, and by the other asiatics. St. Ireneus in name of the Gallican Church, opposes Pope Victor. None of these Bishops of the East and West, believed the Pope to be infallible. p. 103    
CHAP. IX. What ought to be inferred from the famous debate that was betwixt the Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Heretics. 

WHAT was the Judgement of St. Cyprian in that question, and what was that of St. Stephen. Councils held thereupon on both sides. The Decrees of the one and other quite contrary. St. Stephen cuts off from his Communion the Bishops that would not submit to his Decree. Neither these Bishops, nor St. Cyprian did for all that change their opinion and practice. It was also permitted long after the death of St. Cyprian to maintain the same opinion, and to follow the same conduct. The Holy Fathers who held a Doctrine contrary to the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen. What the great Council of Arles, Nice and Constantinople have decided as to that question. All then, except the Donatists submitted to the Decrees of these Councils, because they were believed to be Infallible, which was not thought of Popes. p. 111    
CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius. 

HIS Letters published in all places, wherein he condemns St. Athanasius, suppresses the term [Consubstantial] receives the Arians to his Communion, and subscribes the Formulary of Sirmium. He is for that deposed by the Church of Rome. p. 135    
CHAP. XI. The instance of Pope Vigilius. 

THE constitution of that Pope for the three Chapters. The fifth Council which is Infallible condemns them. p. 140    
CHAP. XII. The condemnation of Honcrius in the sixth Council. 

THE History of Monothelism. Pope Honorius willing to agree both parties, writes Letters to Patriarch Sergius which the Monothelites made use of for Authorising their Heresy. The Pope's John IU. Theodore and St. Martin follow a contrary conduct to his. The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus with consent of Pope Agatho calls the sixth Council. The History of that Council. The Letters of Sergius and Honorius are examined there. They are condemned of Heresy, and that Pope is Anathematised. He is also condemned in the Emperor's Edict, in the Letter of Leo II. to the Emperor. In the Ancient diurnal Book of Rome, in the Ancient Breviaries, and in the VII. and VIII. Councils. Convincing Arguments that the Acts of the sixth Council have not been falsified, and that it cannot be said, that the Fathers of that Council understood not well the meaning of Honorius. All Antiquity which hath received that Council as we have it, hath believed that the Pope is not infallible. p. 143    
CHAP. XIII. Of the Pope's Clement III. Innocent III. Boniface VIII. and Sixtus. V 

THE Error of Clement in his Decretal Laudabilem, recalled by Innocent III. The Error of Innocent concerning the secret of Confession. He condemns that Error in the Council of Lateran. That of Boniface in his Bull unam Sanctam, recalled at the Council of Vienna. That of Sixtus V in the Edition of his Bible. A ridiculous Answer of some Moderns. p. 165    
CHAP. XIV. The instance of John XXII. 

WHAT he did for Establishing his Error concerning the beatific vision. The sacred Faculty of Paris declares the Doctrine of that Pope heretical. It had been condemned by Clement IV, and was since in the Council of Florence. King Philip of Valois obliges that Pope to recant. p. 173    
CHAP. XV. The tradition of the Church of Rome as to that. 

THE Popes themselves have acknowledged that for ending difference in Religion by a Sovereign and infallible sentence, there was a necessity of a Council. The Heresies which Popes have condemned without a General Council, have been so condemned by the consent of the Church. Popes who have confessed that they had not the gift of Infallibility. p. 179    
CHAP. XVI. The state of the question concerning the Superiority of the Council over the Pope, or of the Pope, over a Council. 

WHether after a Council is lawfully Assembled, the Pope being present in it or not, that Council has, or has not Supreme Authority over the Head as well as over the other Members of the Church, or whether or not all its Authority depends on the Pope. p. 187    
CHAP. XVII. That it is the Holy Ghost, which in the definitions of Faith pronounces by the mouth of the Council. 

WHAT is to be concluded from that Principle. What it is, according to the Doctrine of Antiquity, to approve and confirm a Council. p. 190    
CHAP. XVIII. That the Ancient Councils have examined the Judgements of Popes, to give a last and definitive sentence upon them. 

THE History of the Patriarch Flavian, and the Pope St. Leo who submits his Judgement to that of a General Council. An instance of the fifth Council, that rescinds a sentence solemnly pronounced by the Pope; and of the sixth, which examines the sentences of Martin I. and Honorius I. approves the one and rejects the other. The History of Constantine, of the Donatists, and of the first Council of Arles, which examines the sentence given by Pope Melchiades in his first Council of Rome. p. 199    
CHAP. XIX. That the Ancient Popes have always acknowledged and protested that they were subject to Councils. 

THE History of Pope Sicicius and of the Council of Capona. Of St. Leo in the case of St. Chrysostom against the Patriarch Theophilus. Of Innocent III. in the case of the Marriage of Philip the August. Instances of Pope St. Agapetus, and Silvester II. p. 213.    
CHAP. XX. That the Ancient Popes have believed that they were subject to the Canons. 

PRoofs of this from the conduct and protestations of the Pope's Celestin I St Leo, St. Martin, St. Gregory the Great, John VIII. Eugenius III. and Silvester II. What the Council of Florence hath defined as to that. The true sense of these words against a false interpretation that hath been made of them. Pope's are obliged to govern the Church according to the Canons. In what case they can dispense with them. That they may abuse their Power. Of an Appeal to a Council, and of an Appeal as abusive to a Parliament. p. 225    
CHAP. XXI. What General Councils have decided as to that Point. 

THE History of the Council of Pisa, where that question was first canvassed. The debates that arose upon that Subject in the Council of Constance, which is a continuation of that of Pisa. The Decrees of that Council of Constance, and of that of Basil upon the same Point. The approbation of these Decrees by the Pope's Martin V. and Eugenius IU. p. 241    
CHAP. XXII. Of the Writing of the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate against the two Decrees of the Council of Constance. 

THE Declaration which the Clergy of France met in the Year 1682. made of their Opinion touching these two Decrees, which they hold to be of infallible Authority, approved by Popes, and for those times when there is no Schism, as well as during a Schism. The Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate undertakes to refute these three Articles in the three Chapters of his Dissertation. p. 256    
CHAP. XXIII. A Refutation of the first Chapter of the Dissertation of M. Schelstrate. 

THE Decree of the fourth Session hath not been falsified by the Fathers of Basil. The Manuscripts of M. Schelstrate are defective, and ours are true. A demonstration of this Truth by two Sermons of John Gerson who rehearses that Decree before the whole Council of Constance word for word as we have it. The Manuscripts by which these two Sermons have been reviewed, and the other places were Gerson relates the same Decree. An other demonstration of that truth by Pope Eugenius IU. and even by the Manuscripts of M. Schelstrate. That question was sufficiently examined. The Council consisted of the greatest and soundest part of the three obediences, and the absence of others hinders not the Council from being lawful. p. 261    
CHAP. XXIV. A Refutation of one of the two other Chapters of M. Schelstrate. 

PRoofs of the approbation of these two Decrees of Constance. The true interpretation of that word Conciliariter. The abuse that may be made of the Appeal to a Council is condemned, but not the Appeal itself. All the Authority of Councils proceeds not from the Pope, but chief from the Catholic Church. p. 297    
CHAP. XXV. A Refutation of the other Chapter of M. Schelstrate. 

THese two Decrees of the Council of Constance are for all times, whilst there was a Schism, and when there is none. An Ecumenical Council is a whole, whereof the Pope is but a part. The Pope is the Head, but not the Master of the Church. The difference betwixt the Power of Popes and of Kings. An authentic act of the Superiority of a Council over the Pope. What in signifies in M. Schelstrates Manuscript. That the Pope Elected cannot be bound. The Judgement of the University of Paris and of the Gallican Church concerning the superiority of a Council over the Pope. p. 317    
CHAP. XXVI. The state of the Question touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal. 

THE distinction of the direct and indirect Power. p. 341    
CHAP. XXVII. What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have taught us as to that. 

A False distinction of buchanan's refuted. It was upon an obligation of Conscience, and not through weakness, that Christians obeyed infidel Emperors and Persecutors. The Allegiance that Subjects own to their Sovereigns is of Divine Right, with which Popes cannot dispense. All the passages cited for the contrary opinion are understood contrary to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church; which is forbidden by the Council of Trent. p. 345    
CHAP. XXVIII. What hath been the Judgement of the Ancient Fathers of the Church as to that Point. 

THE distribution that God hath made of the Spiritual for the Church and her Pastors, and of the Temporal for Kings. An Exhortation of the passage Here are two Swords. Dominion forbidden to the Popes, and how. p. 359    
CHAP. XXIX. The Judgement of Ancient Pope's touching the Power over Temporals that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope. 

THE Testimony of Gelasius. Of Gregory II. That Pope offered not to depose Leo Isauricus, nor to make Rome revolt against him. Testimonies of Pelagius I Stephen II. St. Gregory the Great, and of Martin I. supposititious Bulls of St. Gregory. Pope Gregory VII. is the first that offered to depose Emperors. Pope Zachary deposed not Childerick; and Leo III transferred not the Empire to Charlemain. p. 370    
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. 

HOW the Bishops of France opposed the attempts of Gregory iv against Lovis the Debonnaire. They have always done the like upon all occasions. What the Chamber of the Clergy declared concerning the absolute independence of our Kings, in the Estates Assembled in 1914. Their Declaration in the year 1682. in relation to the same Subject. The sentences of Parliament and the Edicts of Kings upon the same occasion. Conclusion of this Treatise. p. 387      

AN Historical Treatise Concerning the FOUNDATION AND PREROGATIVES OF THE CHURCH of ROME, And of her BISHOPS.  

CHAP. I. The Design and Draught of this Work, and the Principle on which it moves.  
TO maintain a State in peace and tranquillity, which makes Subjects happy, according to the scope that true Policy proposes to itself; The first thing that is to be done, is to beat off the enemy that hath taken up Arms for the ruin of it, and then to take care, that the quarrels and troublesome contests, which sometimes arise amongst the chief members of the State, proceed not so far, as to occasion a Civil War.  
All Christians agree, that the true Church of Jesus Christ, is that Spiritual Kingdom, which he came to establish in this world; and which nevertheless, as he himself hath said, is not of this world; because the whole end of it is to procure us eternal happiness, a thing, no ways to be attained to upon Earth. Heretics and Schismatics have often risen against the Lord and his Christ, that they might overturn that beautiful kingdom, and establish their particular Churches upon its ruins; every one pretending, that his is the Church of the Lord; though, indeed, they be no more, all of them, but the Synagogue of Satan; and the Kingdom of him, who, in the Gospel, is called the Prince of this world. Besides, it falls out many times, that amongst Catholics, who alone are members of the true Church, disputes and controversies arise, which may trouble the tranquillity and peace that Jesus Christ hath left unto them, for securing their happiness in his Kingdom. It is necessary then, for the service of the Church, and for maintaining it always in the flourishing state wherein Jesus Christ hath established it, to fight and beat off the enemies that attack it, and to compose and calm the quarrels that arise amongst the children of the Church, about points that are disputed with heat, on all hands, and which might, in the end, disturb the repose and peace of the Kingdom of the Son of God.  
As I have wholly devoted myself to the service of the Church, so have I endeavoured, as much as lay in my power, to acquit myself of the former of those two duties, in my Treatises of Controversy; and especially in that of The true Church. I think I have been pretty successful in that engagement, and repelled all the efforts of our Protestants, in making it appear, by evident and unanswerable Arguments, That there is no true Church but ours; which is enough, without more dispute, to put an end to all our Controversies, since they acknowledge, with us, that the true Doctrine is always that of the true Church of Jesus Christ. I discharge myself also, as well as I can, of that obligation, in one part of that Treatise, where I maintain against Heretics, the declared enemies of the Holy See, the primacy, rights, power and authority of the visible head of the Church. At present then, that I may fulfil my duty in its full extent, I must labour to prevent the springing up of any dangerous division amongst Catholics, by reason of some private opinions that divide them, as to that important subject of the Church, into which they are all equally incorporated.  
Now that I may solidly carry on so laudable and necessary an undertaking, It is at first to be presupposed, that according to Catholic doctrine, the Universal Church, which ought always to be visible, and to continue without Interruption, until the consummation of all things, is the Society of Christians dispersed all over the World, united together by the profession of the True Faith, the participation of the True Sacraments, by the bond of the same Law, and under one and the same Head; Because the Church, 
Joh. 10. v. 16. Ephes. 1. v. 22. August. Ep. 50.  whose first and principal property is to be perfectly one, is the mystical body of Jesus Christ; and that the members of a living body may receive the influences of life, they must be united to the Head. Hence it is, that, according to Saint Austin, 
Epist. 48. p. 151. l. de un. Eccl. c. 4.  though one may have all the rest, yet if he be separated from the Head, and, by consequent from the body which is united to him, he is, out of the Church Catholic by Schism; as Heretics are cut off from it, because of the want of True Faith.  
And as all the members of the body have not the same functions; but the parts that constitute it being subordinate one to another in a lovely order, there are some which are for giving motion to the rest, by the spirits that they send over all; and some for distributing the nourishment which the rest receive for growth, and for perseverance in the perfection of their state: So amongst the multitudes of believers that make up the Church, and who cannot all be immediately governed, instructed and edified by one single man: for edification of the body of Jesus Christ, there must be, as the great Apostle speaks, a great diversity of Ministers, and many Pastors subordinate one to another in an holy Hierarchy, 
Act. 20. v. 28.  to the end the people may have the Sacraments administered unto them, be instructed and governed.  
And that's the reason that there are in the world so vast a number of particular Churches, which have their several Bishops, and which are all subordinate to a Principal Church, of which the Bishop is the head of all the rest. And these being assembled in name of their Churches, in an Ecumenical Council, represent the Universal Church, which we believe to be infallible, for absolutely deciding the points of Faith, when her Bishops, who are the Pastors and Teachers of Christians, being one and the same as well as she, say, in her name, to all her members in perfect unity, Visum est Spiritui Sancto, & vobis.  
For as the Universal Church is a whole consisting of all believers, and of all particular Churches, which are one, by the Communion which they have with one Principal Church, that is the source, principle, root and centre of their Unity, as Saint Cyprian speaks: So, according to the doctrine of the same holy Father, 
Episcopatus unus est, multorum Episcoporum concordi numerositate diffusus. Cypr. l. de unit. Eccl. & Epist. 55.  there is but one Episcopacy in the Church, whereof each Bishop fully possesses a part; and by consequent there is but one Chair, wherein all Bishops sit, by virtue of the Union which they have with him, 
Episcopatus unus est, cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Cypr. Ep. 52. Ecclesia una & Cathedra una Domini voce fundata. Cyp. Ep. 40. Ad Trimitatis instar, cujus una est atque individua potestas, unum esse per diversos antistites sacerdotium. Sym. Ep. ad Aeon. Arclat.  whom they ought to acknowledge for their Head. This Pope Symmachus explains, in a very sublime manner, by an excellent comparison taken from the Trinity. In the same manner, saith he, as there is but one Omnipotence by the Unity of Essence and Nature, which so unites the three Persons, that they are but one God: So amongst the many Orthodox Churches throughout all Christendom, there is but one only Priesthood, that is to say, but one Episcopacy through the unity, not only of Faith and Belief, but also of communion of all the Bishops with a Head, whence results that unity which is inseparable from the Church of Jesus Christ.  
This being presupposed, in which all Catholics do agree, 
Aug. on Ps. 101.  it is certain that Jesus Christ himself hath established his Church, which he purchased by his own blood, and unto which he hath given the Faith, 
Act. 20. v. 28.  the Sacraments, the Law of Grace in his Gospel, and a visible Head to represent him as his Vicar upon Earth. And as from a very small beginning it hath enlarged itself (according to the Prophecies) over the whole earth: So also the Apostles and their Successors, after the departure of Jesus Christ, have founded particular Churches, establishing them themselves, or ordaining Bishops for governing the believers distributed into several Dioceses in all the quarters of the World.  
Now seeing that particular Church, which within a few years after the Ascension of Jesus Christ, was settled in the Capital City of the Empire, is without doubt, the most illustrious of all others; that on the one hand, Heretics not being able to endure its splendour and greatness, have always furiously risen up and conspired to destroy it; and that on the other, all Catholics, who are sensible of the real advantages that distinguish it from all others, are nevertheless divided about certain prerogatives which some attribute to it, and others dispute: I shall show, without speaking of other Churches, what hath been the first establishment of that of Rome, what is the excelling dignity thereof, and what are the prerogatives, rights and privileges of its Bishops.  
And because a subject of this nature is not to be handled by Philosophical reasonings, but by matters of fact drawn from Scripture, interpreted according to the Fathers, Councils, and ancient Traditions, which are the two principles of true Theology: therefore you are not to expect any speculation or Philosophy in this Treatise, which is purely Historical. I do in the very entry declare, that there is nothing of mine in this work. For I do no more, but as a sincere and exact Historian, barely allege, by uncontroverted matters of fact, drawn from the one or other of those two sources, what venerable Antiquity believed concerning that important matter.  
This method we usefully employ against our Protestants. We make it clearly out to them, that what we believe of the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Invocation of Saints, prayer for the dead, and other controverted points, is the ancient Doctrine of the Church; and that so their belief contrary to ours being new, is false. We force them to acknowledge, that what they hold with us concerning Infant Baptism, the Baptism of Heretics, and the change of the Sabbath into Sunday, of which Scripture makes no mention, they have it only from Tradition, and the ancient Practice of the Church, and that therefore they reject the anabaptists, because of the Novelty of their Doctrine.  
And this is also the great Principle that the ancient Fathers made use of against the Heretics of their times.  
Let us only consult the order of time, 
Ex ipso ordine manifestatur id esse dominicum & verum, quod sit prius traditum: id autem extraneum & falsum, quod sit posterius immissum. Tertull. de praescr. c. 32.  and we shall know that that which hath been first taught us, cometh from the Lord, and that it is truth; but that on the contrary, what new thing hath since been introduced, cometh of the Stranger and is false.  
And in his fourth Book against Martion: 
Quis inter nos determinabit, nifi temporis ratio, ei praescribens autoritatem quod antiquius reperietur, & ei praejudicans vitiationem quod posterius revincetur? l. 4. cont. Marci. c. 4.  Who can put an end to our differences, unless it be the order and decision of time, which Authorises the Antiquity of Doctrine, and declares that defective which comes, not till after that ancient Belief?  
Upon the same ground St. Jerome, who flourished about the end of the fourth Century, said to one of his Adversaries, who would have made a new Party in the Church: Why do you offer after four hundred years, 
Cur post quadringentos annos docere nos niteris quod ante nescivimus? Hier. Epist. ad Pammach. & Ocean.  to teach us that which was not known before?  
Pope Celestin I. Exhorting the Gallican Church to repress a sort of People that would have established new Doctrines, concludes with these very pithy words. 
Corripiantur hujusmodi: non sit illis liberum habere pro voluntate sermonem. Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem. Coelest. Ep. ad Episc. Gall.  Let such men be corrected; let them not have the liberty to say what they please; let not Novelty insult over Antiquity.  
And Sixtus III. Animated by the same Spirit that his Predecessor was, and following his steps, speaks to John of Antioch with the same force, writing to him in these terms: Let no more be allowed to Novelty, 
Nihil ultra liceat Novitati, quia nihil addi convenit vetustati. Six. III. Ep. ad Joan. Antioch.  because nothing ought to be added to Antiquity.  
Not but that the Church, which makes no new Articles of Faith, may declare after many Ages, being instructed by the Holy Ghost, which successively teaches her all truth, that certain matters that have not been before examined, whether or not they be Articles of Faith, are really such, as she hath done upon many occasions, obliging us to believe distinctly what was not as yet known to be matter of Faith. But that we ought so to stick to that which hath been believed in Antiquity, in matter of Doctrine, and especially in the four or five first Ages, when, according to our Protestants themselves; there was as yet no corruption in Doctrine, that new Doctors may add nothing of their own invention, nor establish any Novelty contrary to it. This solid Principle being equally received by Catholics and Protestants, I hope to satisfy both, in declaring calmly and without dispute, by the bare relation of evident matters of Fact, what the ancient Church hath believed concerning the establishment of the Church of Rome, and the Prerogatives and rights of her Bishops. This then is the Method which I shall trace in this Treatise.   

CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome.  
ALL Catholics who know that the Popes are the Successors of St. Peter, agree amongst themselves as to that point, but not with all Heretics. For there are some Modern who confidently deny that that Divine Apostle ever was at Rome, or that he fixed his Chair either there or in the City of Antioch. 
Calvin. l. 4. Inst. c. 6.  They ground so extraordinary and new an Opinion upon the silence of St. Luke and St. Paul, who having been at Rome, would not have failed to have spoken of St. Peter, and to have found Christians, if he had already Preached the Gospel there; besides, they ground it upon a certain Chronology which they have made, as they thought fit, of the Acts of the Apostles, and which can no way agree with that History of St. Peter; and, in fine, upon the very Epistles of that Apostle, who gives us to know that his Mission was into Asia, and that he died at Babylon.  
There is nothing that gives a clearer proof of the weakness and delusion of the wit of man, than when, by that Pride, which is so natural to him, he shakes off that Authority to which he is obliged to submit, and for that end, opposes it by his false reasonings, that serve for no other purpose but to discover his blindness and vanity. Though we had elsewhere no Intelligence of the Voyage to, and Chair of St. Peter at Rome; yet no man of sense would suffer himself to be persuaded by such inconclusive arguments, so easy to be refuted. St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts of the Apostles: Hath he mentioned there any thing of St. Paul's Journey into Arabia, of his return to Damascus, and then three years after to Jerusalem, of his Travels into Galatia, his being ravished up into Heaven, his three Shipwrecks, his eight Scourge, and of a thousand things else that he suffered? shall one conclude from that silence, that all is false? And though St. Paul had not written of these things himself, or if his Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians, 
Galat. 1. 2 Cor. 2.  had never come to our hands, would that silence of St. Luke have been of any greater force, to prove that that is not true, seeing it is really so, and was true before St. Paul wrote any thing of it? That Evangelist, saith St. Jerome hath passed over a great many things which St. Paul suffered, as likewise that St. Peter established his Chair first at Antioch, 
In Ep. ad Galat. c. 2.  and then at Rome.  
And as to the Chronology calculated to refute the two Foundations of Antioch and Rome, we maintain that it is false; and it is easy to give another fixed by the ablest writers of Ecclesiastical History and Chronologers, which perfectly agrees with the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul: Take it thus then in a few words.  
The year of our Lord thirty five; that Apostle was sent with St. John to Samaria, 
Anno 35.  to lay hands upon those whom the Deacon St. Philip had newly converted there; 
Act. 8. v. 20.  And having Preached the Gospel to the People of that Province, he returned to Jerusalem, where St. Paul, three years after his Conversion, went to visit him in the year thirty nine. Now seeing the Church at that time lived in a profound peace, St. Peter took so favourable a time to go visit, 
Anno 39  as St. Luke saith in express terms, 
Galat. 1. v. 18. Act. 9 v. 31. 32.  all the Believers that the Disciples dispersed through the Provinces, during the Persecution of the Jews, after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen, 
Act. 11. v. 19 Euseb. in Chron. Chrysost. Hieron. Greg. M. & alii.  had gained to Christ.  
And then it was that being informed that many of these dispersed Disciples had by their Preaching wrought much fruit at Antioch, he went and settled his Patriarchal Chair in that great City the Capital of the East, as the Ancients assure us.  
From thence; seeing he had the care of all the Churches, having given necessary orders for the government of that of Antioch, 
Anno 40, 41. Anno 42.  he returned into Judaea; visits Lidda, Joppa, Caesarea; opens a door to the calling of the Gentiles, by the Conversion of Cornelius the Centurion; and returns to Jerusalem, 
Act. 11. v. 4.  where having declared what God had revealed to him upon that Subject, he was informed by the relation of those that came from Antioch, that the number of Believers increased there daily. And therefore St. Barnabas was sent thither, 
V 22.  who finding that there was a great Harvest there, went to fetch St. Paul from Tarsus to assist him in the work; 
V 25.  and both of them laboured in that holy employment for the space of a whole year, with so great success, 
Anno 43.  that there the Believers, who were wonderfully increased in number, professing publicly their faith in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, were first called Christians. After that they carried to Jerusalem, where St. Peter was, 
V 30.  and into all Judaea the Alms which they had collected from the fervent charity of these first Christians of Antioch, for the relief of the Poor during that great Famine which the Prophet Agabus foretold, 
Act. 11.  and which was universal all over the world, 
Anno 44.  the second year of the Empire of Claudius, and the four and fourtieth of Jesus Christ. 
Dio. Cass. l. 60.   
In the mean time Herod Agrippa whom that Emperor had the year before, sent home with freedom into his Kingdom of Judaea, caused the Apostle St. James Brother of St. John to be put to death before Easter; 
Act. 12. v. 1.  and that he might still more gain the affections of the Jews, mortal Enemies to the Christians, he cast St. Peter into Prison, to be served in the same manner after the Feast. But an Angel delivered him out of his hands, and brought him forth out of Prison. After that, this Apostle passed by Antioch into the lesser Asia, 
Petr. Epist. Metaph. ex Antiq.  where he spent most part of that year, instructing the Believers, and erecting Sees in Cappadocia, Galatia, Pontus and Bythinia; And having from thence embarked for Rome, according to the orders he had received from the Holy Ghost, he arrived there about the end of that second year of Claudius, as all the most ancient Authors who have written of St. Peter do agree.  
In that capital City of the world, after he had converted a sufficient number of Jews and Gentiles for founding a Church, he established the year following, which was the forty fifth of Christ, his Pontifical Chair, 
Anno. 45.  leaving that of Antioch to Evodius, and there he held it till the consummation of his Martyrdom, that he suffered in the year threescore and nine, which was the thirteenth of the Empire of Nero. 
Anno 69.  So that reckoning from the year thirty nine, to forty five, we shall find that St. Peter's See continued seven years at Antioch; and from forty five to threescore and nine when he suffered Martyrdom, we have the twenty five years of his Episcopacy at Rome.  
Not that he lived there constantly during all that time, no more than he did at Antioch, all the seven years that he was Bishop there. For seeing he was both an Apostle and a Bishop, he traveled often, according to the Vocation of his Apostleship, into divers Countries of Europe and Asia, there to plant Churches; and as Bishop he governed his own, either Personally, or by his Vicars during his absence: So that the quality of an Apostle is not at all inconsistent with that of a Bishop: And if all Bishops be not Apostles, all the Apostles were Bishops, and ordained Bishops; And for that reason it is that all these are the Successors of the Apostles. St. Peter however, since no man before him had Preached the Gospel at Rome, 
Oros. l. 7. c. 6.  lived there seven years, until the year fifty one, when he was forced to leave it because of the Edict of the Emperor Claudius, 
Sueton. in Claud.  who banished thence the Jews. That obliged him to return into Asia; And it is certain that he was again at Antioch, where he had a great contest with St. Paul, either before, 
Act. 18. v. 2. Galat. 2. v. 11.  or after the Council of the Apostles, where he was present, and which was held the same year at Jerusalem.  
Now seeing after that Council St. Peter could not return to Rome during the life of the Emperor who had banished him thence, and that all the other Apostles almost, had had their Provinces in the Kingdoms of the East; he took that time to go Preach the Gospel to the Nations of the West, even those most remote: For some have written that he went as far as England. 
Metaph. ex Antiq. Orig. praef. in Epist. ad Rom. Theodor. & alii.  So that when St. Paul wrote from Corinth, and not from Ragusa to the Romans, in the year fifty eight, and when next year after, he was carried Prisoner to Rome; where he continued two years, until the year sixty one, St. Peter was not as yet come back. So nothing can be concluded from the silence of St. Paul, who speaks not of St. Peter no more than St. Luke does, who was with St. Paul at Rome.  
And it cannot be said that there were no Christians in that City, when that Apostle arrived there, seeing he had written to them the year before an excellent Epistle, wherein he says, 
Rom. 1. v. 8.  that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world, and that he longed to see them, that he might impart to them some Spiritual Gifts, to the end they might be established: which he adds, says Theodoret, and makes use of that word establish, because the great St. Peter had already Preached unto them the Doctrine of the Gospel. 
Theod. in Epist. ad Rom. c. 1.  Besides that, when St. Paul arrived first at Rome, the Brethren came to meet him, as St. Luke mentions, 
Act. 28.  who in many places of the Acts calls the Christians by that name; and the chief men amongst the Jews who came to wait upon him at his Lodging, asked him not what that Sect was, as if there had been no Christians at Rome, and that they had not learned from them what their belief was, but what he believed, because they saw that all who owned that Profession were in all places opposed and contradicted. This is a Chronology exactly conform to the Scripture, and that very well agrees with the two Voyages of Antioch and Rome, which is the Question in hand.  
And as to what is objected to us, that St. Peter wrote from Babylon, 
1 Pet. c. 5. v. 13.  where it is also affirmed that he died, there is nothing so pitifully weak. For it is so clear in that place that Babylon signifies the City of Rome, that that passage may even be used to prove by Scripture that St. Peter hath been at Rome. And indeed, it is by the very same that Eusebius makes it out that that Epistle was written at Rome; 
Euseb. Hist. l. c. 74.  when he saith: St. Peter makes it appear that he wrote it at Rome, when he calls that City Babylon. Does not St. Jerome say the same, 
Hierom. de script. Eccl. in Marc.  and after him all those who have written upon that Epistle before the Reformers? But who knoweth not, that Ancient Rome, which according to the observation of St. Austin, 
Aug. de civitat. l. 18. c. 22. Oros. l. 7. c. 2. Tertul. count. Marc. l. 3. c. 13.  was built at the same time when the Empire of the Babylonians was about to fall, is by the Ancients called Babylon, 
Revel. 17.  and especially that St. John in the Revelation gives it no other name when he speaks of it at the time when it Persecuted the Christians, and so cruelly shed the blood 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 ourselves 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 itself.  
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 do 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 Heretic nor Schismatic ever dreamt of calling it in question, before our Protestants, who are the Authors 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, Bythinia, 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 shameful ignorance. It is only the Turks, who, since they became Masters of the Eastern Empire, have called the neighbouring Country to Constantinople, especially beyond the Bosphorus, Romania, or Rom. or Romelia, as that Geographer says; for others give that name of Romania, or Romelia, only to Thrace. This being so, Can it be affirmed, without disgrace, that these holy Fathers, who flourished many Ages, not only 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 Country of Rom.? See what extravagance they are capable of, who, to satisfy 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 Successors therein.  
IT will not be difficult to confirm the truth of this by the same principle of Antiquity, to which I confine myself 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 Authors, who assure us that Saint Peter was at Rome; say also, that he founded that particular Church. It is true, that many of them join 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 show the uninterrupted Succession of Popes from St. Peter, whose lawful Successors 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 Successors 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 allege, 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 union with one principal or chief Church, the principle and centre of their unity: So there is but one general Chair in the Church, and one Episcopacy, 
Cathedra una super Petrum Domini voce fundata. Cypr. Epist. 40. Optat. contra Parmen. l. 2.  composed of all the Episcopal Chairs, by the communication which they have with the Head of that Church, and with that chief Chair whence their unity proceeds. So that, as all Believers are members of the same Church, when they are united to its Head; so all Bishops, taken in general, and every one in particular, sit in the same Chair, by the communion which they have with him that sits in that principal Chair, from whence, by that union which they preserve with it, results the unity of the Chair and of Episcopacy in the Church.  
But, besides that, every one of them hath his particular Chair, wherein none of the rest have any share, as they have all a share in that Chair which is but one in the Universal Church. And because Saint Peter is head of it, as we shall presently make it appear, not only his particular Chair of Rome, but likewise that of the whole Church is by the holy Fathers often called the Chair of St. Peter. It is in that sense then, that all Bishops sit in St. Peter's Chair, as all the Doctors of the old Law sat in the Chair of Moses. But for all that, all Bishops sit not in St. Peter's particular Chair, no more than his Successors in that Chair, sit in the Chairs of other Bishops, every one possessing entirely his own, as a part of the Universal Episcopacy. And thus also is to be understood what is said, that all Bishops are the Successors of St. Peter. Take it in this manner.  
I have clearly made it out in my Treatise of the true Church, even according to Calvin, and the ablest of our Protestants, that the true mark of the true Church, which distinguishes her from all others, is the perpetuity that will make her continue, without ever failing, to the end of the World. And seeing she is that great Sheep-fold, wherein all believers, who are the sheep of Jesus Christ, are gathered together into one flock, she cannot subsist in that unity without there be Pastors and Sheep; some to teach, and others to receive the truths which they are to believe; guides, and people, to be guided; and unless these pastors and guides succeed one another, without interruption to the end, for governing and guiding believers.  
Now that is not to be seen but in the Catholic Church, by the Union that all these particular Churches and their Bishops have with him whom they own for their Head. For in what time soever these Churches began to be planted, some sooner, some later, they may ascend, by virtue of that Union, through a perpetual Succession, from Pastors to Pastors, and from Bishops to Bishops, till they come to him whom Jesus Christ hath given them for Head. And because St. Peter is he, as we shall presently see; it is evident, that it is by that that they are his Successors; since by the Union which they have with the Bishop of Rome their Head, who, in a straight line, succeeds to St. Peter, they mount up, without interruption, by a continuity and collateral Succession, even to that Apostle, as all the branches of a Tree are united to the root in obliqne and indirect lines, by the union with the trunk and body of that Tree. But we must now consider the rights and prerogatives of St. Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome.   

CHAP. IU. Of the Primacy of St, Peter, and that he hath been established by Jesus Christ head of the Universal Church.  
I Shall not enlarge in a long discussion of this point, which the great and large volumes that so many learned men of the past and present age have composed for clearing of it, have drained, in alleging all that solidly can be said, as to this Article of our Faith, on which depends that perfect unity, which we avow to be essential to the Church. I shall only say what all Catholics agree in, that Jesus Christ chose St. Peter, amongst all his Apostles, to give him, not only the Primacy of order, honour and rank, by assigning him the first place, as one chief in dignity amongst his equals; and in those gifts, talents and graces which are inseparable from the Apostleship and Episcopacy; but also the Primacy of Jurisdiction, Power and Authority over all believers in the whole Church, of whom he appointed him head.  
This they learn from the Gospel, in that famous passage of the sixteenth Chapter of St. Matthew, where St. Peter, having answered for all the Apostles to our Saviour, who had asked them, what they thought of him, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God: our heavenly Lord, commending his faith, said to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee that thou art Cephas (that is to say, in the Syriack Tongue, a Stone) and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt lose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.  
Most of the holy Fathers, especially those that were before the Council of Nice, interpret to the person of St. Peter, these words, and upon that rock I will build my Church, according to the reference that they must necessarily have to those which go before, I say unto thee that thou art Cephas; that is to say a Stone or Rock. 
Tertul. de praescr. c. 32. Origen. in Ep. 14. hom. 5. Cypr. Epist. 71. p. 73. ad Jabaium. Hilar. lib. 6. de Trinit. Greg. Nist. in opera de adv. Domini. Ambros. in cap. 2. Ep. ad Eph. Chrysost. in Matt. 15.83. & in cap. 1. Ep. ad Gal. Hier. in Matth. c. 6. August. in Joan. Tract. 124.  There are others, particularly since the Council of Nice, who, to confute the impiety of the Arians, have understood them of that illustrious confession of Faith that St. Peter made, when he said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; and some have referred them to Jesus Christ himself, who is the foundation and corner Stone, of which St. Paul saith, That no man can lay another than that which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ.  
But besides, that the same Authors say elsewhere, that the Church is founded on St. Peter, it is easy to reconcile all these opinions together, which, without any difficulty, may be reduced to one, that results from all the three, by saying, that these words ought to be understood of the person of St. Peter, confessing Jesus Christ to be the Son of the living God. It is evident, that these three interpretations naturally resolve into this, which comprehends the Faith of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the confession of that Faith, and the person who made that confession.  
Now seeing the Church is the Society of true Christians, and that the first object of the Faith of Christians, as Christians, 
Ephes. 2.  is Jesus Christ; by the same it is, that Jesus Christ is the first foundation of the Church, and that no other than he can be laid, for grounding and establishing the Faith of Christianity.  
Moreover, as it is not enough to be a true Christian, to believe in Jesus Christ, 
Rom. 11.  and to preserve that Faith in the heart, if we do not also confess that we believe in him: therefore it is that the Church again is founded upon the confession of the Divinity of Christ.  
In fine, besides Faith and the public profession of it, the Church also, which is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ, must be well governed. For that purpose, he hath appointed in it Apostles, 
Ephes. 4. v. 11.12.  Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers, that they may labour in perfecting the Saints, according to the functions of their Ministry, for edifying of the body of Jesus Christ. And thence it is, that because of that illustrious confession of the Divinity of the Son of God, which St. Peter made in name of all the Apostles, he established him the foundation of the Ministry and Government of the Church, by giving him the oversight and authority over all the rest, who are subordinate to him, in their functions and inferior Ministeries, as to their Head. Wherefore Jesus Christ immediately after said to him, giving him that supreme power and authority in his Church. I will give unto thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind upon earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt lose upon earth, shalt be loosed in heaven. And that promise, which could not fail of being accomplished, was then fulfilled, when the Son of God, after his resurrection, said to him thrice, Feed my sheep. 
John 20.   
I know, that according to the sentiment of the Fathers, and principally of St. Augustine, he spoke these words unto him, as to one who was the Figure of the Church, with relation to all the Apostles, and their Successors the Bishops, who are also the foundations and pillars of the Church, according to St. Paul, and to whom Jesus Christ hath said, 
Cypr. Ep. 27. the laps. Hier. l. 1. cont. Jovin. August. Con. 2. in Psal. 30. & in Psal. 86.  that whatsoever they shall bind upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever they shall lose upon Earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. But there is this difference betwixt Saint Peter and all the rest, that when he speaks to all in common, he gives them that which is common to all the Apostles, and wherein they are all equal, as the power of administering Sacraments, teaching all Nations, baptising, forgiving sins, and what belongs to the other Apostolical functions. And when he applies himself particularly to Saint Peter, 
Cypr. lib. de unit. Eccles. Ep. 55. & 73. Hieronym. adv. Jovinian l. 2. Optat. cont. Parmen. l. 2.  he gives him that which is proper to himself, speaking to him in the singular number, for settling in his Church, the unity whereof he makes him the principle and foundation, to which all the rest must have a reference, that they may be but one, by the union which they ought necessarily to have with their Head, without which they neither are, nor can do any thing.  
For as St. Peter was the first that publicly confessed the Divinity of Jesus Christ, which he had by revelation, and that the rest knew it not but by his means, and that they answered only by his mouth, joining with him on that great occasion: So Jesus Christ, in consideration of that primacy of Confession, hath given him the primacy over all the rest, making him their head, and that one, that original, foundation and principle of unity, upon which he hath built the Church, in regard of its government. So that although all the rest received Immediately from Christ the power of binding and losing, and of governing their Churches, yet they cannot exercise it but by virtue of the union which they have with St. Peter, without which they would continue no longer in unity, nor by consequent in the Church. And it is upon that that the Primacy of Saint Peter is founded, and that he is next to Jesus Christ, and not as he is, by his own power and virtue, but by commission, the foundation and head of the Church.  
The Protestants, who, by a deplorable Schism, not without Heresy, have gone out of the unity of the Church, by making separation from the Chair of St. Peter, which is the principle, original and centre thereof; have, in vain, disputed this Doctrine, with all their force, until this present. I shall not here undertake a refutation of their objections, whereby they pretend to overthrow it, and whereof the weakness hath been made appear, in a vast number of great and learned Answers that have been made to them. But to avoid disputing, which is unseparable from the opposing of arguments to arguments, for refuting adversaries; and that I may only make use of that great maxim, which alone I am to employ in this Treatise, I shall only say in one word, that if we consult Antiquity, we shall find, by tracing it to the first Ages of the Church, that it hath ever constantly believed that Primacy of St. Peter.  
This is easily proved by the testimonies of almost all the holy Fathers, 
Hippolyt. Martyr. de consume. mundi. Tertul. de praes. c. 22. Iren. Origen in Ep. ad R. c. 6. Cypr. lib. de unti. Eccl. Epiph. in Anchor. Amb. in Luc. c. 10. Greg. Naz. or. 26. Hilar. in Matth. c. 16. Hier. adv. Jovin. l. 2. Optat. Melev. count. Parmen. l. 2. Cyrill. Alex. in Joan. c. 12. August. in Joan. tr. 11.36. Ep. 161.  who, in an infinite number of places in their Works, say, That he is the Rock and Foundation of the Church; that his Chair is the chief Chair, to which all the rest must unite; that he hath the Supreme power to take care of the flock of the Son of God; that he hath received the Primacy, to the end that the Church might be one; that he is the first, the chief and the head of the Apostles; that he is the inspectour of all the Universe; he, to whom Jesus Christ hath committed the disposition of all things, 
Chrysost. hom. 13. in Matth. in Joan. hom. 87. de beat. Ignat. St. Leo, Serm. in Anniversar. su. Assumpsit.  to whom he hath given the rule over his brethren, who is preferred before all the Apostles, and who governs all Pastors; with many other encomiums of that nature, all which magnificently express his Primacy; and which have been often repeated and approved in General Councils.  
And that supereminent dignity of St. Peter was so well known, even of the Pagans, in Antiquity, that Porphyrius, one of their greatest Philosophers, upbraided the Christians, as St. Jerome informs us, that their St. Paul was so rash, as to have dared to reprove the Prince of the Apostles, and his Master. 
Hieron. Ep. 89.  Since then all venerable Antiquity hath believed the Primacy of St. Peter, which our Protestants contest by the novelty of their Doctrine, we have reason, once more, to say to them, Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem.  
After all, it is so evident, that Jesus Christ, who will have his Church to continue to the end of the World, hath given St. Peter the Primacy and Supreme dignity of visible Head of the Church, for himself and Successors, in that Principal Chair which that great Apostle fixed at Rome, that it would be superfluous to attempt to prove it. For if it had been so confined to his Person, that it descended not to his Successors, it would follow, that after the death of St. Peter, the Church was fallen, that it had no longer that Principle of unity, which makes it one; that it was no more but a body without a head, and a ruinous building without a foundation. Besides, Is it not well known that it is an order naturally fixed in lawful Successions, that Kings and other Princes, and their Officers, in the Civil State; Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates and Patriarches, nay, and Ministers amongst our Protestants, succeed to the rights and powers of their Predecessors?  
But though we had no such convincing reasons, 
Concil. Sardic. Ep. ad Jul. in frag. Hil. Con. Constant. ad Dam. Conc. Ephes. Conc. Chalcedon ad Leon. Conc. 6. Act 18. Ep. ad Agath. Iren. l. 3. cont. Valent. Cyprian. ad Corn. Ep. 55. & l. de unitat. Optat. contra Parm. l. 2. Vincent. Lirin. lib. contra Haer. c. 3. Hier. ad Dam. August. de duab. Ep. Pelag. l. 1. c. 1. & Ep. 92.162. Chrysost. Ep. 1. ad Innoc. Prosper. de voc. gent. l. 8. c. 6. St. Leo. St. Gregor. Theodoret. Socrates. Sozom. & alii passim.  yet it would be enough to say, that all the same evidences of Antiquity that have given testimony to the Primacy of St. Peter, and to his supreme power in the Universal Church, have also by common consent attributed it, upon the same words of Jesus Christ, to the Bishops of Rome, who are the Successors of the Prince of Apostles. There is nothing more ordinary in the Councils and Fathers, where the same things that are said of the Primacy of St. Peter, and of the Prerogatives of his Chair at Rome, are in formal terms most frequently found repeated to express the Primacy of the Popes, their superintendance in the Universal Church, and the superiority of their Chair, and of the Church of Rome, to which they declare that all the rest ought to be united as Lines to their Centre, and as to the source of Sacerdotal Unity. And that's the reason why we call the Universal Church, the Roman-Catholick and Apostolic Church, because all particular Churches, of which that great body is constituted, must be united in communion with the Pope of Rome their Head, that so they may be Members of the true Church of Jesus Christ, which is no ways one, but by that union which maketh its perfect unity.  
I have, me thinks, made it hitherto clear enough, according to all Antiquity opposite to the novelty of our Protestants, what is the belief of Catholics concerning St. Peter and of his Successors in his Bishopric of Rome. We must now in order examine, sticking close to Antiquity against all Novelty, what Prerogatives and Rights that Primacy gives to Popes, what it is that all Catholics agree in, and wherein it is that they differ about that point; and prove by uncontroverted matters of Fact, without disputation, what Antiquity, which ought to direct our belief, in spite of all the attempts of Novelty, hath believed concerning points of that importance.   

CHAP. V Concerning the rights and advantages that the Primacy gives to the Bishop of Rome over all other Bishops.  
I Think that point cannot better be decided than by the Decree of the Council of Florence in the year 1439. when that famous reunion was made betwixt the Latin and Greek Churches, after many celebrated conferences and great contests that happened there during the space of fifteen months, betwixt the learnedst men of both Churches about that Subject and other controverted points. This is the definition of the Council. Item, we define that the Holy Apostolic See, and the Pope of Rome have the Primacy over all the world; that the Pope of Rome is the Successor of St. Peter Prince of the Apostles; that he is the true Vicar of Jesus Christ, and Head of all the Church, the Father and Teacher of all Christians; and that our Lord Jesus Christ hath given him, in the person of St. Peter, full power of feeding, ruling and governing the universal Church, in the manner specified in the Acts of Councils, and holy Canons.  
For it is precisely so in the Greek, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and in the Latin, Juxta eum modum qui & in Actis Conciliorum & in Sacris Canonibus continetur: As it is to be read in Blondus' Secretary to Pope Eugenius, 
Decad. 3. l. 10.  who presided in that Council. In Ekius his Treatise of the Primacy of the Pope, 
Lib. 1.  in the Bishop of Rochester's five and twentieth Article against Luther, 
Cap. Vlt.  and in Albertus Pighius his fourth Book of the Hierarchy. That is to say in English, To govern the Church in the manner which is found expressed in the Acts of the Councils, and in the Holy Canons; not as Abraham of Candie hath very ill rendered it, quemadmodum etiam, which gives it a quite contrary sense to the intention and words of the Council, as will manifestly appear in another place of this Treatise.  
At present it is enough that we know, according to that Council, that the Primacy of the Pope entitles him to the inspection of all that concerns the government and welfare of the Church in general, which is more than any Bishop of what dignity soever he may be can challenge. For the power that other Bishops have by Divine Right to govern the Church, reaches not beyond their Dioceses: but that of the Pope, as Head of the Church Universal, extends every where, when the good of all Believers in general is concerned; of whom he is to take the care; And that supreme dignity gives him a great many rights, which none but he alone can enjoy.  
To him application is made to have resolutions in difficulties that may arise in matters concerning Faith, 
Hieron. ad Ageruch. Ep. 2. Innoc. 1. apud Aug. Epist. 93. August. Epist. 106. Jul. apud Athan. Apol. 1.  manners, or general Customs. Of this we have evident proofs in the Holy Fathers, and an illustrious instance of it hath been seen in our days, in that famous letter which the Bishops of France wrote to Pope Innocent X.  
He alone hath the right of calling Councils for Spiritual Affairs, and to preside in them personally, or by his Legates, I say he hath that right, without speaking of matter of Fact, which is under debate in respect of some Councils, and cannot prejudice his Primacy. For though he hath not presided in the first Council of Constantinople, which perhaps neither did he call, and that it be most certain that he did not call the fifth, nor presided in it, though he was at Constantinople, where that Council was held: yet it is not to be doubted but he might have done both the one and the other, if he had pleased, seeing that in the Letter which the Patriarch Entychius wrote to him for obtaining of that Council, 
Concil. 5. Act. 1.  he prayed him to preside in it, and that he only presided therein upon his refusal. For thus it is in the Original, praesidente nobis vestrâ beatitudine, and not resident nobiscum, as the Minister Junius hath corrupted it, by a correction made of his own head, against the clear sense of the following words.  
Besides, is it not past all controversy that the Pope presided by his Legates in the Council of Chalcedon, as he hath done in almost all the others which have been held since? For I speak not here of the great Council of Nice, nor of that of Ephesus, because, as I conceive, I have elsewhere proved by invincible Arguments, not only against our Protestants, but also against the sentiments of some Catholic Doctors, that the Popes by their Legates presided in them, nay, and that they called them, as to what relates to the Spiritual Authority which they have over the Bishops; as the Emperors, to whose rights Kings and Christian Princes have succeeded, may call Councils in regard of Temporals, by that sovereign power which they have received from God over their Subjects, in virtue whereof they may oblige their Bishops to assemble in a certain place, either within or without their Territories, there to treat of matters purely spiritual, wherein they meddle not, but as protectors of the Church, in causing the Decrees and Canons of these Councils which strike not at the Rights of their Crown, to be put in execution. It is certain than that the Popes, as Heads of the Church, have right to call general Councils, and to preside in them.  
Moreover, seeing the Pope in that quality, 
Concil. Sardic. Can. 3.4.7. Gelas. Epist. ad Epis. Dardan. Innoc. Epist. ad Victric. St. Leo. Ep. 82. Cap. Car. Mag. lib. c. 187. Hincmar. ad Nicol. 1. Flodo. Hist. Eccl. Rom. l. 3. Gerson the Protestant. Eccl. Cons. 8.  is without dispute, above every Bishop of what Dignity soever he may be, and above all particular Churches and Synods: Appeals may be made from all these Bishops and Synods to his Tribunal. It belongs to him to judge of greater Causes, such as those which concern the Faith, and that are doubtful, universal Customs, the deposing of Bishops, and some others which I have observed elsewhere, the decision whereof belongs and aught to be referred to him. In that manner the Inferior Judges appointed by Moses according to the advice of Jethro, 
Exod. 18.  judged of causes of less importance, and the greater were reserved to that great leader of the People of God.  
Hence it is also that the Pope hath right to judge, yet always according to the disposition of the Canons, of the causes of Bishops, Metropolitans, Primates and Patriarches. This appears clearly by the judgement in the case of St. Athanasius, 
Athan. Apol. 2. Theodoret. l. 2. Socr. l. 2. c. 15. Sozom. l. 3. c. 81.  Paul. Patriarch of Constantinople, Marcellus Primate of Ancyra, Asclepas Bishop of Gaza, and Lucius Bishop of Adrianople: whom Pope Julius restored to their Sees, from which they had been illegally Deposed; and by the case of Denis Patriarch of Alexandria, who being accused, 
Athan. de sent. Dionys.  defended himself in writing before the Pope; in a word, by an infinite number of other instances in all ages of the Church, which may be seen in my Treatise of the judgement of the causes of Bishops. I shall only mention one which wonderfully sets off that supreme Authority of the Pope.  
After the death of Epiphanins, 
Liberat. c. 10.  Patriarch of Constantinople, the Empress Theodora, one of the wickedest Women that ever was, and above all a great Eutychian in her heart, and a great enemy to the Council of Chalcedon, prevailed so far, by the great power that she had got over the mind of the Emperor Justinian her Husband, who could not resist her Artifices, that Anthimius was made Patriarch, though he was Bishop of Trebizonde, by that means possessing at the same time two Episcopal Chairs, against the manifest constitution of the holy Canons, without any Precedent, and without lawful dispensation.  
Besides, that naughty man was both a frank Heretic, and great Cheat. For though he was not only Eutychian, but also the head of those Heretics, 
Justin. Nou. 42. Niceph. l. 17. c. 9  yet he always professed, that he might deceive the Emperor, who at that time was a good Catholic, that he received the Doctrine of the four Councils, but without ever condemning Eulyches, who had been condemned by the holy Council of Chalcedon. That occalioned a great deal of scandal and trouble in the East, and seeing, when matters were in this state; 
Concil. Constant. sub Men. Act. 1.  St. Agapetus the Pope was come from Rome to Constantinople, whither Theodatus King of the Goths had obliged him to go, that he might endeavour to obtain of Justinian the peace which the Goths demanded; The Monks of Syria, and many other zealous Catholics presented him Petitions against that Intruder and Heretic.  
This without doubt is one of the most illustrious marks, and one of the strongest proofs of the Authority of the Holy See, and of the Primacy of the Pope, that ever was seen in the Church. The Emperor who loved Anthimius, and thought himself obliged in honour to protect him, as being his Creature, solicited on his behalf; and by his earnestness in the Affair, made it apparent that he intended to maintain him. Theodora who was more concerned still than the Emperor in the preservation of her Patriarch, employed all her Artifices, and spared neither offers, prayers nor threats, to shake the constancy of a Pope whom she saw resolved to make use of the power which he had received from Jesus Christ for the good of the Church.  
The Empire was then in a most flourishing state; the Emperor shining in glory. After the defeat of the Vandals in Africa; Constantinople in great splendour; Anthimius most powerful through the favour of his Prince, and the Grandeur and Majesty of the Patriarchal See of the Imperial City, where he thought himself too well fixed, to fear that he could be turned out. Rome on the contrary being no more the Seat of the Empire, since it was fallen under the Dominion of the Herules and Goths; retained now nothing that was great, besides its own ruins and name. The Church of Rome Tyrannically oppressed by these Barbarians, was, if I dare say so, in the chains of the Ostrogoths, who used it like a slave. The Pope forced to comply under the haughty commands of Theodatus, who sent him to negotiate his affairs in the East, so little esteemed by that Barbarian, and so poor, that he was obliged to sell the Plate of his Church, to raise money for this Voyage, was almost all alone at Constantinople, without a Court, without Cardinals, without Train, without Equipage, without support, and only upheld by his spiritual power, which was not backed by any of those glorious marks, that at present renders the Pontifical Majesty so venerable to all the world.  
Nevertheless in that condition he pronounces two thundering sentences against the Patriarch Anthimius: 
Con. sub Men. Act. 4. Marcell. in Chron. Liber in Brev. c. 2. Vict. Tun. in Chron.  one upon the spot, whereby by reason of his manifest intrusion, he deposes him from his Patriarchship, and puts the Priest Mennas in his place, whom he himself consecrated Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople; and the other shortly after, for the Crime of Heresy, of which he was strongly suspected guilty, ordaining that if he cleared himself not of it, by obeying the holy Canons, he should also be deposed from his Bishopric of Trabizonde.  
And seeing the holy Pope died the same year, that sentence was the year following put in execution, in a Council held by Mennas at Constantinople, 
Anno 537.  where because Anthimius would never condemn Eutyches, 
Concil. sub Men. Act. 4.  he was deprived of the Bishopric of Trabizonde, and of all sacerdotal Dignity, according to the sentence of the Pope.  
And which is still more wonderful, Justinian acknowledging that Supreme Authority of the Pope, to which he submitted and joining thereto his own, as Protector of the Canons, for causing that to be put in execution, made against Anthimius that famous constitution, which is to be seen in his two and fourtieth Novel, in the tenth collation of his authentics, wherein he positively says that he hath been justly Deposed by the Pope, as well because he had intruded, 
Neque ipse abdicare auctores impiorum dogmatum, qui prius à Sanctis Synodis percussi fuerant. Inst. Nou. 42.  contrary to the Holy Canons, into the Chair of Constantinople, as that he would not condemn those who had been Condemned by Councils. Was there ever a more admirable effect of the Spiritual Power and Authority of the Vicar of Jesus Christ?  
But before I conclude, I must, upon occasion of this Council of Constantinople under Mennas, show the Prodigious ignorance of Calvin, in relation to the History of the Ancient Church. I have said in the History of Calvinism, and I say it again that that man having never entered the Schools of Divinity, understood nothing at all in that Sacred Science; which is a Key absolutely necessary for unlocking the sentiments and sentences of the Holy Fathers, that contain the Principles of true Theology; as they are to be found in a lovely order in the Master of Sentences. But it is to be confessed that his ignorance appears incomparably more pitiful, when he undertakes to prove his new Opinions by Church History, in which he was never versed. Take this as an evident proof of it.  
This Innovatour, who strikes chief at the Primacy of the Pope, says in that place, for overthrowing it, 
Calvin. Inst. l. 4. c. 7.  that Mennas' presided in the fifth Council, and that the Pope being called to it, did not contest with him about the place of Honour, but without difficulty suffered the Patriarch of Constantinople to preside therein. Ridiculous mistake! Mennas' was dead long before the fifth Council was called, which was held in the Seven and twentieth year of the Empire of Justinian, as Calvin, 
Consil. 6. Act. 3●  had he ever read the Councils, might have learned from the sixth Ecumenick Council, third Action. How then could that dead man have presided in that Council, which was not held till five or six years after his death, under his Successor Eutychius?  
Now if it be alleged, for excuse of that mistake, that Calvin, by that Council, means the other which was held by Mennas, yet that makes him but still ridiculous. For, besides, that that particular Council is very different from that which is called the Fifth, and which holds that rank amongst the General Councils: the only Pope that was at Constantinople, in the time of Mennas, to wit, St. Agapetus was dead before that Council, wherein Mennas calls him, 
Act. 4.  his Father of holy and blessed memory.  
And had that Pope been still alive, How durst Mennas have pretended to the first place in his presence, he, whom that Pope had made Patriarch, who protests in the same Council, that he is subject to the Holy See, and who knows the thoughts of the Emperor Justinian, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cod. l. 7.  that declares publicly, That the Pope is the Head of all the holy Prelates of God, and who will have his Patriarch of New Rome to have the next place to the holy Apostolic See of Old Rome? 
Novel. 131.  So that to what side soever Calvin turn, he shall always find his Man dead in stead of alive. And as it is very well known, that God favoured him not with the gift of working Miracles, he can never raise him again, to place him there where nothing but his extreme ignorance could put him.  
By the same defect of knowledge, accompanied with a ridiculous boldness, that he may strip the Pope of his Primacy, he takes Nice in Thracia, for Nicoea in Bythinia; Pope Julius for Silvester; the first place for the last, in citing Sozomene, who, beginning by this Man, 
L. 1. c. 16.  in the enumeration of the Patriarches, ascends, in order, to the first, where he puts the Legates of the Pope, speaking of the first Council, wherein, by the grossest ignorance that can be in History, and which none but Calvin could be capable of, he makes Saint Athanasius preside, who was then but a simple Deacon, waiting upon Alexander his Patriarch at that Council, 
Athan. Apol. 2.   
Such was the ignorance of the head of our Protestants in Ecclesiastical History. I do not at all wonder at it; for that was none of his study. But I am astonished to see, that men of wit and learning dance to his Pipe, in that they implicitly assent to his ignorance in Antiquity, when in the system of his heresy, he rejects matters that are manifestly authorised by Tradition and History, which is the Court of Record of it; nay, even when he traces it back to the Primitive Ages of the Church, wherein they are forced to confess, that it was in its purity.  
There are evident proofs of this in the History of the Fathers and Councils, where, setting aside some frivolous superstitions of weak people, which we condemn, it may be seen, that the ancient Church believed and did, what Catholics believe and practise concerning the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the seven Sacraments, the Consistency of Grace with , the Authority of Tradition, the Invocation of Saints, Churches dedicated and consecrated to God in memory of them, the Veneration of their Relics and Images, Prayer for the dead, the Fasts of Lent and of the Ember weeks, the distinction of Holy days and working days, that of the Habits of Laymen and Churchmen, the single life of the Clergy, Vows, Sacred Ceremonies in the administration and use of the Sacraments, and in public Worship, Divine Worship in Greek all over the East, and in the Latin Tongue in the West, though in most Provinces this was not understood but by the Learned; in a word, concerning all that distinguishes us from Protestants, but especially Calvinists.  
This the famous Cardinal Perron made out by unquestionable testimonies, in his Reply to the King of Great Britain, where he shows, the conformity of the Ancient Catholic Church with ours, in the Eighteenth Chapter of the first Book, and throughout the whole Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Books of that Learned Work. And to which also David Blondel, a Man incomparably more able than Calvin, especially in the knowledge of Antiquity, thought it not fit to make an Answer in that overgrown Volume which he wrote against the Reply, and wherein he thought it convenient to begin his pretended refutation only at the Three and twentieth Chapter of the first Book; and to end it with the Four and thirtieth of the same Book.  
But to pass by the Protestants, against whom I pretend not to Dispute; It is enough to me, that hitherto, without any disputation, I have proved by Antiquity alone, the Primacy of St. Peter, and of the Popes his successors in the Chair of Rome, and the Prerogatives and Rights which are inseparable from that Primacy, wherein all Catholics agree. However, it is very well known, that at present, they are not all of the same mind, as to certain other Prerogatives, which some grant, and others will not allow to him; and especially these four, which are, Infallibility, Superiority over a General Council, the Absolute Power of Governing the Church independantly of the Canons, and the Direct or Indirect Power over Temporals. And therefore I must now, without deviating from my Principle drawn from Antiquity, make appear, without disputing and reasoning, but as a bare Relater of the sentiments of the Councils and Fathers, nay and of the Popes themselves, what venerable Antiquity hath always believed concerning these points.   

CHAP. VI The Question stated concerning the Infallibility of the Pope.  
THE Question here is not to know, whether the Pope, as a private Doctor, and only giving his opinion and thought of a point of Doctrine, concerning Faith and Manners, may be deceived: for it was never doubted, but that in that quality he speaks only as another Man, and that by consequent through the weakness and infirmity which is incident to all Men, he is subject to Error, according to the saying of the Psalmist, Omnis homo mendax.  
Nor is it the question, neither to inquire, whether he be infallible when he pronounces from the Chair of the Universal Church, jointly, with the Members that are subject to him as to their head, whether it be in a General Council where he presides in person, or by his Legates, or with the consent of the greatest part of Catholic Churches and Bishops. For as we all allow, that Jesus Christ hath given the gift of Infallibility to his Church, and to a Council which represents it, for determining Sovereignly, by the Word of God, the differences that might arise amongst Catholics concerning these points of Doctrine: so we do confess, that when the Pope speaks and decides in that manner, according to which he may say, Visum est Spiritui Sancto & nobis; his words and decisions are Oracles, and he can in no ways be deceived. As to this there is no disagreement amongst Catholics.  
The question then that may be debated, is to know, whether when he speaks from his Chair of Rome, as the Master and Teacher of all Believers, and having well examined the point in hand, in several Congregations, his Consistory, or his Synod of his Suffragans, of his Cardinals and Doctors, nay, and having consulted Universities, and by most public and solemn Prayers begged the assistance of the Holy Ghost; he teaches all Christians, defines, proposes to the whole Church, by a Bull or Constitution, what Christians are to believe; whether, I say, when he pronounces in this manner, he be Infallible or not, and whether his Judgement given and declared in that manner, may not be corrected by an Universal Council. And this, methinks, is all that can be said, in clear and formal terms, as to the state of this formal question.  
And it is the very same, about which all Catholic Doctors do not agree. For most part of the Doctors on t'other side of the Alps, especially the famous Cardinals Cajetan, Baronius and Bellarmine, and all the Authors who have followed them, will have the Pope in that case, when he declares solemnly to all Believers, by his Constitutions, what they are to believe, as to any controverted point, to be no ways liable to a mistake.  
On the contrary, an infinite number of the most noted Doctors of their time, as Gerson, Major, Almanus, the Faculty of Theology of Paris so often and so publicly praised by the Popes, and all France, as it is even acknowledged by the Doctors Navarr, Victoria and John Celaia Spaniards; Denis the Carthusian, Tostatus Bishop of Avila in his Commentaries upon St. Matthew, and in the second part of his Defensorium, Thomas Illyrius a Cordelier, in his Buckler against Luther, which he dedicated to Pope Adrian VI The Cardinals of Cusa, of Cambray, and of Florence, the Bishops of France in their Assembly representing the Gallican Church, Aeneas Silvius before he was Pope, Pope Adrian VI when he was Professor at Louvain, in his Commentary upon the Fourth of the Sentences, which he caused to be reprinted at Rome when he was Pope, without any alterations, and a thousand other most Catholic Doctors of the Universities of France, Germany, Poland, and of the Low Countries, who have all very well defended the Primacy of the Pope; all these, I say, maintain, that he is not Infallible, if he do not pronounce in a General Council, or with the consent of the Church.  
The diversity of Sentiments amongst Catholics about that Subject, is then a matter of fact not to be questioned. But what part are we best to take in this dispute, as the most rational and best grounded? that's a question which I ought not to answer, according to the design I have taken, and the method that I have proposed to myself in this Treatise. I shall only then barely relate what hath been believed as to that in Antiquity, and I shall do it without touching at the matter of Right, but only 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 compelest 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 only 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 interred, the legal Ceremonies might still be observed; when it was thought convenient, as Saint Paul himself, 
Act. 16.18.21.  oftener 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 eaten no more of meats prohibited by the Law; and that those of Antioch, who were converted from Judaisme, 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 only 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 easy, 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. Austin concerning that action of St. Peter, in three or four passages of his works, where he plainly calls it an error. St. Paul, saith he, was obliged publicly to reprove Saint Peter, that he might cure all the rest by that remedy; for an error that did hurt to the public, 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 Saint Peter and St. Paul, to bring the Jews to their duty, by letting them see, that their Protector 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 lawful 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 error, by compelling them to Judaize.  
St. Austin then who valiantly oppugns that opinion which so little favours those two great Apostles, and who alleges 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 error of St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Heretics, 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 Rebaptizari. Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. contra Donatist. c. 1.  Peter, saith he, could compel the Gentiles to Judaize, contrary to the rule of truth which the Church hath since followed, Why might not St. Cyprian compel Heretics and Schismatics to be rebaptized, 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 error of St. Cyprian: I admit not, says he, that Doctrine of Cyprian, 
Hoc Cypriani non accipio, quamvis incomparabiliter inferior Cypriano, sicut illud Apostoli Petri, quod Gentes Judaizare cogebat, nec accipio, nec facio, quamvis inferior incomparabiliter Petro. l. 2. contra Craescon. c. 32.  though I be incomparably inferior to that great Man; as though I be incomparably less than St. Peter, yet I admit not, neither do what he did, in compelling the Gentiles to Judaize.  
An infinite number of great Men have in that followed St. Augustine, as the Master and chief of the Doctors: but at present I shall only produce one, whose authority far surpasses that of all the rest. And that is Pope Pelagius II. who, following the example of St. Austin, in relation to St. Cyprian, acknowledges, and, at the same time, excuses the error of Pope Vigilius, by that of St. Peter. It is a very remarkable matter of fact. Take it thus.  
After that wicked Nestorius had been condemned in the Council of Ephesus, some of his party published certain Writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, 
Liberat. in Breviar. c. 10.  wherein, under other terms than those which that Heresiarch had used, he said almost the same thing, making it apparent enough, that by the two natures which he admitted to be in Jesus Christ, he understood two distinct Persons. But seeing that error was not expressed in such formal terms, that all men might discover it, and that besides, this same Theodore had, in his life-time, been held in great veneration: that, as it commonly happens, occasioned great debates; some, as John Patriarch of Antioch, saying that there was nothing to be found fault with in his Book: Others, who were headed by Rabula Bishop of Edessa, maintaining, that it contained pure Nestorianism a little disguised.  
This dispute growing hotter after the death of Rabula, Ibas, who succeeded him in the Bishopric of Edessa, taking a course quite contrary to his Predecessor, wrote a long Letter to Maris Persan a Nestorian Heretic, wherein he thought it not enough to give great praises to Theodore, but inveighs also sharply against St. Cyrill of Alexandria, the scourge of Nestorianism, though at the same time he condemns the Doctrine of Nestorius; whether he spoke sincerely, or that he would thereby caution himself against the process that might have been brought against him, for that he had so openly declared for Theodore.  
The truth is, sometime after he was accused in the famous Council of Chalcedon, where that Letter was produced against him, 
Ann. 451. Concil. Chalced. Act. 16.  and read in full Council. But seeing there was nothing to be found in it but praises of Theodore, whose Book had not been examined, and invectives against the person and conduct of St. Cyril; and besides, that Ibas in that Council pronounced Anathema against Nestorius, and condemned his Doctrine, more severely than he had even done in his Letter: He was Absolved, as well as Theodoret, who did the same, though he had Written against St. Cyrill, more bitterly than Ibas had done. But the Council took no notice of that Treatise.  
Nevertheless, seeing these three Writings, which are very well known by the famous name of the Three Chapters, so much talked of, favoured Nestorianism, and that that Heresy is directly opposite to that of Eutyches, which admits indeed but one person, but also, but one nature in Jesus Christ. The Emperor Justinian was easily persuaded, that if these Three Chapters were condemned, the Catholics might be reconciled with the Acephali, who were a remnant of Eutychians. 
Ann. 546.  This Prince, who at that time desired nothing more than the Peace of the Church, zealously undertook that affair. He made an Edict against these Three Chapters, 
Petau. 1. p. Ration. l. 7. c. 7.  which was signed by Mennas and the other Patriarches of the East; and to render that condemnation still more authentic, seeing he was at that time Master of Italy, having driven the Goths out of it, he made Pope Vigilius come to Constantinople, that he might oblige him to sign it as the other Patriarches of the East had done.  
There is nothing in History more extraordinary, than the fortune of that Pope. His ambition at first made him Antipope, having got himself to be chosen by the interest of the Empress Theodora, who put him in the place of Sylverius the lawful Pope, 
Liber. c. 28.  that she caused to be deposed and banished, and to whom that Intruder promised to condemn the Three Chapters, 
Victor. Tunon. in Chron.  and to approve the faith of Anthimius, as he did. And therefore Sylverius, for all he was banished, 
Sylver Epist. etc.  Excommunicated him as an Antipope. This holy Prelate dying shortly after that Condemnation, the Clergy of Rome, for avoiding a Schism, elected of new Vigilius Canonically, who by that means became true Pope; and then changing his conduct, that he might overturn all that he had done in favour of Theodora: he condemned Anthimius as an Eutychian, 
Greg. l. 2. c. 36. Paul. diacon. l. 17.  and recalled the Condemnation of the Three Chapters, which indeed were contrary to the Eutychians, but also bordering upon the other extreme, mightily favoured the Nestorians.  
In this condition was he then when the Emperor called him to Constantinople to approve the Condemnation of the Three Chapters. He had much ado to resolve upon it, 
Forundus Hermianen.  because he thought, as many Occidentals did, that that was to impeach the Council of Chalcedon, which had received Ibas and Theodoret, the defenders of Theodore of Mopsuestia. But it was represented to him, that the Council had not received them until they had condemned the Nestorians, and that it had not examined neither the Book of Theodore, nor that of Theodoret; and that, seeing now they were sufficiently convinced and persuaded, that the Doctrine of Nestorius, condemned in the Council of Ephesus, was contained in these Writings, he ought to condemn them, thereby to take all advantage from the Nestorians.  
Vigilius, at length, 
Ann. 547. Judicatum.  acquiesced to these Remonstrances, and the year following made his Decree, whereby he condemns the Three Chapters, but with this reserve, Saving the respect and submission which is due to the Council of Chalcedon. Justinian not satisfied with that, would have the Pope, seeing the question concerned not that Council, which had not examined these Books, to condemn them absolutely, and without that modification, lest the Nestorians might make use of it for eluding a like condemnation. But Vigilius, who was always loath to offend that Council, would not condescend to it, how badly soever they treated him to oblige him to do so.  
In fine, after many debates about the subject, Justinian, who resolved to put an end to that affair, for restoring peace to the Church, caused the Fifth Council to be held at Constantinople in spite of Vigilius, 
Ann. 553. V. Syn. 5. Tom. 3. Concil. Constitutum.  who was so far from granting the Emperor what he desired, that he made a new Constitution, wherein he again takes upon him the protection of the 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. the 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 form in the Church about that point. For though the Successors 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 publicly 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 error, he could never succeed in it.  
For they always alleged, 
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 error 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 error before. St. Peter, continueth he, 
Diu quidem restitit, ne ad fidem Gentes sine Circumcisione, etc. diu se à conversaram Gentium communione subtraxit, etc. 
Ab eodem Paulo pestmodum ratione suscepta cum vidisset quosdam, etc. dixit: cur tentatis Deum imponentes jugum, etc.   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, etc.  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 Judgement, very clear, that Pope Pelagius in that place says plainly, and without bias, 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 only to relate matters of Fact. It is enough then that I say; It's true that that great Cardinal is of that Judgement, because he believed Saint Peter to be infallible; In the mean time St. Austin, 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 ago 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. Paul reproved him. St. Austin 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. Austin, 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 error in matter of Faith.  
Again, when St. Paul spoke 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 expressly say, it was before that Council of the Apostles that St. Peter did that action which rendered 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 judgement 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. 
 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, Upon 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 easy to answer them by saying that, according to the common interpretation of the Fathers, and especially of St. Austin, they were spoken to St. Peter as representing the Church by the union of its Pastors 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 only, 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 only spoke 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 fearful 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. & Goe c. 6.  
 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.  
 non finaliter deficiat fides tua.  
Albert. Mag. in hunc locum.   This is the common interpretation of the Holy Fathers, and particularly of St. chrysostom, and Saint Austin, who often make use of that passage to prove the necessity of praying, and of obtaining grace from God, without which we cannot persevere. And this is also the sense that Theophylact, Oecumenius, Euthymius, Cardinal Hugo, Albertus Magnus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Lyranus, Dionysius Carthusianus, and all the rest of the most famous Interpreters and Divines, have followed as being the true literal sense. It is evident that that only agrees with the time of the Passion, and the Person of St. Peter alone, wherein his Successors can have no part. And though they should pretend they had, yet that would not hinder but that they might fail and fall as St. Peter did, by publishing a falsehood contrary to the true faith; which is more against the duty of a Pope, than to believe an Error without publishing it.   

CHAP. VIII. What follows Naturally from the great debate that Pope Victor had with the Bishops of Asia.  
THere had been for a long time very different Customs in the Church about the Celebration of the Festival of Easter, and the observation of the Fast which ought to go before that holy day. For all over the West, according to the practice observed from the beginning in the Church of Rome, that Festival was kept on Sunday, which is the day of our Saviour's Resurrection. But the Churches of Asia founded by the Apostle St. John, 
Euseh. Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 24. Hieron. de script. c. 44. Exod. 12. Hieron. de script. in Polychr.  some of their Neighbours, and many other Churches of the East, kept it always the fourteenth of the Moon of March, as the Passover is appointed to be kept in Exodus, and according to the Tradition which they had received from St. John.  
As to the Fast that is to be observed before Easter, there was still a greater diversity in the Customs established in several places. 
Irenae. ap. Euseb. hist. l. 5. c. 24.  For some fasted but one day before that Feast, as we do on the vigil of Christmas and of Whitsunday; others fasted two days; some who were numerous fasted longer, and many observed punctually the Forty days fast of Lent. 
Omnes Ecclesiae tum eorum qui decimo quarto die diem festum pachat is observabant, tum eorum qui secus, tranquillâ pace inter ipsas fruebantur. Euseb. Ibid.  However these different customs that were amongst Christians of the second, nay and of the first age of the Church, concerning Lent and Easter, made no breach at all of the peace, and every one observed peaceably the custom of their Church, which they thought to be good, without condemning the practices of others.  
This is so true, that St. Polycarp Bishop of Smirna being come to Rome, under the Pontificat of Saint Anicetus, these two great Saints, in a long conference which they had about the celebration of the Feast of Easter, did what they could mutually, to draw one another over to their party; and seeing both remained steadfast in their opinions, St. Polycarp, saying always, that he had from St. John his Master the custom that was observed in his Church, and St. Anicetus affirming, that that which was followed at Rome, and in the Western Churches, was derived from St. Peter, they could never agree upon the matter. Yet that hindered not but that they still lived together in great amity, and in the same communion, insomuch that the Pope, to do honour to St. Polycarp, 
Ibid.  prayed him to officiate publicly in his Church.  
That good intelligence continued always betwixt the Popes and Asiatic Bishops, 
Ann. 193. Euseb. l. 5. c. 22.  until Victor I. who having held several Councils at Rome about that subject, amongst the Gauls and elsewhere, where the practice of the Roman Church was observed, 
Euseb. c. 24.  would needs compel the asiatics to conform to it, by celebrating Easter on Sunday. And because these who thought not themselves obliged to obey him contrary to the tradition which their Churches had from St. John, 
Omnes fratres eam incolentes regionem prorsus à communione secludendos edicit. Ibid.  would by no means comply: He threatened them with Excommunication, and published against them that which now adays is called a Monitory.  
Polycrates, who was at that time Bishop of Ephesus, held also a Council with his brethren about the same subject, and answering in name of all by a Synodal Letter, to Pope Victor, and his Bishops, he says, That what the asiatics did, had been religiously observed by the Apostles St. Philip and St. John, 
Hieron. de Script. in Polychr.  by another St. John a Bishop and Martyr, whose body rested at Ephesus, by St. Polycarp Bishop of Smirna, by the Martyr St. Thraseas, and by many other holy Bishops, who had always celebrated that Holy day the fourteenth of the Moon, according to that Tradition; that for himself, who was sixty five years of age, having consulted many able Men of all Nations, and carefully read all Writings for informing himself in that controverted 
Peragratâ omni scripturâ non formidabo eos qui nobis minantur. etc.  point, he did not fear those that threatened him, because it hath been said by his Predecessors, that it is better to obey God than Man.  
And seeing Victor still persisted in his threats, and that he would by all means Excommunicate the asiatics if they obeyed not: 
Verum ista caeteris omnibus parum place-bant Episcopis ....... quorum verba utpote Victorem acrius & acerbius coarguentium, scriptis prodita adhuc extant. Euseb. l. 5. c. 24. Ibid.  several Bishops of other Countries, who blamed his proceeding, wrote sharply to him, to divert him from his enterprise. Amongst others St. Irenaeus the great Archbishop of Lions sent him a long Letter in name of all the Gallican Church, whom he had assembled for that effect, wherein he represents to him, with as much force at least, but with far greater moderation than the rest, that he ought not, for a difference of that nature, cut off from the Universal Church so many particular Churches, so many Bishops, and so many Believers, who acted according to an ancient Tradition, upon which they founded themselves. He adds, that he would do far better to follow the example of so many holy Popes his Predecessors, Anicetus, Pius, Hyginus, Telesphorus and Sixtus, who, though they, as well as he, had observed a quite different custom from that of the Bishops of Asia, yet never treated them as Heretics for that, nor forbore to communicate with them in a perfect union.  

Multos Asiae & orientis Episcopos ..... damnandos crediderat. 
Hieron. de script. Eccles. c. 24.   But notwithstanding all these Remonstrances, Victor was still of the mind that they ought to be Condemned. Nay, there are some who affirm, that he did actually condemn and thunder an Anathema against them. However it be, it is certain that they would not submit to his Ordinances, that the custom of their Churches, concerning the Feast of Easter was allowed them, and that they who observed it were not reputed Heretics, 
Victori non dederunt manus. Hieron. Ibid.  cut off from the communion of Catholics. It was about an hundred and eight years after that the great Council of Nice abolished that custom, in respect that Saint John had only allowed it for a time, in these Provinces of Asia that bordered upon the Jews, to give an honourable Funeral to the Synagogue, and that the other practice was taken universally as transmitted from the Apostles; after which, there lay an obligation upon Christians to submit to that Decree, and they who headstrongly refused to obey it, were declared Heretics under the name of Quartodecumans.  
This being so, it is evident to all Men, that neither these Bishops of Asia and of the East, nor St. Irenaeus and the Gallican Church, nor the Bishops of other Countries, who wrote so smartly to Pope Victor in favour of these Eastern Churches, did believe the Pope to be Infallible. For had they believed it, it is certain on the one hand, that these asiatics would have submitted to the Decree of the Pope, as they afterwards submitted to that of a Council, because they believed, as all other Catholics do, that a Council is Infallible; and on the other hand, it is very clear, that St. Irenaeus, and so many other Bishops would not have written, as they did to Pope Victor, and found fault with his conduct: For they never questioned but that those who refused to obey an Infallible Tribunal, aught to be condemned and punished. It was not then believed in the Church, that the Pope had the gift of Infallibility, though he might make a Decree for the instruction of all believers.   

CHAP. IX. What inference is to be made from that famous contest that happened betwixt the Pope, St. Stephen, and St. Cyprian, concerning the Baptism of Heretics.  
THis famous question that hath made so much noise in the Church, was forty years before St. Cyprian, solemnly examined in a Council held in Africa by Agrippinus Bishop of Carthage; 
Ann. 217.  and there it was determined, that the Baptism of Heretics being null, there was a necessity of Rebaptising all those, who, having abjured their Heresy, should return to the bosom of the Church. 
Cypr. Epist. 71. ad Quin. & Epist. ad Jubaian. Commonit. 6.9.  Vincentius Lirinensis hath Written, that that same Agrippinus was the first, who, contrary to the custom of the Universal Church, and the determination of his Brethren, thought that Heretics ought to be Re-baptised. But saving the honour and respect that is due to so great a Man, it is evident he was mistaken. For besides that the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, 
Cypr. loc. citat.  with common consent, and in conjunction with Agrippinus, decided the same thing: Tertullian, 
Ann. 203. Cap. 12.  who Wrote his excellent Book of Prescriptions against Heretics, fourteen years before the Council of Agrippinus, says therein very plainly, that their Baptism is not valid: 
Cap. 15.  Which in his Book of Baptism he also asserts in most express terms; a Book Written by him before he fell into the Heresy of the Montanists. 
Ann. 200. Strommat. 1.  Clemens Alexandrinus, who flourished in the same time, also rejects the Baptism of Heretics: which shows, that it was the doctrine and custom of the Church of Alexandria, the chief and most illustrious Church, next to that of Rome. So that Agrippinus, and the Bishops of Africa and Numidia, whom he assembled in a Council to determine that Question, are not the first who established that Custom and Disipline, which appoints all Heretics, who return into the bosom of the Church to be rebaptized.  
Probably it may be objected by some, that what these ancient Authors say, ought only to be understood of the Heretics of their times, who, all of them, blaspheming against the most Holy Trinity, Baptised not in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and that therefore their Baptism was null; which is most true. But the reason whereupon they ground the nullity of the Baptism of Heretics, to wit, that they are strangers, without the Pale of the Church, 
Ad quos vetamur accedere, quis servus cibaria ab extraneo, ne dicam ab inimico domini sui petat? etc. Tertull. de praescrip. 
Quos extraneos utique testatur ipsa ademptio communicationis. Id. de Baptis.  
Trajicies aquam alienam? etc. Clem. Alex.   and that we are forbidden to have any commerce with them, proves manifestly, that what they said aught to be understood of all sorts of Heretics, both present and to come, because they are all out of the Pale of the Church.  
Now seeing some considerable time after the Council of Agrippinus, Novation, who was the first Antipope. caused Catholics who followed the party of the true Pope Cornelius to be rebaptized, the Question concerning the Baptism of Heretics was argued afresh in Africa, where it was put, Whether or not the Novatian Schismatics, who returned to the Church, aught to be rebaptized. 
Litt. Synod. ad Epis. ad Episc. humid. ap Cypr. Epist. 90. 
Numid. ap Cypr. Epist. 70.   Whereupon St. Cyprian having assembled a Provincial Council at Carthage, it was there declared, that since no body can be lawfully Baptised out of the Church, there was a necessity of Rebaptising Heretics and Schismatics, those excepted, who, having been Baptised in the Catholic Church, 
Cypr. Epist. 74. ad Pomp.  had afterward separated from it; because Baptism, once rightly administered, could never again be reiterated.  
The Bishops of Numidia who had received the Decree of the Council of Agrippinus, 
Litt. Synod. ad Epise. Numid.  having consulted Saint Cyprian upon that new emergent, received also the Decree of the Council of Carthage; and that it might be rendered more Authentic, Saint Cyprian assembled them together, with the Bishops of his Province, in a second Synod, where the decision of the former was confirmed. And thereupon a Synodal Letter was written to the Pope St. Stephen, 
Cypr. Epist. 73. ad Jubai.  informing him of what had been decided in those two Councils, to wit, that all those, who being out of the Church, 
Eos qui sunt foris extra Ecclesiam tincti, & apud haereticos & schismaticos profanae aquae labe maculaeti, quando ab nos venerint Baptisare oportere, eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere. Epist. 70. 
Apud Cypr. & ap. August. l. 6. & 7. de Bapt.   had been polluted by the profane Baptism of Heretics and Schismatics, aught to be Re-baptised: which was also confirmed in a third Council, wherein were present the Bishops of Mauritania, with those of Africa and Numidia.  
Pope Stephen, though his Predecessors had not opposed the Council of Agrippinus, but left the Africans in the possession of their custom, thought that he ought to condemn it as contrary to Apostolical Tradition. And thereupon, 
Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 5.  in two Letters which he Wrote to the Africans, he made a Decree quite contrary to that of St. Cyprian, and of those three Councils. These are the proper terms of the Decree of the Pope, which we have in the Epistles of St. Cyprian, for the Letters of St. Stephen have not come to our hands. 
Si quis à quâcunque Haeresi venerit ad nos nihil innovetur, nisi, quod traditum est, ut manus ei imponantur ad poenitentiam. Ap. Cyprian. Epist. 79 ad Pompeian.  If any one return to us from what Heresy soever it be, let nothing be innovated, and let nothing be done but what Tradition authorises; that is to say, that hands be only laid upon him, to reconcile him by repentance.  
There is nothing more opposite than those two Decrees, 
Qui ex quâcunque haeresi ad Ecclesiam convertantur, unico & legitimo Baptismate Baptizentur. Cypr. Epist. ad Jubaian.  if you take them literally. That of Saint Cyprian will have all Heretics to be rebaptized, from what Heresy soever they return, and all that are out of the Church; and that it is not enough to lay hands upon them; but the Pope by his, 
Eo quod parum sit eis manum imponere. 
Stephanus Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat, & hoc facientibus graviter succensebat. August. l. de unic. Baptis. c. 14.   declares, that it is sufficient, and forbids any Heretic to be Re-baptised. This St. Austin confirms, when he expressly assures us, that Stephen would have no Heretic to be rebaptized, and that he was extremely offended against all those that did it.  
The truth is, Eusebius in his History remarks, that the true state of that great Question, that was then in agitation, was to know, Whether those who returned from any Heresy whatsoever, ought to be rebaptized.  
Indeed, if one would stick, without admitting any explication, to the natural sense of these words of Eusebius, A quocunque Haeresis genere; 
Erat id tempor is non exigua quaestio & controversia excitata, utrum oporteret eos qui se à quocunque haeresis, genere revocassent, lavacro Baptismatis, repurgare. Euseb. l. 7. c. 2.  and of those of the Decree of Saint Stephen, Si quis à quacunque Haeresi venerit ad nos, nihil innovetur, nisi ut manus ei imponatur in poenitentiam; It will seem, at first sight, that as St. Cyprian was, for having all generally, who had been Baptised by Heretics, to be rebaptized; so that Holy Pope, on the contrary, forbade the Rebaptising of any who had been Baptised by Heretics. And that is also the error that some have attributed unto him upon these words, Si quis à quacunque Haeresi, which they have taken according to the strictness of the Letter. But it is to be confessed ingenuously, that as Tradition hath always rejected the Monstrous Baptisms of some Heretics, which may be seen in Epiphanius, who Baptised in a quite different manner from what Jesus Christ prescribes, when he commanded his Apostles to Baptise in the Name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; So that Holy Pope, who, with St. Cyprian, rejected all these false Baptisms, would only, that the Baptism administered in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, by any Heretics whatsoever, should not be reiterated.  
And certainly, without necessity of alleging any other proof, that, in my opinion, appears evidently, by that testimony of St. Augustine, which I have just now cited: Stephanus Baptismum Christi in nullo iterandum esse censebat: Pope Stephen thought, that the Baptism of Jesus Christ was to be reiterated in no Heretic. The Question was only then about the Baptism of Jesus Christ, which ordains Baptism to be administered in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. The Romans would have that to stand good by what Heretic soever it had been conferred; and the Africans maintained that it was null, if it was conferred by Heretics out of the Church, or by Schismatics. And this is the precise state of that great Controversy, betwixt the Pope Saint Stephen and St. Cyprian, though the Decree of that Pope be not altogether so clearly worded as that of St. Cyprian. 
Aug. l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donat.   
Now this Decree which the Pope grounded wholly upon the ancient custom of the Church, 
Cypr. Ep. 74. & al.  and the Tradition of the Apostles, having been brought into Africa, St. Cyprian, and all those of his party, which was very considerable, opposed it with all their might. For besides, the African Bishops assembled in three Councils, after that of Agrippinus, 
Firmil. Epist. ap. Cypr. Epist. 75. 
Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. l. 7. hist. c. 4. & 6.   Firmilian Bishop of Cesanea in Cappadocia, and most of the Bishops of Asia adhered unto him, and had, as well as those of Africa, decided against the Baptism of Heretics, in the Councils of Iconium and Synnada, and of many other Cities of Asia, where the Bishops of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia, Phrygia, and other Provinces, assembled for examining that Question, which had been the cause of so great a difference.  
Denis Patriarch of Alexandria, a Man of extraordinary merit, singular learning, and great authority, 
Ibid.  made it also evident enough by his Writings, that they should not offer to condemn that Doctrine which his Bishops of Africa and of Asia maintained to be exactly conform to holy Scripture, affirming, that as there is but one Faith, 
Cypr. Epist. 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75 & 76.  one Church, and one Baptism, this cannot be administered out of the Church; And as Heretics can neither absolve from sins, nor give the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of hands, so neither can they Baptism. And as to the custom that was objected to them, they absolutely denied it to have been the practice of the Primitive Church, nor a Tradition derived from the Apostles; but on the contrary, said, that theirs was Apostolical, and that their practice, being the more ancient, had been observed time out of mind in the Church.  
Notwithstanding all these reasons, the Pope continued steadfast in the resolution he had taken, of causing his Decree to be observed, in so far, 
Dionys. Alexand. apud Euseb. l. 3. c. 4. Firmil. ap. Cypr. Epist. 75.  that he cut off from his communion all the Bishops of Asia, who would not submit to it. And this he did, although Denis of Alexandria had written earnestly to him to dissuade him from it, representing to him, that he might appease him, that Pope Cornelius, and the Antipope Novatian having written to these Bishops, to engage them severally unto their party, they had, in fine, all of them, condemned Novatian and his Heresy, which consisted in this, that he maintained, that the Church had not power to reconcile those, who, in time of persecution, had fallen off to Idolatry.  
Cardinal Baronius concludes from these words of the Holy Patriarch, that the asiatics had quitted their opinion concerning the nullity of the Baptism of Heretics. But without doubt that is an evident Anachronism, and manifest contradiction, which that great Cardinal had not leisure to mind. For the Patriarch Denis speaks only here of what these Bishops had done under the Pontificate of Pope Cornelius; and he prays Stephen, the Successor of that Pope, not to use them harshly for the Judgement they are of, that the Baptism of Heretics is null: Them, says he, who under his Predecessor condemned the Heresy of Novatian. Is there any thing clearer, than that Baronius, without minding it, hath taken the Counter-sense? and besides, Denis of Alexandria would have had care not to call an opinion, which he believed to be true, an Heresy.  
Firmilian then, and the asiatics, persisted still in their opinion, as well as St. Cyprian, the Africans and their successors, till the decision of a General Council, as may be clearly seen in an hundred passages of the Books of St. Austin, which he Wrote concerning Baptism against the Donatists. I know that St. Jerome says, in the Dialogue against the Luciferians, that the Bishops of Africa returned to the ancient custom, saying, What do we do? and that abandoning St. Cyprian, they made a new Decree conform to that of Saint Stephen. But all the Learned agree, that that holy Doctor, who Wrote that Dialogue before the most part of his other Works, had taken that out of some Apocryphal Writings, such as that which bears for Title, The Repentance of St. Cyprian; and was declared false and supposititious, in a Synod held at Rome Threescore and fourteen years before the death of St. Jerome. For, to be short, the quite contrary is to be seen in the Books of St. Austin that I have just now alleged, in the Letter of Saint Basil to Amphilochius, and in the Eighth Canon of the first Council of Arles.  
Now, if during the life of Saint Stephen, there were so many Bishops who refused to obey his Decree, there were as many that opposed it after his death. For the Patriarch Denis of Alexandria Wrote in a high strain to Pope Sixtus the Successor of St. Stephen, 
Euseb. l. 7. hist. c. 4.  exhorting him to follow a conduct contrary to that of his Predecessor, and not to break, as he had done, with so many Bishops for a constitution contrary to his own; since it had been approved in several Councils; 
Hic in Cypriani & Africanae Synodi dogma consentiens de Haereticis Rebaptizandis, ad diversos plurimas mifit epistolas quae usque hodie extant. 
Hieron. de script. Ecclesias. in Dionys.   and St. Jerome himself, in his Treatise of Ecclesiastical Writers, which he made long after his Dialogue against the Luciferians, assures us, that that great Man declared openly for the Doctrine of Saint Cyprian and African Bishops, and that he thereupon Wrote many Letters which were still extant in his time. That was the cause that the Successors of Sixtus entertained Peace with the African and Asiatic Bishops, every one freely following their custom and opinion as to that Point, without being blamed for it, until that a General Council had pronounced Supremely in the matter.  
This we learn from St. Austin, in his Books of Baptism against the Donatists. These, 
August. l. 1. de Bapt. contra Donatis. c. 7.  who began their Schism against Cecilian Bishop of Carthage, in the year Three hundred and two, alleged continually the example of St. Cyprian, and of his fellow Bishops, to justify the conduct which they held, as well as those in Rebaptising all Heretics. It is most evident, that they durst not have made use of that instance, if St. Cyprian and those Bishops had retracted: For St. Austin would have confounded these Schismatics upon the spot, by saying, that all these Bishops had condemned their former opinion. Yet he never did so. On the contrary, he confesses, that they always believed that Heretics must be rebaptized: but he adds, that it was lawful for them to believe it, and for all who have succeeded them to doubt of that point, which was then in controversy, and to dispute about it. As, indeed, there were many conferences, great disputes and debates on Church decided that difference, and all submitted to that Sovereign Authority; 
Cui & ipse cederet, si jam eo tempore quaestionis hujus veritas eliquata & declarata per plenarium concilium solidaretur. 
Ibid. c. 4.89.   as St. Cyprian would have done without doubt, saith St. Austin, if the whole Church, in a full and general Council had in his time pronounced concerning that point. And because the Donatists would not submit to the Decree of that Council, in that they added Heresy to their Schism.  
Now before we come to show what that General Council decided as to that point, we must make a serious and solid reflection upon what we have now said, which will suffice, to make it clearly out to us what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Infallibility of the Pope.  
Here then, we have a Pope of famous memory in the Church, who makes a Decree, whereby he instructs all Believers, concerning a point of highest importance, where the question is about the validity or nullity of Baptism, without which one cannot be saved; and by that Decree he pretends to oblige the whole Church to believe, that Heretics, who are converted, ought not to be rebaptized, and does so pretend it, that he cuts off from his communion great Bishops, who would not submit to his Decree. And nevertheless St. Cyprian, all the Bishops of Africa, Mauritania and Numidia, those of Cappadocia, Cilicia, Galatia and Phrygia, Denis Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Bishops of his Patriarchate, will not receive that so solemn a Decree of Stephen Pope of Rome.  
Besides, St. Austin, and all the African Catholics, united with that great Doctor of the Church against the Donatists, say, that before the decision of the Council, that came not till long after that Decree of the Pope, it might freely, without making a separation from the Church, be held, what St. Cyprian had believed concerning the Baptism of Heretics. In fine, St. Athanasius, St. Optatus Melevitanus, 
Athanas. Or. 3. contra Arian.  St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 
Optat. l. 4. Cont. Parmen.  St. Basil, and some others, 
Cyril. Hieros'. praef. in Catech.  who have Written as well as they after that General Council, 
Basil. Epist. 3. Con. 47.  whereof St. Austin speaks, and before that of Constantinople have believed, that all Heretics, who have not the true Faith of the Trinity, aught to be rebaptized, who, in those first Ages of the Church, were incomparably more numerous than the other Heretics, who believed that great Mystery.  
These are not bare conjectures that may be doubted of: but uncontroverted matters of fact. A Man needs no more but eyes in his head, to prove them, by Reading the testimonies alleged. It must necessarily then follow, seeing they submitted to a Council, because they knew it to be Infallible, which was not done in regard to the Pope St. Stephen, that St. Cyprian, Firmilian of Caesarea, Denis of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, Saint Optatus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Saint Basil, St. Austin, and most Catholic Bishops of Egypt, 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 Heretics. You have three of them. First, the full Council, which is the first Council of Arles, to which the Pope St. Sylvester sent four Legates 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 Rebaptised all Heretics: If any Heretic return to the Church, let him be asked the Question; and if it appear that he hath been Baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, that hands be only 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 rebaptized.  
Moreover, the great Council of Nice, Twelve years after, ordains, in the Canon 19 that the Paulanists who return to the Church should be rebaptized, 
De Paulanistis ad Ecclesiam Catholicam confugientibus definitio prolata est ut iterum Baptisentur omnimodis. Aug. de haer. ad quod vult Haeres. 44.  because, as St. Austin says, these Heretics, 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 Baptising in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity. But as to the Novatians who Baptised in the Name of the Trinity, as Catholics 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 Heretics, who Baptised not in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity, against which they blasphemed, should be rebaptized; 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 Baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: which St. Austin, who hath Written after that Council of Constantinople, assures to be sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament, though the Faith of him who Baptises be not pure. So that, saith he, 
Manifestum est fieri posse ut fide non integrā integrum in quoquam maneat Baptismi Sacramentum ....... Quamo●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 Martion Baptised, 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 Heretic, under these words, believed a thing quite different from what the Catholic 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. etc. manus ei tantum imponatur.  This Pope Decrees, that if any one return from any Heresy whatsoever, he shall have only hands laid upon him, without being rebaptized: Si quis à quacunque Haeresi, 
Qui ex quacunque Haeresi, etc. Baptisentur.  etc. St. Cyprian says on the contrary, that if any one return from any Heresy whatsoever, he ought to be rebaptized. These are two extremes, directly opposite one to another. The Three Councils take the middle course, explaining the one, and condemning the other. They are not for Rebaptising the Novatians and other Heretics who Baptise in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity, and they hold their Baptism to be lawful and good, according to the true Apostolical Tradition; but they are also absolutely for Rebaptising the Paulanists, and all such who Baptise 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 rectify the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen, adding but in formal terms an exception, which is only 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. Austin 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 Catholic 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 error: whence it may be irrefragably concluded upon better reason, that Antiquity reckoned them not Infallible. I shall only allege 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 Emperor 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 Catholic from an Arian, and which was, in a manner, the Character and Mark of Catholicity; nay more, by receiving the most obstinate Arians into his Communion; and, in a word, by subscribing to the scandalous Formulary of Sirmium, which was presented to him by the Head of the Semi-Arians.  
And, at length, that it might not be doubted but that he acted as Pope, who makes known to the whole Church what Men ought to believe, for that was the thing the Arians pretended to, who were willing it might be known, that the Head of the Church was on their side: He Wrote two long Letters, which were made public all over the Empire; one to the Emperor Constantius, the great Protector of Arianism; and the other to the Arian Bishops, wherein he declares his intention in terms most significant, and most advantageous for the Arians.  

Vbi cognovi quando Deo placuit, Just vos illum condemnasse, mox consensum meum commodavi sententiis vestris. Lib. Epist. 7. ad Episc. Orientales. 
Amoto Athanasio à communione omnium, cujus nec Epistolia à me suscipienda sunt, dico me cum omnibus vobis pacem & unanimitatem habere; ut sciatis me veram fidem per hanc Epistolam meamloqui: hanc ego libenti animo suscepi, in nullo contradixi, etc.   For there he saith, That having known, when it pleased God to illuminate him, that they had justly condemned Athanasius, he presently consented to their Judgement; that he had Excommunicated him; that he would not so much as receive his Letters; and that he would have them to know, that he was perfectly united with them in mind and heart: that he professes in that Letter the true Faith, which Demophilus had made known unto him, which they had declared and received at Sirmium, and that he most willingly embraces it without the least contradiction.  
This, methinks, may be said to be an Authentic Declaration for Arianism, and a falling from on high into the Abyss of Heresy. And it cannot be known by a more unquestionable evidence than his own, that he fell so unfortunately. And therefore St. Hilary, 
In fragment, à Pithaeo editis. 
Liberius taedio victus exilii, & in haereticâ pravitate subscribens, Romam victor intraverat.  
Hieron. in Chron. & de scrip. Eccles. in Fortunati.   who lived in that time, most positively calls him Heretic, pronouncing three or four anathemas against him, one upon the heels of another; And St. Jerome, in more than one passage of his Works, says, That that Pope subscribed to the Arian impiety; and that the vexation he lay under for his Banishment having made him subscribe to Heresy, in a Victorious manner he again entered Rome.  
But not to mention all the others who have spoken of that deplorable fall of Liberius, 
Auxili. l. 1. de ordinati. c. 25. & l. 2. c. 1. & alii.  we need no other proof fully to persuade us of it, than Rome herself and all her Clergy; or to say better, the Church of Rome, which so abhorred that scandalous Declaration of Liberius, that on the spot she deposed him from his Papacy, as an Arian Heretic of public notoriety. Nor was he chosen and acknowledged of new for true Pope, till that after his Successor St. Felix had suffered Martyrdom, he abjured his Heresy, and was again become the same Liberius that he was before his fall, a wise, generous and zealous Pope. This being so, Is it not clear, that the Church of Rome herself, in the fourth age, did not believe the Pope to be Infallible?   

CHAP. XI. The instance of Pope Vigilius.  
THE Second instance that I produce, is that of Pope Vigilius. I have already related that example upon occasion of St. Peter's being reproved by St. Paul, and shall at present apply it, in a few, but decisive words, to the subject whereof I treat in this Chapter. This Pope, before the fifth Council, made a Constitution, 
Vigilii Constitutum ad Justin. Imper. 
Ex verbis Epistolae viri venerabilis Ibae rectissimo ac piissimo intellectu perspectis, etc.  
Nec quemquam hoc nostro constituto permittimus aliquando praesumere super ejusdem Epistolae negotium ..... quoquo modo aliquid temerariae novitatis infer.   which he addressed to the Emperor Justinian, wherein, amongst other things, undertaking the defence of the Letter of Ibas Bishop of Edessa, he declares, that according to the words of that Letter, understood in the sound sense that might be given unto them, it seemed to be Orthodox, and strictly prohibits any whosoever to innovate any thing touching that Letter, in what manner soever it might be; nor to condemn it, seeing Ibas had been absolved, and received as a Catholic in the Council of Chalcedon.  
The Fifth Council which was held sometime after, 
Ann. 553.  and at which Vigilius would never assist, though he was then at Constantinople, where that Synod was celebrated, decides exactly the contrary. For having well examined the Letter of Ibas, 
Si quis defendit Epistolam quam dicitur Ibas ad Marim Persam scripsisse, quae abnegat Deum verbum de sancta Dei genitrice semper virgine Maria incarnatum hominem factum esse, dicit autem, etc. ..... & defendit Theodorum & Nestorium, & impia eorum dogmata & conscripta. Si quis igitur memoratam impiam Epistolam defendit, & non Anathematizat eam, etc. .... & qui praesumit eum defendere; vel infertam ei impietatem nomine sanctorum patrum vel Concilii Chalcedonensis .. Anathema sit. Synod. 5. Coll. 3. c. 14.  concerning which the Council of Chalcedon had pronounced nothing, it solemnly declares the same Heretical and impious, as containing the Blasphemies of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nestorius against Jesus Christ and his holy Mother, and pronounces Anathema against all those who Anathematise it not, and dare undertake the defence thereof, as if it had been approved in the Council of Chalcedon.  
There you have two decrees quite contrary one to another. Whence it must follow, that either the Council in its decision, or the Pope in his constitution, are deceived, and maintain an error. Or whether that Pope did at length consent to that Council, as I have said, upon the credit of very good vouchers, or that he never consented to it, as there are some who affirm: It is certain, that his Successors, Pelagius II. and St. Gregory the Great have approved it, and that it hath always been received since without contradiction, by all the Western Church, as a true Ecumenical Council which cannot err. It is then most certain that Vigilius decided wrong in his constitution, and that by consequent, even according to the Popes and Church of Rome in the fifth Age; The Popes, for all they are heads of the Church, are not therefore Infallible.   

CHAP. XII. The Condemnation of Honorius in the Sixth Council.  
THE same appears clearly also, in the case of Pope Honorius, of whom so much hath been Written in these later times. I am not for contesting with any body. I shall only produce matter of Fact, which being barely related, will clearly determine that affair. Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, being corrupted by Theodore Bishop of Pharan, 
Lateran. Synod. sub. Martr. 1.  Author of the Heresy of the Monothelites, who would not acknowledge two Wills and two Operations, the one Divine, and the other Humane in Jesus Christ, undertook to spread that Heresy all over the East.  
For that end, seeing he had already on his side Cyrus' Bishop of Phasis, 
Histor. Miscell. l. 18. 
Cedrens. & Zonar. in Heracl.   who was shortly after Patriarch of Alexandria, Macarius Patriarch of Antioch, and Athanasius Patriarch of the Jacobites, he acted so cunningly, that being powerfully seconded by these three Bishops, who were much esteemed by the Emperor Heraclius, he drew that poor Prince, in his declining Age, into that Heresy. So that he prevailed with him to make that famous Edict under the name of Ecthesis, or the exposition of Faith; whereby he commands all his Subjects inviolably to follow that Doctrine. And then that Patriarch of Constantinople, having caused it to be signed by all the Bishops of his Patriarchy, whom he had assembled in a Council, he affixed it upon the Doors of his Cathedral Church, at the same time that Cyrus planted the same Heresy in Egypt.  
Now seeing Sophronius Patriarch of Jerusalem vigorously opposed it, he caused that pernicious Doctrine, that came near the Error of Eutyches, who confounded the two Natures in Jesus Christ, reducing them singly into one, to be condemned in his Synod; as the Council of Chalcedon had condemned the other. Sergius finding himself attacked in this manner, 
Sect. Syn. Act. 12.  wrote a long Letter to Pope Honorius, wherein he accuses Sophronius of troubling the Peace of the Oriental Church, by introducing a new Doctrine by these new terms of Two Wills, and Two Operations, which had never been heard of before, neither in the Fathers nor Councils. Cyrus failed not to second his Colleague in Impiety, complaining, as he had done, of Sophronius to the Pope; And that Patriarch also on his part, did what he ought, in defending himself well, and in making known to Honorius the extreme danger they were in in the East, of seeing error triumph by power, and by the Artifices of these Heretics, if a speedy course were not taken.  
It was never more apparent than on this occasion, that when the Catholic Faith is to be declared, one must never bias; nor dissemble, and conceal part of truth, for reconciling both parties, and bringing back to the Church those, 
Sext. Synod. Act. 12.  who, through Heresy or Schism, have separated from it. Honorius, who was a very peaceable Man, and so zealous for the peace of the Church, that he endeavoured to accommodate all matters, and content both parties, Wrote back to Sergius, in a manner, whereby that Patriarch and his party took great advantage, publishing, in all places, and persuading many, by the reading of these Letters, That the Bishop of Rome, owned at that time by the Greeks for Head of the Church, and Ecumenical Pope, approved their Doctrine; which rendered the party of the Monothelites more powerful than ever.  
The Successors of Honorius, 
Hist. Miscel. Cedr. & Zonar.  who in the interim died, took a conduct quite contrary to his, for quenching that great conflagration that spread over all the East. John the iv in his Council of Rome, annulled all the Decrees which these Monothelites had made in their Synods. Pope Theodore condemned and deposed Pyrrhus, 
Anastas. in Theodor.  who succeeded Sergius, and maintained his Heresy, and after him his Successor Paul, the most furious of all those Heretics, who, as a foaming and raging Bear ravaged the Vineyard of our Lord▪ For he grew to that height of more than Barbarous fury, as to cause the Pope's Nuncio's, sent to Constantinople for remedying these disorders, to be scourged.  
The Illustrious Pope Martin, 
Auct. Vit. S. Mart. Pap.  Successor to Theodore, acted more vigorously than his Predecessor. For in a Council of an Hundred and five Bishops, which he held at the Lateran, where the Writings of the Monothelites were examined, with the Petitions that were presented against them, he declared their Doctrine Heretical; Anathematised Theodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus and Paul, Patriarches of Constantinople, who had always maintained it; Exhorted the Gallican Church, 
Epist. Mart. Pap. ad Amand. Trajectens.  which hath always vigorously defended the Catholic Faith, against all Heresies, to thunder against this as he had done; and solemnly condemned the Ecthesis, or Edict of the Emperor Heraclius. 
Hist. Misc. l. 19 Auct. Vit. S. Mart. Anastas. in S. Mart. Cedr. & Zonar. in Constante.  This put the Emperor Constans, Grandson of Heraclius, and a great Protector of the Monothelites, into such a rage, that he caused the Holy Pope to be carried away from Rome, and having most outrageously used him, Banished him into the Chersonesus, where, being overwhelmed with miseries and poverty, he gloriously accomplished a long Martyrdom, which shortly after was followed by the deplorable death of that Tyrant.  
His Son Constantine Pogonatus, a great Catholic, by his prudent conduct, repaired all the faults of that unhappy Prince. For having settled the Empire, by the great Victories which he obtained over all his Enemies, he resolved also to give Peace to the Church, which his Father had troubled near Fifty years by the Monothelites. 
Anno 680. Hist. in Miscel. Cedr. & Zonar. Anastas. in Agath. Id. & Synod. 6. Act. 9  For that effect, with consent of Pope Agatho, he called the sixth Council at Constantinople, where the business of the Monothelites was sifted to the bottom, and sovereignly determined to their shame. In that Council there were above Two hundred Oriental Bishops, four Legates of Pope Agatho, Theodore and George Cardinal Priests, John a Deacon, who was afterwards Pope, and Constantius Sub-deacon; and on the part of the Council, of Sixscore Bishops held for the same purpose at Rome; Three Bishops, the Deputy of the Archbishop of Ravenna, and many other Learned Churchmen and Monks, who were sent thither from the Western Church.  
The Writings that had past on both sides, upon that subject, 
Concil. 6. Act. 12.  were read there, and particularly the Letter of Sergius to Pope Honorius, and the Pope's Answer to that Patriarch; And after they had been well examined, this is the Judgement which the Council in the following Session solemnly pronounced against them, and is the same which we have in all the Editions, and particularly in the last of Paris. 
Act. 13. Has invenientes omnino alienas existere ab Apostolicis dogmatibus, & à definitionibus Sanctorum Conciliorum, & Cunctorum probabilium Patrum, sequi verò falsas doctrinas haereticorum, eas omnino abjicimus, & tanquam animae noxias execramur, & Honorium qui fuerat Papa antiquae Romae eo quod invenimus per scripta quae ab eo facta sunt ad Sergium quia in omnibus ejus mentem secutus est & impia dogmata confirmavit.  Having found the Epistle of Sergius to Honorius, and that of Honorius to Sergius, wholly contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Definitions of Councils, and the Judgement of the Holy Fathers, and that they were conform to the false doctrine of Heretics, we absolutely reject and abhor them as pernicious to Souls. We have moreover Judged, that the names of Theodore, Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, etc. aught to be blotted out of the Church; and that with them, Honorius, heretofore Pope of ancient Rome, aught to be Excommunicated, because we have found by his Letters to Sergius, that in all things he hath followed the mind of that Heretic, and that he hath confirmed his impious Doctrines.  
The holy Council repeats that Condemnation in the definition of Faith, that was made in the Eighteenth Session, and again Anathematises him, as also the Heretical Patriarches, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter of Constantinople, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Macarius of Antioch, 
Ad haec & Honorius Antiquae Romae Papa hujusmodi haereseos confirmator. 
Sext. Syn. p. 1084. Edit. Paris.   in the thanks that were given the Emperor at the end of the Council; And that Emperor, in his Edict, whereby he Banishes the Heresy of the Monothelites out of his Empire, declares the same against the Heretical Bishops, and against Honorius, whom he calls the confirmer of that Heresy.  
The Council being ended, the Legates brought an Authentic Copy of it to the Pope St. Leo II. who succeeded Agatho, that died during that Council; And this Pope Leo, who understood Greek very well, took the pains himself to Translate it into Latin, such as we have it. Afterwards, Writing to the Emperor, to whom he sent his Approbation of all the Acts of the Council; he Anathematises Honorius, 
Necnon & Honorium qui hanc sedem Apostolicam non Apostolicae Traditionis Doctrinâ lustravit, sed immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est. T. 6. Concil. Edit. Paris. p. 1027.  who enlightened not (says he) the Apostolic Church, by the Doctrine of Apostolical Tradition, but who on the contrary endeavoured to destroy the Faith. And in the Letters which he Wrote to the Bishops of Spain, and to the King Ervigius, to whom he sent the Definition of the Council to be signed, he expresses himself as to that point, in words, at least as significant and weighty, 
Qui immaculatam Apostolicae traditionis regulam, quam à praedecessoribus suis accepit, maculari consensit. 
Ibid. p. 1252.   saying, That that Pope hath been smitten with an Anathema with Theodore, Cyrus and Sergius, for having consented that the Immaculate Rule of Apostolical Tradition, which he had received from his Predecessors, should be corrupted.  
What this Pope, who had Read, Examined, Translated and Approved that Council, said of Honorius, other Popes, his Successors, have also said in the following Ages. For in the ancient Diurnal-book, which is a kind of Ceremonial of the Church of Rome, the Confession of Faith, which all the new Elected Popes did make, is to be seen, and wherein they declare, That they receive the Sixth General Council, where Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, etc. 
Vnà cum Honorio qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit.  inventors of the Heresy of the Monothelites are, say they, condemned with Honorius, who favoured and countenanced their wicked Doctrines.  
Adrian II. in his Epistle that was read, and received with applause in the seventh Action of the Eight Ecumenical Council, confesses, That the Orientals pronounced Sentence of Anathema against Honorius, accused of the Heresy of the Monothelites; And that great Eighth Council, which so strongly maintained the Primacy of the Pope against Photius, yet for all that, with consent of the Pope's three Legates, who presided in that Council, in the definition of Faith, they Anathematised Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc. and with them Honorius Bishop of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria, and Macarius of Antioch.  
These are matters of fact to be read in the Councils, and in the Books which I cite; and they are so strong and decisive against the Infallibility of the Pope, that Baronius, Bellarmine, Pighius, and the other modern Authors, who will absolutely have the Pope to be Infallible, have been forced to deliver themselves from the persecution of those troublesome matters of fact, to allege forgery in them, and boldly to say, that the Acts of the Sixth Council have been corrupted by Theodore of Constantinople, who, in hatred to the Popes, foisted in, immediately after the Council, all that concerns Honorius; and that the Epistles of St. Leo are false, and have been forged by some Impostor, an enemy of the Holy See. For, say they, what likelihood, that after the Letter of Pope Agatho had been read in the fourth Action, wherein he saith, That the Apostolical Church hath never swerved from the truth, they would have condemned one of his Predecessors, and that Leo his Successor should do the same?  
But they who yield not to that reason, nor to some other conjectures which they find to be weaker, object reasons against them, which they think can never be answered. For, say they, if that wicked Patriarch had corrupted the Acts, would not the Pope's Legates, who presided in the Council, and brought a Copy of them to Rome, have clearly seen the Imposture, and that what was inserted concerning Pope Honorius was no Act of the Council, which had not mentioned him? Would they not have complained to the Emperor of that horrid Cheat? Would they not have told Pope Leo that these Acts were falsified? Would they have suffered, without speaking one word, that he should have Translated them in that manner, to impose upon the whole Church? And would the Emperor, who was himself present at the Council, put into his Edict, that Honorius had been condemned there, or at least would he have suffered that Edict to be falsified in his presence?  
Now if any one, to excuse the Legates and Pope Leo, should think fit to say, That these Acts were not corrupted till long after their death; Might not his mouth be stopped with this Reply; To what end then was that Imposture? Was there not to be found in the Records of the Vatican the true Copy of that Council, the Translation of it made by Pope Leo, and besides, a Thousand Copies of it elsewhere, which might have been opposed to those Falsaries for discovering their Cheat? Would not Pope Adrian, very far from Writing to the Fathers of the Eighth Council, that Honorius had been condemned in the Sixth, have advertised them, that their Copies were corrupted? Durst the Fathers have renewed the Anathema against Honorius, and Adrian's three Legates never have opposed it? Yet they did no such thing, and there was no complaint made at that time that the Acts of the Sixth Council were falsified, because there have never been any other Copies of these Acts, either in Writing or in Print, except those which we have, wherein Honorius is condemned with Sergius and Pyrrhus, and the other heads of the Monothelites.  
As to the Epistles of Pope Leo, Father Francis Cambesis, a learned Jacobin, 
Edit. Paris. 1648.  hath so cleared the truth of them, that at present no body doubts of it. And besides, he hath given us a very rare piece, which alone might end the Controversy, if there still remained any, about a point so fully determined. That is a little work of the Deacon Agatho Keeper of the Records, and Vicechancellor of the Church of Constantinople. For he saith there, that Officiating as Secretary in the Sixth Council, he Transcribed all the Acts with his own hand, which were carefully kept in the Imperial Palace, and that by the command of the Emperor he took five Copies of them, for the five Patriarches, that so the Decisions of the Council might not be altered: by Consequent, it was one of these Copies which the Legates carried to the Pope, who, without doubt, is the first of the five Patriarches. A little after he adds, 
Id praeterea autoritate decernens, ut Sergii, Honoriique ac caeterorum pariter ab eâdem sanctâ & oecumenicâ Synodo ejectorum nomina in sacra Ecclesiarum dyptica praeconio publico referrentur, eorumque per loca imagines erigerentur.  that Philippicus, who from his youth, was bred in the Heresy of the Monothelites, being advanced to the Empire, caused a Picture to be removed from before the Gate of the Palace, before he would enter it, which represented the Sixth Council; and commanded that the Images should be set up again, and that the Names of Sergius, Honorius, and of all the rest who had been Anathematised in the Holy Ecumenical Council, should be replaced in the Sacred Diptychs.  
So many convincing evidences make it manifestly out, that the Acts of that Council have not been corrupted by the Greeks. And therefore most part of those that said it before, abandoning so weak a defence, have retrenched themselves behind another, saying, That the Fathers were mistaken, in not having rightly understood the sense and meaning of the Epistles of Honorius, who made use of a wise dispensation for uniting and calming all Winds. But that is a worse and far more dangerous Answer than the former. For it strikes only at some private persons, who are accused, but not known, upon bare conjectures of having falsified the Acts: but the other attacks a whole Ecumenical Council, robbing it of all the authority and force which it ought to have against Heretics.  
The truth is, by the same liberty that is taken, to say, that the Council hath not rightly understood the Letters of Pope Honorius, thought it hath examined them, the Monothelites, if there were any at present, might say, That it hath not rightly understood the Scriptures, nor the Fathers, upon the credit of whom it pretends to have rightly condemned the doctrine of Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul of Constantinople, and of Macarius of Antioch; and thereby are made useless all the Decrees of Councils, and all the Constitutions of Popes received in the Church, which have condemned, as Heretical, certain doctrines, and certain propositions particularly pointed at, and contained in the Books of some Authors, as the Fathers of the Fifth Council did, in regard of the Three Chapters; and in our time Pope Innocent X. and Alexander VII. in regard of the Book of Jansenius.  
These are Arguments, which, in my opinion, can never be answered. But since the method of this Treatise is not the way of Arguments, which draws always Dispute after it against those, who, that they may not seem to be at a stand, when they are put to it by evident reason, never fail of the subterfuges of perplexed distinctions, which are never well understood: I'll keep within the bounds that I have set to myself, and only make use of unquestionable matters of Fact in Antiquity, that History furnishes us with. Upon that ground then, I say, for an Answer to both, in the first place, that whether the Acts of the Sixth Council have been corrupted, or not, it is certain, that all Antiquity hath received it in the same manner as we have it at present with the Condemnation of Honorius.  

Detestamurque cum eâ Sergium, Honorium, etc. Act. ult.  That appears, not to say any thing of Pope Leo, by the Decree of the seventh Council; which, as the sixth did, anathematises Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Honorius; 
Anastas. in Vit. Leon. & Epist. ad Jo●●. diacon.  by Anastasius the Library-keeper, who certainly saw the Copy that was brought from Constantinople, and who, in the Life of Leo II. saith, that that Pope received the sixth Council, where Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Honorius, were condemned; by that Letter of Adrian TWO, which I have alleged; by the determination of the eighth Council; and by the Confession of Faith which the ancient Popes made after their Election: nay more than that, by the constant Tradition of the Gallican Church, as it may be seen in the Chronicle of Ado, and in the most ancient Manuscript of his Martyrology; 
Aetat. 6.  which is to be found in the Mazarine Bibliotheke.  
This is also to be seen in the Opuscles of Hincmar Archbishop of Reims, 
Opusc. de non Trin unit.  where he puts the Condemnation of Honorius in the sixth Council, with that of the other Monothelites. And for that very reason it was, that writing to Pope Nicolas. he saith, 
Opusc. 33. c. 20. , That it is known that all the Churches of France are subject to that of Rome, and that all the Bishops are subjected to the Pope by reason of his Primacy; and that therefore they ought all to obey him: 
Apud Flodard. l. 3. Hist. c. 13.  but salva fide, adds he, the Faith being secured; which it is most clear he would not have added, had it not been believed in France, as elsewhere, that Popes might err, as well as Pope Honorius. In fine, for an authentic Confirmation of all this, there is no Author to be found, who, before some Moderns of the last Age, durst say, even contrary to the Tradition of the Church of Rome, that the Acts of the sixth Council have been corrupted by the Greeks.  
This is so true, that in the ancient Breviary of Rome printed at Venice in the year 1482, and 61 years after at Paris, in the Year 1543, after that it is said in the first Lesson of the second Nocturn of the Office of St. Leo, on the eight and twentieth of June, Hic suscepit sanctam sextam Synodum; in the second it is to be read. In qua synodo damnati sunt Cyrus & Sergius, Honorius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, etc. But in the new Breviary the Name of Honorius is left out, and it hath been thought sufficient to put into that second Lesson, In eo Concilio Cyrus, Sergius, & Pyrrhus, condemnati sunt. Whereupon it is easy to conclude from most manifest matters of Fact alone, that all Antiquity, Oecumenick Councils, Popes, all the Gallican Church, nay and even the Church of Rome, until the last Age, have believed that the sixth Council received by all the Church, hath condemned Pope Honorius, and ranked him amongst Monothelite Heretics. Whence it clearly follows, That Antiquity hath believed, that the Pope was not infallible. The same may be said to those who maintain, that the Council, in condemning the Epistles of Honorius to Sergius, did not rightly understand them. Whether that be so or no, it is certain, according to yourselves, that it condemned them: Then a whole great Council of above two hundred Bishops of the seventh Age, representing the Universal Church in her Pastors lawfully assembled, did not believe the Pope to be Infallible; for had they been of that Belief, they would have had a care whether they had well or ill understood these Letters, not to have anathematised him as they did.  
The Result of all is, That Antiquity, in the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Ages, as well as in those that preceded, hath believed that the Pope was not Infallible. This is it that I was to prove; leaving the Modern Doctors who hold his Infallibility, to their Liberty of thinking and saying thereupon, whatever they please, by Logic, that can never overthrow the truth of matters of Fact which I have produced, and which make known to us what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Infallibility of the Pope.   

CHAP. XIII. Of the Pope's Clement III. Innocent III. Boniface VIII. and Sixtus V.  
SUch as apply themselves to the Study of Antiquity, find, that in the Ages following there have been other Popes that have erred in their Decisions; as these that follow. In the twelfth Age, 
Ostiens. C. Quarto de Divortiis.  Clement III. declared in his Decretal, Laudabilem, That the Wife of an Heretic being converted, and her Husband continuing obstinate in his Heresy, might be married to another; which, doubtless, neither Catholics nor Protestants could at present suffer to be brought into practice. And therefore Pope Innocent III. who filled the Holy See shortly after Clement, recalled that Constitution; thereby plainly declaring, that his Predecessor had erred. This is affirmed by Cardinal Cortzeon, who flourished in the Pontificat of Innocent III. in his Sum, which I have seen in Manuscript in the Abbey Royal of St. Victor. And this same Pope Innocent himself, for all he was so able a man, was subject to the same failing, from which Popes, according to the Belief of Antiquity, are not exempted; that is, to be deceived, even when they decide a point of Doctrine in their Council, without the Consent of the Church.  
The matter of Fact is related by Caesarius a Cistertian Monk, 
Lib. 3. Historiar. Memorab. c. 32.  and contemporary with Innocent. He says, that a Monk of his Order, who, without doubt, before he entered the Monastery, had given it out that he was a Priest, committed daily a dreadful Sacrilege, in celebrating Mass, though he had never received sacred Orders. Having confessed this to his Abbot, who failed not to enjoin him, as he ought, to abstain from saying it for the future, he would not obey him: for on the one hand he feared, that by refraining he should disgrace himself, and give occasion to his Brethren to think ill of him; and on the other, he thought he had no cause to apprehend that his Abbot, to whom he had discovered his Crime under the inviolable Seal of Confession, durst do him any prejudice because of that Discovery.  
The Abbot being in great perplexity, bethought himself to propose this Case, in general Terms, in a Chapter of his Order that was held some time after: and ask the Question, what was to be done if such a Case should ever happen in their Monasteries; the whole Assembly were as much puzzled as the good Abbot had been; and neither the Chapter of the Cistertians, nor any of the rest, durst ever undertake to decide that case of Conscience, which was thought to be so difficult, that it was resolved upon, by all, to write about it to the Pope for a Resolution.  
Innocent III. the then Pope, assembled thereupon, the Cardinals, Doctors, and Learned Men, to take their Advice; who, after some debate, agreed all in his Judgement: to wit, That such a Confession being rather Blasphemy than a Confession, the Confessor, in such a case, aught to discover so horrible a Crime, because it might bring great prejudice to the Church. And the Year following he wrote to the Chapter what he had determined, 
Et placuit sententia omnibus, scri: sitque sequenti anno Capitulo quod fuerat à se determin●tum, & à Cardin●libus approbatum.  and what was approved in that great Congregation of Cardinals. It is not at all to be doubted, but that that Definition is wrong. So that the same Pope, a little after, made no Scruple to retract it in the great Council of Lateran where he himself presided, 
Ann. 12 15.  which positively declared the contrary in these Terms: 
Caveat sacerdos ne verbo, vel signo, vel alio quovis modo prodat aliquatenus peccatorem. 
Qui pecca●um in poenitentiali Judicio sibi detectum praesumpserit revelare, non solum à sacerdotali officio deponendum decernimus, verum etiam ad agendara perpetuam poeniten●iam in arctum Monasterium detrudendum.   Let the Priest have a care that he discover not, either by Word, Sign, or in any other way whatsoever, the Sin of his Penitent. That if any one, adds it, presume to reveal the Sin that hath been discovered to him at the Tribunal of Confession, we ordain, not only that he be deposed from the Sacerdotal Office, but also that he be confined to a Monastery, there to do Penance during Life.  
These are two quite opposite Decisions upon a Point of highest Importance, 
Conc. Later. 4. c. 21.  and which concerns a Sacrament; one of the Pope with his particular Council, or his Council of Cardinals, Priests, and Deacons, who represent the Church of Rome; the other of the same Pope, with a great Council, representing the Universal Church. Whence comes that difference, if it be not, That the Pope pronouncing and deciding upon any Point concerning Doctrine and Manners in a general Council, or with the Consent of the Church, is Infallible; and when he acts otherwise he is not.  
This appears still more manifestly in the Bull, Vnam Sanctam, of Boniface VIII. whereby that Pope, whose History is sufficiently known, proposes to all Believers, as an Article of Faith, the Belief whereof is necessary to Salvation, That Popes have a Supreme Power over all the Kingdoms of the World, as to the Temporal. It was believed then in all these Kingdoms, and is so still, that that Definition is wrong. Even they themselves who hold that the Pope hath some Power over the Temporal, have a care not to say, That one is obliged to believe it upon pain of Damnation: and it is known that Clement V recalled that Bull in the Council of Vienna. 
Cap. meruit. de Privilegiis.  That Pope then, and that Council in the fourteenth Century, believed not that the Pope was infallible.  
The same may be said of the Bull of Sixtus V. which he caused to be printed with his Bible, and whereby he declares to the whole Church, That that Bible is corrected according to the Primitive Purity of the Vulgar Translation. And nevertheless, because it was afterwards clearly seen that it was not, Clement VIII. suppressed that Bull, and caused another to be printed, wherein all the Faults of the former are very well corrected: and so it may very well be concluded, that Clement VIII. was persuaded, that his Predecessor, instructing all Believers in a point that regards even the Principle of Faith, might be deceived. However, I will not say so, because I will not at all enter into Dispute with some Modern Doctors, who, to slip the Collar, have bethought themselves to say, That it is true the Bull was printed with the Bible, 
Tannerus disp. 1. de Fide, q. 4. dub. 6. n. 263. 
Thom. Comptonus in 2.2. dis. 22. de sum, pontiff. sect. 5.   which is still to be seen in many Libraries, but that it was not affixed upon the Gates of St. Peter's Church, and on the Field of Flora, so long as it ought to have been, according to the Laws of the Chancery of Rome. As if the Truth or Falsehood of the Contents of a Bull, depended on the time that is to be taken in publishing it; and as if the Pope who makes it, became not Infallible but at the precise Minute of the Accomplishment of the time that it should have been affixed. Let us leave that Instance then of Sixtus V that we may not engage into that Sophistry of Disputation, which to me seems not altogether so serious in a matter of that Importance.   

CHAP. XIV. The Instance of Pope John XXII.  
I Shall produce no more Instances but that of Pope John XXII. That Pope, in his extreme old Age of near fourscore and ten Years, took a Conceit, that as a certain and constant Truth, the Opinion of some aught to be established in the Church, 
Contin. Hangii.  who had heretofore taught that the Souls of those who died in Grace, and had been entirely purged from all the remaining dregs of their Sins, did not see the Face of God till after the Resurrection. He did all that lay in his Power to have it pass. He taught it publicly in Conferences and Congregations which he held upon that Subject: he preached it himself; he obliged, by his Example, the Cardinals and Prelates of his Court, and other Doctors, openly to maintain it. He caused a learned Jacobin, named Father Thomas de Valas, 
Ibid. & Gobel. persona in Cosmodr. aet. 6. c. 71. Paul Langius in Chron. Citizen.  to be put in Prison; who not doubting but that Opinion was an Error contrary to the express Word of the Son of God, who said to the good Thief, This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise, preached the contrary even in Avignon, where the Pope held his Court. In fine, I find a Doctor of very great Authority, 
Hadrian. 6. in 4. sentent. art. 3. de Minist. Confirm. 22.  whose eminent Virtue and singular Learning; with a consummated Prudence in the management of Affairs, raised him afterwards to the highest Dignity of the Church, that says very plainly, 
Publicè docuit, declaravit, & ab omnibus teneri voluit, quod animae, etc.  That he obliged all men to hold that Doctrine for the future.  
Be as it will, it is certain that he did what lay in his Power to bring into his Opinion the Sacred Faculty of Theology and University of Paris, which was by all men reverenced as the Mother of Sciences; that for that end he sent thither two Doctors with the General of the Cordeliers who publicly maintained that Doctrine, and preached the same; which stirred up all Paris against them. Whereupon, King Philip de Valois caused all the Bishops and Abbots that then were at Paris, 
Continu. Hangii.  to assemble with the Doctors of the Faculty; who in his Presence confounded those of Avignon, and proved to them, that what they had preached by order of the Pope, was heretical.  
That Prince, who would suffer in his Kingdom no Novelty of Doctrine, wrote to his Holiness with a great deal of Force and Respect, beseeching him to retract that wicked Opinion, 
Quatènus sententiam Magistrorum de Parisiis qui melius sciunt quid debet teneri & credi in fide, quam Jurista & alii Clerici, qui parum aut nihil sciunt de Theol●gia, approbaret. Ibid.  which caused so much Scandal in the Church. Nay he prayed him to send a Legate into France, who in his Name might approve and confirm the Decree of the Doctors of Paris, who knew far better what was to be believed as a matter of Faith, than his Canonists and other Clergy of Avignon, that were no great Divines.  
The Pope, who would neither wholly retract, nor yet on the other hand provoke the King, whose Protection he stood in need of, took a middle Course, which he thought would not be disagreeable unto him, and prayed him to be satisfied, 
Epist. Joan. ad Philip. 14. Calend. Decemb. Pontif. 12.  that every one might continue in their Opinion, and Say, Teach, and Preach, what they thought good upon that Subject. As to that Proposition, the King would again have the Advice of the Faculty, 
Joan. Gerson. Serm. in die Paschat. coram Rege. Petr. de Alliac. prop. de toll. sc. coram Rege. An. 1406. Gob. Perso. Langius Odour. Rain. ad An. 1334.  whom he there assembled; and the Faculty by a Decree of the Second of January, One thousand three hundred and three, at the Mathurins, declared of new, That the Opinion in question was Heretical, and that by consequent it could neither be Preached nor Taught. After that, Philip proscribed it by Sound of Trumpet, prohibiting all his Subjects to teach or maintain it: and then, that he might oblige the Pope to condemn it, he wrote to him a second time in so forcible and extraordinary Terms, that at length the Pope retracted it a little before his Death, which happened the Year following.  
I have said all that I could, in my History of the Fall of the Empire to excuse him, even so far as to affirm with some, that that Doctrine which he would have established by his own Authority, was not as yet condemned, as it was afterwards by Benet XII. his Successor.  
There are some notwithstanding who say, that it had been long before rejected by the Roman Church, as appears by the Confession of Faith that Clement iv sent in the Year Two hundred threescore and seven, to the Emperor Michael Paleologue, whereof I have spoken in my History of the Schism of the Greeks. However it be, it is certain that it is an Error, condemned not only by Pope Benet, but much more solemnly, above an hundred Years after, in the third Article of the Definition of Faith which the Council of Florence made for reuniting the two 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:  pleniori Ju●acio omnis possice ror aboleri; 
Ep. 15. ad Ephes. council.  to the end that Error might be abolished by a more solemn and decisive judgement, 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 IU. in Bull. confirm.  they declared in their Bulls, speaking of the Council of Trent which was called for the supreme Decision of that Controversy, 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, alleges 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 Pope's 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, though 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 Ecumenical Councils, have thereby declared, that they themselves not 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, heresies 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 Heresy 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 IU. 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 Catholic Faith against all Heresies. 
Num matrimonium per verba de prasenti contractum, quod est verum matrimonium & verum sàcramentum juxta sanclorum Theolegorum sententiam, authoritate n●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 Marshal 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 allege 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 of Scripture, which teacheth us, 
Nec rationem habere ullam exempli quod hic vel ille decessor meus, etc.  that God permits that men should for a time be ignorant of that which afterwards he discovers to his Church. 
Perspicite an decessores nostri id satis intellexerint quod de indissolubili matrimonii vinculo disquirimus.  Who knows then now, said he, but that God may manifest by our means, what others have not known touching the indissolvable Bond of Marriage? Wherefore, have no respect to Examples, and done't tell me what this man or that man of my Predecessors have determined about this matter in a like Case Consider only whether these Popes have understood rightly or not what they have decided concerning this matter of Marriage which we examine.  
There is a Pope, who doubtless will never be accused of having failed in maintaining the pontifical Authority, that nevertheless frankly confesses, and in very plain terms, that he and his Predecessors may have erred in Decisions that they may have made concerning points relating to the Faith. So that from all that I have hitherto said upon that Subject it may evidently be concluded, That great Saints of the ancient Church, Bishops in all parts of Christendom, in the East, in the West, and in Africa, full and general Councils, ancient Popes who have either presided in or consented to these Councils; in a word, that all Antiquity hath believed, that the Pope deciding by his pontifical Authority, without the consent of the Church, is not at all infallible.   

CHAP. XVI. The state of the Question touching the Superiority of a Council over the Pope, or of the Pope over a Council.  
IF I proceeded in this Treatise by way of Discourse and Argument, I might soon conclude, and not fear that any Objection could be brought against my Conclusion: for if Antiquity hath believed as I think I have demonstrated, that the Pope is not Infallible, and that he may be deceived in his Decrees; it's most evident, that it hath also believed by necessary consequence, that the Tribunal of the Universal Church, which without contradiction is infallible, and represented by a general Council, is above that of the Pope. But because for avoiding of Dispute, I only allege evident matters of Fact, against which all the Arguments in the World can never prevail; for, in fine, can one by dint of Argument make that which has been, never to have been? I shall only relate what the Ancient Church hath believed touching that famous Question. Seeing the State of the Question ought plainly and without Ambiguity to be proposed, for avoiding perplexity, to the end that people may at first agree about the thing that is in question, and that it may not be said as it oftentimes happens after much jangling and dispute without concluding any thing; that the thing was understood in a quite different sense than it was proposed in: Take therefore the state of the Question as follows.  
It is enquired, Whether after that a Council is lawfully assembled, the Pope who without contradiction is Head of it, presiding in it in person, or by his Legates, or not being present nor presiding therein either the one way or tother, as it hath happened oftener than once, and is to be seen in the second Ecumenical Council of an hundred and 
Ann. 381.  fifty Bishops, 
Ann. 553.  and in the fifth of above an hundred and sixty: Whether, I say, that Council considered in its Membets united, either under the Pope who has Right to preside in it, or failing of him, under another Precedent, is above the Pope, and hath sovereign Authority over him, so that he is obliged to submit to its Decrees and Definitions, to approve them and consent thereunto as all others are, though he be in his own particular, of a contrary Judgement; or whether the Pope is so above all the other Members of that Council united together, be he there or not, that if he approve and confirm not by his Assent and Authority the Decrees and Definitions thereof, That Council has no Authority, neither over Him nor over Believers?  
In this precisely consists that Question which hath not been moved in the Church, but since the Council of Pisa, some two hundred and forty Years ago. 
Ann. 1409.  And the reason why it was never spoken of before, is, because it was not at all doubted in the Ancient Church, but that a Council was above the Pope. I shall make it out by matters of Fact, against which no Reply can be made.   

CHAP. XVII. That it is the Holy Ghost, which in the Definitions of Faith pronounces by the Mouth of the Council.  
ANtiquity hath always believed, as it is believed at this day, That the Council held at Jerusalem concerning the Legal Observations, to which many amongst the converted Jews pretended that all who embraced the Faith of the Gospel were tied, hath been a pattern to all Ecumenical Councils which have been since celebrated in the Church for the supreme Decision of other points of Controversy, which have often divided Christians in●o very different Opinions: and when the matter in question had been well examined, the Decree that passed in that Council proceeded from the Holy Ghost, which was uttered in these Words, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis. It hath ever since also been believed, that when other Councils, after an exact Enquiry into the Truth, defined what was to be believed, or what was to be done, it is the Holy Ghost that speaks in their Decrees; and that it may truly be said, as it was said at Jerusalem, It hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to this Assembly. This hath been expressed by St. Leo, in these terms, 
Sanctorum patrum canones spiritu Dei conditi, & totius mundi reverentia consecrati. St. Leo Epist. 84. ad Anast. Thessalonic.  which have been received with so much Applause in the whole Church, when he saith in one of his Epistles, That the Canons of the holy Fathers have been made by the Spirit of God, and that they are consecrated by the Veneration of the whole Earth.  
Now it is certain, that St. Peter depended upon the Holy Ghost as well as St. James, St. John, St. Paul, St. Barnaby, the Elders, and other Brethren who were present in that Council; and if after that he compelled by his Example the Christians to Judaise, as Cardinal Baronius hath thought, he had been much more to be blamed for having disobeyed the Holy Ghost and the Council, than when St. Paul rebuked him openly before the Council; as I have made it clearly out by the Testimony of the Fathers, and of Pope Pelagius II.  
So that it ought to be concluded, that the Pope, who is no less inferior to the Holy Ghost than St. Peter to whom he succeeds, is obliged to submit to his Judgement against his own, to obey and consent to his Decisions, and consequently to those of the Council, who neither speaks nor decides but with the Holy Ghost, according to those high Words which contain all the Force, Authority, and Soul of Ecumenical Councils; Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis.  
This is so true, that if after the great Council of Nice, for example, defined by Plurality of Voices, that the Word is consubstantial to the Father, the Pope St. Sylvester had not received that definition, and believed the Consubstantiality of the Word, as the Arians did not, he would have been reckoned an Heretic as well as they. And therefore he failed not to consent to the Decrees of that Council, by approving and confirming them by his own Assent, and by the Assent of the Bishops whom he had assembled at Rome upon that occasion. I offer you, says he, in his Epistle to the Fathers of Nice, if that Letter be true, as Cardinal Baronius thinks, I offer you my Hand, and that of my Disciples, 
Meum chirographum & discipulorum meorum in vestro sancto concilio quicquid constituistis unà parem dare consensum. T. 1. Council.  for consenting with you to all that ye have determined in your holy Council.  
And it's that precisely which in the Ancient Church is called the confirming of a Council; to wit, to consent by Vote and an authentic Act to what hath been established in it. That appears evidently by the Letters of two great Popes; St. Leo, and St. Martin. The Council of Chalcedon made Decrees concerning the Faith, for condemning the Heresy of the Eutycheans, and the Remains of that of the Nestorians, and by the eight and twentieth Canon thereof, to honour the Imperial City, the second place among the Patriarches was given to the Patriarch of Constantinople: which is contrary to the Council of Nice, that disposed of it otherways; and to which St. Leo also would never condescend, what Instance soever the Fathers of Chalcedon made to him for it.  
He was nevertheless apprehensive, that this might have a bad Effect, and that because of that Refusal it might be thought in the World, that he would not consent to the determinations of that Council which had so well asserted the Faith, against the Heresy of Eutyches; therefore he wrote to them in these terms: 
Ne per malignos interpretes dubitabile videatur utrum quae in Synodo Chalcedonensi per unanimitatem vestram de fide statutae sunt approbem, haec ad omnes fratres & Coepiscopos nostros scriptae direxi.—  & fraternitas vestra & omnium fidelium corda cognoscant, me non solum per fratres qui vicem meam executi sunt, sed etiam per approbationem g●storum synodalium propriam vobiscum iniisse sententiam in sola fidei causa, etc. St. Leo Ep. 61. Syn. Chalced.  Lest by malign Interpreters of my Intentions it might seem doubtful whether or not I approve what you have with unanimous Consent determined concerning the Faith, in the Council of Chalcedon; I writ to all my Brethren and Fellow-Bishops these Letters, which the most glorious Emperor, as he hath desired, will deliver unto you, to the end your Fraternity, and all Believers, may know, that not only by the Approbation of my Legates, but also by my own, I have joined my Judgement to yours, but only in those Points which concern the Faith, for the sake of which this Universal Council hath been celebrated by the express Order of the Emperors, and the Consent of the Holy Apostolic See. You see then, that to approve a Council, according to St. Leo, is to conform in Judgement to that of the Fathers, and to consent to the Definitions that have been made in it.  
This is still more clearly apparent by the circulatory Letter which the Pope St. Martin wrote to St. Amand Bishop of Vtrecht, and to all the Bishops of France, sending them the Acts of the Council of an hundred and five Bishops whom he had assembled at Rome against the Monothelites, 
Ann. 549.  and exhorting them to subscribe to them in a Council of the Gallican Church, 
Secundum tenorem Enclyticae à nobis directae scripta unà cum subscriptionibus vestris nobismet destinanda concelebrent, confirmantes & consentientes iis quae pro orthodoxâ fide & destructione haereticorum vesaniae nuper exortae à nobis statuta sunt. Mart. 1. Ep. ad Amand. Traject. ext. post Act. Concil. Later. sub Mart.  and to send them back to him with their Subscriptions, whereby we may see, That they confirm and consent to all that hath been defined in the Council of Rome, for the Catholic Faith, and for overthrowing that furious Heresy which of late hath risen against the Church. He desires that the Bishops of France may confirm the Decisions of Rome concerning a Point relating to Faith: it is not, for all that, to be said, that the Gallican Church is superior to the Roman; and there would be no reason to say so, because to confirm Definitions, is nothing else, as St. Martin explains himself, but to consent unto them by Vote and Suffrage.  
So that every Bishop who subscribes to the Decrees of Council, approves and confirms it in consenting to it by his hand-writing; which perfectly agrees with what St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to the Bishop of Meteline, whom some would have made believe, 
Ne credat hoc sanctitas tua: scripsit ènim consona sanctae Synodo omniaque nobiscum confirmavit & nobiscum sentit. Cyril. Alex. Epist. ad Acacium Meliten. Episc.  that the Pope protected Nestorius: Believe it not, said he to him, for I assure you, that the Pope hath written to us conform to the Decisions of the Council of Ephesus, that he hath with us confirmed all the Acts, and that he agrees with us in one and the same Judgement. This it is then which the Popes themselves call confirming a Council: and it is never to be found in the Ancient Church, that Councils, by their Synodal Letters directed to the Popes, have demanded any other Confirmation of their Decrees relating to the Faith, than their Consent and Approbation, which they were obliged to give. For, in fine, if the Holy Ghost speaks by a Council lawfully called, when they pronounce concerning a matter of Faith, and that they say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis; the Pope must needs approve and obey what the Holy Ghost hath said. And if the Holy Ghost speak not by the Council until the Popes have given their Approbation to it, than might they alone, by refusing that, have been the cause, that the Holy Ghost, who is to teach us all Truth, might never have instructed us, and that Arianism, and all other Heresies, had only been tolerable Opinions; which, in my Judgement, no Man dares to say.   

CHAP. XVIII. That Ancient Councils have examined the Judgements of Popes, that they might pronounce the last and definitive Sentence upon them.  
THough Councils have always had a great Respect for the Popes, and that in great Controversies which have given occasion for calling them, for giving a supreme 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 superior Judicatures have over inferior. 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 Judgement, confirmed that of the Patriarch, as appears by the Letters which he wrote unto him, wherein he wonderfully well asserts the Catholic 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 Emperor 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 approved not this Proceeding that looked 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, etc. qui vice meâ Sincto conventui vestrae fraternitatis intersint, & communi vobiscum sententia quae domino sunt placitura constituant, hoc est, ut primitus pestifero errore damnato, etc.  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 Judgement 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 Heresy of Eutyches, he adds, that however, seeing all care is to be taken to reclaim those who were gone astray, and that the Emperor had appointed a Council to be held for that Effect, to the end that Error might entirely be abolished by a more ample Judgement, 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 Heresy by Word and Writing.  
This great Pope openly declares, That that Opinion of Eutyches is Heresy. 
Ep. 16. ad Flau.  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 Judgement.  
But more still. For that second Council of Ephesus, by the Power of Chrysaphius and Violence of Dioscorus, being become that infamous Den of Thiefs where all Order was over-turned, and Eutyches absolved; this holy Pope who would have that Heresy thundered by a definitive Sentence, made continual Instances to the Emperor 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 Judgement, what the holy Pope had pronounced against that Heresy.  
And in that he gloried, when writing to Theodoret who had condemned in that Council the Heresy of Nestorius whereof he was suspected, and that of Eutyches, after he had congratulated with him in a most obliging manner, he subjoins 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, to●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 Ministry, to show that that Judgement has truly proceeded from him; which being first rendered by the chief of all Sees, hath been received by the Judgement 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 Judgement 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 Judgement, and rescinded it. After that, can it be doubted, but that the ancient Church believed that a Council is superior to the Pope?  
Let's reflect a little upon what I said of the sixth Council, which condemned the Heresy 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 declared, in relation to the same Controversy, in his Epistles to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, one of the chief Authors of that Heresy. The Judgement 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 Judgement upon him, and no body ever objected against it in Antiquity. This is sufficient to conclude invincibly, that the Council is superior 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 Emperor 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 Judgement of the Pope, whom they disinherited. 
August. Ep. 162. ad Gelor. & Eleus Ep. 165. ad Generos. 166. ad Donatist. 167. & alib. saepe.  The Emperor 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 Judgement, fifteen Bishops of Italy, to whom he joined three famous Bishops of the Gallican Church, Maternus of Cologne, Rheticius of Autun, and Marinus of Arles, whom the Emperor 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 Schismatics, appeared there with ten Bishops of his Party, and alleged 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 Emperor so hard to give them new Judges, and in greater number, that that good Prince, overcome by their extreme Importunity, 
Orabida furoris audacia! Opt. loc. cit.  which he called extreme 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 cuirass. 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 Judgement 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 Schismatics, who observed no measures, brought to the Tribunal of Constantine, 
August. Ep. 162.  was most unjust, as was frankly acknowledged by that Emperor, who said that if he at length took cognizance of that Cause, to stop the mouth of these Heretics, and arrest the course of their Fury, he humbly begged 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 Judgement 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 passed at Rome, as a supreme Court can confirm or rescind the Judgement of an inferior. 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 Heretics 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 alleged 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 spite 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 Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian the younger, 
Ann. 390.  had called a great Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Capova, 
Ambros. Epist. ad Theoph. Alexand. Epist. Syricii ad Any's. 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 Heresy and Impiety against the holy Virgin, who durst not appear; the Council committed the Trial 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 Judgement which they well foresaw they must of necessity pass against one of their Brethren, 
Cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis Judicium, ut finitimi Bonoso atque e●us accusatoribus Judices tribuerentur, advertimus quod nobis Judicandi forma competere non possit. Nam si integra esset bodie synodus recte de ii● quae comprehendit scriptorum vestrorum series decerneremus. Vestrum est igitur qui hoc recepistis Judi●ium, sententiam far di o●nibus— vicem enim Synodi recepistis quos ad examinandum Synodus elegit.— Primum est uti two 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 Judgement 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 Judgement 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 Judgement 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 Judgement, and who received the Power to determine it, to whom it belongs to pronounce about that Affair, 
Epist. Syricii ad Any's. 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 itself, 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 Capova, 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 superior to that of a Council. For in the great Persecution that Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, raised against St. John Chrysostom, who was condemned and deposed, in a Synod of Bishops of the Faction of Theophilus, 
Theophili Judicium cassum & irritum ●sse decrevit, dicens oport●re & conflare aliam i●rep●ehensi●ilem Synodum occi●entalium sac●rdotum cedentib●s a●ci●is primun, deigned inimicis; neutra●um quippe partiam ut plurimum ●ectum esse Judicium. Pallad. lo●. 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 Judgement 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 etc. Expectemus igitur & vallo patientiae communiti, etc.  that an Ecumenical 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. Can 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 the King, protests before God, 
Innoc. III. in l. 3. Regest. 15. Ep. 104. ad Philip. Reg. Franc. Non auderemus in hujusmodi casu de nostro sensu pro te aliquid definire.  that if he could in Conscience grant what he demanded, he would do it with all his Heart; but, that though he would stand by that which the Queen had answered Cardinal Robert Cortzeon, in favour of the dissolution of that Marriage, who had interrogated her judicially, yet he could not of himself determine any thing about so important an Affair as that; and that, 
Si super hoc absque deliberatione Concilii determinare aliquod tentaremus, praeter divinam offensam & mundanam insamiam quam ex eo possumus incurrere, forsan ordinis & officii nostri periculum immineret.  If he offered to do it without a Council, besides offending of God, and the Disgrace that he should draw upon himself in the World, he might perhaps be in danger of being deposed, and of losing his Pontifical Dignity. There was a Pope, and one of the most learned that ever sat in St. Peter's Chair, who twice, and in few Words, confesses with much Sincerity, that the Council is above him: once, by saying, that he could determine nothing in that Affair proposed to him, without the Definition of a Council; and then, if he offered to do so, that he should run a hazard of being deposed from the Popedom. By whom? Without doubt by a Power that was superior to his; which, as it is evident, could be none other upon Earth but that of a Council.  
Pope Agapetus, long before, said the same upon an occasion, where the Question however was not about a matter of so great Importance as this, and of which, it is fit, I should give my Reader an Account in few words. In one of the Councils which Pope Symmachus held at Rome, there was a prohibition made, That no Pope, for ever, should alienate the Goods of the Church, and especially of the Church of Rome, which at that time were not Cities and Provinces, as they were after the Donations of the Kings of France, but some Lands and Farms which it held of the Bounty of Believers, besides the Oblations which in those days made up the greatest part of it. I give you here the most considerable terms of the Decree, which prohibits that Alienation. 
Ann. 500  We ordain in the Presence of God, 
Mansuro cum Dei consideratione decreto sancimus, ut nulli Apostolicae sedis praesuli à praesenti die, donec, disponente domino Catholicae Fidei manserit doctrina salutaris, liceat praedium rusticum, quantaecunque fuerit magnitudinis, vel exiguitatis, sub perpetuâ alienatione vel commutatione, ad cujustibet jura transfer; nec cujusquam excusentur necessitatis obtentu.  by this Decree, that from this present day, so long as the Doctrine of the Faith continues in the World, by the Disposition of divine Providence, that it be never lawful for any Pope to alienate any farm, great or small, nor to transfer the same by way of Exchange to any whosoever, under pretext and excuse of any necessity that may happen.  
Now seeing about thirty six years after there was a Permission desired of Pope St. Agapetus to alienate some of these Lands, 
Concil. Rom. sub Symmach. de bon. Eccles. non alien. c. 4.  under a very specious pretext of relieving the poor, he made Answer, that the venerable Constitutions of his Predecessors that had prohibited such kinds of Alienations, tied him from granting it; that he thought they would not take it ill that he did nothing contrary to those Decrees, whatever the occasion might be, for any Respect in the World. Nor would I have you think, adds he in his Epistles to Caesarius Bishop of Arles, 
Nec tenacitatis study, aut saecularis utilitatis causâ hoc facere uòs credatis, sed divini consideratione Judicii necesse nobis est, quicquid sancta synodalis decrevit authoritas, inviolabiliter custodire.  that I do so out of Covetousness or any temporal Interest. But, considering the strict Account that I must give at the last Judgement, I think myself obliged to observe inviolably what the holy Council hath enjoined us. Yet, all this while, this was but a National Council of Italy which had made that Decree, to which Pope Agapetus says that he was obliged to submit: upon stronger Reason, without doubt, would he have said the same, if it had been a Decree of an Ecumenical Council.  
There are a great many Popes who have expressed themselves as plainly as these, that they were subject to a Council. I'll mention no more but one, who delivers his Mind upon that Subject in such a manner, as no man is able to reply to. And that is the famous Gerbert, Silvester II. who filled three Sees successively of Reims, Ravenna; and lastly of Rome, and was a most Learned Pope, whom I have characterized in some of my Histories. For that purpose, he makes use of this passage in the Gospel, where our Saviour says to his Disciples, That if your Brother offend you, reprove him privately, and then in presence of two or three Witnesses; and if he amend not, tell the Church of him; and if he obey not the Church, let him be as a Publican and as a Heathen. 
Defensor. p. c. c. 29.  The famous and learned Tostatus Bishop of Avila, employs that Passage to prove that the supreme and highest Tribunal of the Church is that of a Council, to which Jesus Christ referred all his Disciples, and by conquent St. Peter, who is therefore subject to it as to his lawful Judge, from whom he is to expect the Justice that he may demand against his Brother. Pope Silvester makes use of it in another manner, but for the same end: for he pretends, what is true, that these Words spoken to St. Peter by our Saviour in relation to his Brethren, were also spoken to the same Brethren in regard St. Peter, as well as of the rest. Whereupon that Pope writing to Seguinus Archbishop of Sens, 
Constanter dico, quod si ipse Romanus Episcopus in fratrem peccaverit, saepiusque admonitus Ecclesiam non audierit, hic, inquam, Romanus Episcopus praecepto Dei est habendus sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus. Sylvest. 2. Epist. ad Seguin. Senon.  hath made no difficulty to express himself in these very pithy and significant Words: I say it boldly, that if even the Bishop of Rome offend against you, and that being often admonished he obey not the Church, that Bishop of Rome, I say, aught to be looked upon by the Command of God himself, as a Publican and as a Heathen. Can that Pope have expressed himself more clearly, That he thought the Popes, for all they are Heads of the Church, are still subject to a Council that represents it.   

CHAP. XX. That the ancient Popes have believed, That they were subject to the Canons.  
IT is another invincible Argument that Antiquity hath always been in that Belief, that the ancient Popes have always protested in their true Epistles, for I speak not of those which are supposititious, that they were obliged, in the Exercise of their Power, and in the Government of the Church, to square their Conduct according to the Canons and holy Decrees of Councils, against which they could undertake nothing.  
Is there any thing plainer as to that point, than what is to be seen in the Epistle of Pope Gelasus to the Bishops of Dordany, 
Vniuscujusque Synodi constitutum, quod universalis Ecclesiae probavit assensus, non aliquam magis exequi sedem prae caeteris oportere quam primam.  That no man ought more exactly to execute what is ordained by the Universal Council, than the Bishop of the chief See? In that of Celestin I. to the Bishops of Illyrium; The Regulation of Councils must be our Rules and have dominion over us, 
Dominentur nobis regulae, non regulis dominemur. ●imus subjecti canonibus, dum canonum praecepta servam 〈◊〉.  and not that we should raise ourselves above these holy Rules, that we may dispose of them at our Pleasure: let us submit ourselves to the Canons by observing what they enjoin. In what St. Leo wrote to Anatolius: 
Nimis haec improba. nimis sunt prava quae sacratissimis canonibus inveniantur esse contraria.  Whatsoever is contrary to the most holy Canons is too wicked and d praved to be tolerated. In the Letter of Simplicius to the Patriarch Acacius: 
Per universum mundum indissolubili observatione reti●etur, quod à sacerdotum universitate est constitutum.  What is established by an Universal Council is retained throughout the whole World by an inviolable Observation. In that of Pope St. Martin to J●hn Bishop of Philadelphia: 
Defensores divinorum canonum & custodes sumus, non Fravaricatores; quandoquidem Praevaricatoribus conjunctae sunt retributiones.  We are the Defenders and Guardians of the holy Canons, and not the Prevaricators of them, for we know, that great Correction is reserved for those that betray th●m.  
St. Gregory the Great speaks with as much force as these▪ in an hundred places of his Epistles; as when he says in the thirty seventh of his first Book: 
Absit hoc à me, ●t statuta majorum in qualibet Ecclesiâ infringam.  Far be it from me, that I should infringe the Statutes of our Predecessors in any Church whatsoever: And writing to John, Patriarch of Constantinople: 
Dum concilia universali sunt consensu constituta, se & non illa destruit, quis ●uts praesumit aut solvere quos ligant, aut l●gare quos solvunt.  He that presumes to lose those whom General Councils have bound, or to bind those whom they have loosed, destroys himself and not the Councils. He was so well persuaded of his Duty, that obliged him to observe the Canons, that he even thought, that that Obligation extended to matters which he found to be established by an ancient Custom and Tradition in his Church.  
For, the Empress Constantina having entreated him to send her either the Head or some other considerable part of the Body of St. Paul, to be put in a Church which she had built to the Memory of that great Apostle; that holy Pope wrote back to her, 
Illa praecipitis, quae facere nec possum, nec audeo, etc. 
In Romanis vel totius occidentis partibus intolerabile est atque sacrilegium, si sanclorum corpora tangere quisquam ●ortasse volucrit: quod si praesumpserit, c●●ium est quia haec temeritas impunita nullo modo remanebit. lib. 3. Indic. 12. Ep. 30. ad Constant. Augus●am.   That he could have passionately desired, that her Serenity had commanded him in any thing wherein he could have served and obeyed her; but as to what she ordered him to do, he neither could nor durst do it, because, said he, it is at Rome, nay in all the West, looked upon as unsupportable, and a great Sacrilege, to touch the Bodies of the Saints; and if any one have the boldness to attempt it, his rashness will never pass unpunished.  
Perhaps if at Rome they had made any Reflection on this Epistle, when it was resolved there to have an Arm of the Body of St. Francis Xavier, the Apostle of the Indies, which was then to be seen at Goa in his stately Monument above threescore years after his Death, as fresh and ruddy as when he was alive, they would not have given Orders to have it cut off; and that if he who obeyed that Command, had read that Letter, he would have answered with as much respect as St. Gregory did, Nec possum, nec audio. For besides, that that Arm which is now to be seen at Rome is all withered, and that since that time the holy Body is not so fresh as it was before; they who were employed in that Office, and had the boldness to lay hands upon that sacred Body, died within the Year. And I have learned of a very honest Gentleman of Quality who lately returned from the Indies, that those of Goa attribute to that Action all the Evils they have been afflicted with since that time, and all the Losses which the Portuguese have sustained in the East-Indies.  
Thus the holiest Popes, when they were desired any thing to the prejudice of the Canons, or even of the ancient Customs, which pass for so many Laws, have not scrupuled to confess, that their power extended not so far. For besides the Instances that I have just now alleged, 
Ne in aliquo patrum terminos praeterire videam●r, contra majorum statuta ag●re neq●ivi●us. Joan. VIII. Epist. ad Carol. Reg.  John VIII. speaks in the same manner to one of the Kings of France: We could not act against the Decrees of our Predecessors, lest it should seem that we transgress the Bounds set to us by our Fathers. 
Contra Deum & sacr●rum c●nonum sancti●es nulli omni●o petitioni possumus praeber● cons●●sum.  And Eugenius III. to the Bishops of Germany; We can grant no Demand against God, and against the Decrees of the sacred Canons. The meaning of that is, that as the Pope can grant nothing against the Service of God, because he is inferior to God, so neither can he grant any thing against the Canons of Ecumenical Councils, because he is under them.  
In fine, that we may not allege an infinite number of other Testimonies, which may be seen in the true Epistles of the Popes, since Syricius, I shall conclude with that of Silvester II. to the Archbishop of Sens, 
Sit lex communis E●●●●sie Catholinae, Evan●●lium, Apos●oli, Prophet●, Canon's spir●tu D●i condati, 〈◊〉 totius mundi reverentia cons●●erati, & decrete se●as Apostolicae oh his non dis●o●dantia. Epist. ad Seguin. Arch. Senon.  wherein he says, This is the Law according to which the Catholic Church is to be governed, The Gospel, the Writings of the Apostles and Prophets, the Canons which the Spirit of God hath made, and which are consecrated by the Veneration of all the World, and the Decrees of the Apostolic See which are not contrary to these Canons. 
Ex Art. Concilii Florent. è Sesi. 25. Antiq. E●ition. cum a●●rob. Clement. VII.  And that is the very same that was defined in the Council of Florence after long debate betwixt the Latins and Greeks, concerning the primacy and power of the Pope in the Universal Church.  
It was agreed upon on both sides, That the Pope, as Successor of St. Peter, was Head of the Church, the Father and Teacher of all Believers, who had received from Jesus Christ, in the person of St. Peter, full power to govern the Church. The difficulty only rested in expressing the manner how he might and ought to govern it. The Latins would have the Definition run thus, That he had above all others the privilege and full power of governing the whole Church according to the Say and Sentences of the holy Fathers, Juxta determinationem sacrae Scripturae, & dicta sanctorum. The Emperor John Paleologue and Greek Prelates, 
An siquis, inquit, sanctorum in Epistola honoret Papam, accipiet hoc pro Privilegio?  vigorously opposed that Clause, & dicta sanctorum. How, said he, if any of the Holy Fathers, writing to the Pope, says to him what he thinks fit, for rendering him greater Respect and more Honour; shall the Pope take these Expressions of Compliment and Civility for Privileges that belong to him? Besides, in the draught of the Bull of Union of the two Churches, the Pope having only put his own name, Eugenius Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, as if he alone had made these Decrees: the Emperor and the Greeks would by all means have that amended, and that there should no mention be made of the Pope in it, unless the other Patriarches were also named.  
At length, after that these two considerable Clauses had been well examined, the Union was made in the manner that the Greeks desired it, to which the Latins agreed. Then the Bull was framed, which began thus; Eugenius, Servant of the Servants of God, etc. Our death beloved Son John Paleologue illustrious Emperor of the Romans, those who hold the place of our venerabl● Brethren the Patriarches, and all the rest who represent the Eastern Church consenting to all the Decrees which an● in this Bull, etc. And then amongst other Articles it was defined, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 m●d●m qui & in ●●●ti● conci●i●●●, & in canonibus con●●●.  That Jesus Christ hath given to the ●ope in the person of St. Peter, full power to govern the Universal Church in the manner as is contained both in the Acts of Ecumenical Councils, and in the sacred Canons, and not according to the false Translation, Quemadmodum etiam & in gestis Conciliorum, etc. as if it were said, that the Canons of Councils attribute also to the Pope, the power of governing the Universal Church. It is a quite contrary Sense to the Words of the Council, which says only, that the Pope hath received from Jesus Christ the power of governing the Church in the manner as is prescribed to him by the Canons, Juxta eum modum qui & in gestis Conciliorum, & in Canonibus continetur. Which comprehends all, because it is supposed, as it is very true, that the Canons of Ecumenical Councils are conform to holy Scripture, Tradition, and the true Say of the holy Fathers, from whom we derive our Tradition.  
From those two Clauses of the Bull wherein both the Eastern and Western Churches, after they had well examined them, agreed, two things may be unquestionably concluded: the one, that the Pope can determine nothing in his Constitutions of infallible Authority, without the Consent of the Church; and the other, that the Exercise of his power which is not infinite and unlimited, aught to be moderated according to the Rules prescribed to him by the Canons of the Councils, to which all Believers are subject. What the Popes have over others, is the Care they ought to take to see them observed, not only by their Authority, but by their Example, which is of greater force and efficacy than their Ordinances; and if they themselves violate them acting arbitrarily as they please, without regard to the Canons which ought to be their measures, or suffer them to be violated by others without punishment, they become culpable before God, who hath made them not the Masters, but the Stewards of the Church, to act according to her Orders, and cause them to be obeyed. This the great St. Leo expressed admirably well in those rare words which he wrote to the Emperor Martian: With the Assistance of Jesus Christ I must constantly continue my Service, 
In quo opere auxiliante Christo, fideliter exequendo, necesse est me perseverantem exhibere famulatum, quoniam dispensatio mihi credita est, & ad meum reatum tendit, si paternarum regulae sanctionum quae in Synodo Nicenâ ad totius Ecclesiae regimen spiritu Dei instruente sunt conditae, me, quod absit, connivente, violentur. Ep. 54. ad Martian. 
Dum tamen evidens utilitas vel necessuas id expo●cunt. Greg. IX.  
In talibus eadem utilitas & urgens necessitas secundum instituta canonum debet attendi. Innoc. III. Ep. ad Episc. Favent.   in faithfully executing what I am commanded, because he has trusted me with the Care and Dispensation of his House; and I make myself guilty of great Unfaithfulness, if by my Connivance, which God preserve me from, I suffer the Rules and Canons to be violated, which have been made, by the Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in the Council of Nice, for the Government of the whole Church.  
Not but that the Pope, who ought to take the care of the general Good of the Church, may, on certain Occasions, dispense with the Canons: but in that thing itself he is subject to the Canons, seeing he cannot dispense with them as he pleases, and without any other reason save that of his Will, but only in Cases prescribed by the Canons, when urgent necessity, 
Vbi necessitas non est, inconvertibilia maneant sanctorum patrum instit●ta. Gelas. Vbi necessitas non est nullo modo violentur sanctorum patrum constituta. St. Leo.  or manifest advantage, makes it appear according to the Canons that the Church intended not to oblige to them. Except in such cases, the ancient Popes say openly, that the Canons and holy Decrees must be inviolably kept, and that they cannot dispense with them.  
Whereupon St. Bernard writing to a Pope, 
Quid? Prohibes dispensare? non sed dissipare, etc. ubi necessilas urget excu abilis di●pensatio est; ubi utilitas prov●cat, dispensatio laudabil●s est, utilitas dico con munu, non propria: nam cum borum nih l●. est, non plane fide●is d●●she●satio est, sed c●●eussima dissipation. Bern. de cons. ad Eugen. l. 3. c. 6.  told him with a great deal of holy liberty, that he forbids not to dispense, but to dissipate; that he knows very well that the Popes are the Stewards of the house of God, but for Edification and not for Destruction, and that the Steward ought to be faithful: when Necessity urges, Dispensation is excusable; and laudable when Advantage, not of a private person, but of the public, requires it; and when neither appear in that which is desired, than what is granted is no more a faithful Dispensation, but a most cruel Dissipation. And this, as a learned Pope teacheth, 
Hadrian. V de dispens. Apostolic.  renders both him that obtains that Dispensation, and him that grants it, criminal in the sight of God, unless he that granteth it hath been, without his Fault, imposed upon by a false Information, as many times it happens. The power then of dispensing exempts not Popes, according to the Ancients, from the Obedience which they own to the Decrees of Councils; and when they do otherwise, and act in their Constitutions contrary to the Canons, that is not a lawful practice, but an abusing of their power, and an abuse that draws many others after it.  

Pri●cipium maiorum inde fuisse quod nonnulli pontisices coacervaverant sibi magistros & prurientes auribus— ut eorum study & calliditate inveniretur ratio quâ liceret id quod liberet— pontificem esse dominum beneficiorum onni●n●— Ita quod voluntas pontificis qualiscunque ea faerit, sit reg●la quâ ejus operationes & actiones dirigantur, etc.  This that great Assembly of Cardinals and Prelates picked out of the best and ablest men of the Court of Rome, which Paul III. called in the Year One thousand five hundred and thirty eight, to search for means of remedying the Troubles of the Church, represented to him with much Vigour and Respect, when they told him that the source of so many Disorders was the Flattery of some new Doctors, who strained their false Subtleties to make his Predecessors believe, that they were the absolute Masters of all in the Church, that they were above all Canons, and that there was no other Law for them, but their own Will and Pleasure.  
So that when it happened that some Popes manifestly abusing their power, transgressed the limits set them by the Canons, Appeals were made to the next Ecumenical Council; 
Ann. 1303.  as was done upon account of the Bull of Boniface VIII. who pretended to a Sovereign power over all the Crowns upon Earth; as the University of Paris, in the Year 1491, appealed to a Pope better informed, and to the first general Council, concerning certain exactions and gatherings of Tenths, which were attempted against the Canons and Liberties of the Gallican Church; and as hath been done oftener than once in Germany upon the like Occasions.  
But seeing that Remedy is tedious, and that it may be abused by Appeals very ill brought, which, seeing they could not be judged in an whole Age, would render the pontifical Authority useless in the smallest matters, which Pius II. and Julius II. have most justly condemned; instead thereof, we have in France an Appeal as of Abuse, to the●● arliament, which (representing the King sitting in his Chair of Justice, to whom, as protector of the Canons, it belongs to hinder any thing from being acted contrary to them) has Right to judge whether there be any matter, in the Bulls, Ordinances, and Ecclesiastical Sentences, which wound the Canons and our Liberties.  
For in this chief consist the Liberties of the Kingdom and Gallican Church, that no new thing can be commanded or enjoined us contrary to the holy Decrees of the Councils received in France, and against the ancient Law, in the possession whereof we have always maintained ourselves, without submitting to any other Laws, unless we ourselves consent to them; so that whatever derogates from these ancient Constitutions which are our inviolable Laws, is by Decree rescinded. And this seems to be grounded upon that excellent Sentiment of Innocent III. a great Pope, great Canonist, and great Lawyer, who speaks like a Pope, when he says, 
Quae in derogationem sanctorum canonum attentantur, tanto potius infringi volumus, & career robore firmitatis; quanto authoritas universalis Ecclesiae, cui praesidemus, ad id nos provocat & inducit. Innoc. III. l. 1. Ep. ad Episc. Favent.  We will that all that is undertaken and attempted against the holy Canons, be void and null; and we will it so much the rather, that the Authority of the holy Church wherein we preside moves and inclines us to it. As if by that he would tell us, that the Authority of the Church depends upon the Observation of her Canons and Laws, and not on the Liberty that a Pope might take to violate them.  
From all that I have said in this Chapter, this truth of Fact results, That all Antiquity hath believed, that Pope's being subject to the Decrees of Councils, and obliged to act and govern according to the Laws that are prescribed to them by the Canons, Councils by consequent are above the Popes.   

CHAP. XXI. What General Councils have decided as to that Point.  
SEeing that Question was not moved in the Ancient Church, when all were of the Opinion that I have now mentioned: Councils that decide nothing but upon occasion of Differences and Disputes which arise amongst Christians about some certain point of Doctrine, have given no definitive Sentence as to that particular, till it was begun to be questioned and disputed about. 
Concil. Pisan. t. 11. Edit. Paris Act. conc. ex codic. Gemmetic. t 6. Spirit. Monach. Dionys. 1.29. l. 1. & sequen, Niem. l. 23. Platina. Ciacconius.  And this I think happened upon occasion of the Council of Pisa, which the Cardinals of both obediences, that is, of Gregory XII. and Benet XIII. with consent of almost all Kings and Sovereigns, called for extinguishing that Schism; which these two Competitors and pretended Popes entertained by their Collusion and Obstinacy, contrary to the express Promise they had made of resigning up their Pretensions.  
For seeing some who stood for Gregory, 
Ann. 1409.  protested against the Council which, as they said, had no Authority over the Popes, such an unprecedented protestation in the Church being exploded, the famous Doctor Peter Plaoust, one of the Deputies from the University of Paris, which at that time was in the Meridian of its Reputation, made a long and learned Speech in full Council, 
29 May.  wherein he proved by many Reasons, that the Universal Church, and by consequent a General Council which represents her, is above the Pope; adding, that that was the Judgement of the University of Paris, and of all the other Universities of France.  
No sooner was he come down from the Pulpit, but that the Bishop of Novare stepped up, and read aloud a Writing, which declared, that an hundred and three Doctors and Licentiates of Divinity, deputed by the Universities to that Council, being assembled by order of the Cardinals to consult about that matter, were all unanimously of the Judgement of the University of Paris; and he affirmed, that besides the Universities of France, it was also the Judgement of the famous University of Bologna, 
1 June.  from which they had Letters, and of that of Florence, who had given it in writing under the Hands of sixscore Doctors.  
Six days after, the Process that was brought against Gregory and Benet having been proved and made out in a judicial manner, the Council past a definitive Sentence, whereby it declares, Pietro de la Luna and Angelo Corario heretofore called Popes, Benet XIII. and Gregory XII. obstinate Schismatics and Heretics, convicted of enormous Crimes, of Perjury, Impiety, and of Collusion, to deceive Believers, and to keep up the Schism which so long had rend the Church, and as such, deposes them from the Papacy. This the Council did pursuant to the Decree, whereby it had before determined, that that Council represented the Church universal, and that it was the only supreme Judge upon Earth to whom the Judgement of that Cause belonged, though it was most certain, that one of these two Pretenders was the true Pope.  
After wards they chose Alexander V. who was acknowledged by the Universal Church, except those two wretched Remains of Obedience, who held out still for the two Antipopes; and that Pope approved all the Decrees of the Council, even a moment before his Death, which was most holy and precious in the sight of God. I have heretofore proved, according to the Judgement of almost all the Churches of Christendom, of that of Rome in particular, nay and of the Universal Church represented by the Council of Constance, which was but a continuation of this, that it ought to be reckoned, without contradiction, lawful. But, since on the one hand, it hath pleased some Doctors beyond the Alps to doubt of it, and that on the other, I decline all dispute in this Treatise, I will only stick to matter of Fact, which cannot be contested; to wit, that this Council of Pisa hath been one of the greatest Assemblies that was ever seen in the Church.  
For there were in it five and twenty Cardinals, four Patriarches, six and twenty Archbishops, an hundred fourscore and two Bishops either in person or by Proxy, two hundred fourscore and ten Abbots, amongst whom were all the Heads of the Orders, the Generals of the Carthusians and of the four Mendicant Orders, the great Masters of Rhodes, of the Holy Sepulchre and the Teutonick Knights, the Deputies of the Universities of Paris, Tholouse, Orleans, Angers, Montpellier, Bologna, Florence, Cracovia, Vienna, Prague, Cologne, Oxford and Cambridge, and of some others, and those of the Chapters of above an hundred Metropolitan and Cathedral Churches, above three hundred Doctors of Divinity and of the Law, the Ambassadors of the Kings of France, England, Poland, Bohemia, Sicily, and Cyprus, of the Dukes of Burgundy and Lorraine, Brabant, Bavaria, of the Marquis of Brandenburg, Landgrave of Thuringe, and of almost all the other Princes of Germany; besides that the Kings of Hungary, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and, in a word, those of Spain, except Arragon, shortly after adhered to that Council; and by consequent, all these Prelates, all these Doctors, all these Orders, all these Universities, all these Kingdoms, all these States, that's to say, in a word, almost all Christians, in the beginning of the fifteenth Century, when that Dispute was started concerning the Superiority of the Council or of the Pope, believed, conform to the Belief of Antiquity, That a Council is above the Pope.  
But you are to take notice of somewhat more particular and convincing still. When five years after, the Council of Constance was opened, for continuing that of Pisa, as it had been decreed in that Council, which was rather interrupted than concluded, the Dispute concerning the Superiority of the Pope or of the Council, was started again with greater Heat than before, For some Cardinals being arrived from Scaffhausen, whither the Pope who had escaped from Constance had retired, attempted in full Assembly where Sigismond the Emperor was present, to prove that the Council was dissolved, because John XXIII. who had abandoned it, being owned for true Pope by all that were present, was above the Council which could have no Authority without him.  
Then was there a general murmuring in the Assembly, and many of those who had greatest Authority and Reputation by reason of their Dignity and Knowledge, 
Et iis responsum fuit alacriter per plures de ipso concilio viros magnae authoritatis & scientificos, scilicet quod Papa non esset supra Concilium, sed sub concilio, & facta est illie contentio magna hinc inde. Niem. in vit. Joann. J. Gers. Serm. coram Concil.  undertook to refute them, and to prove on the contrary, That the Council was superior to the Pope, conform to the Sermon that the famous John Gerson had made to the Council a few days before, wherein he had made it out in twelve propositions, That a general Council representing the Universal Church, is above the Pope, not only in the doubt whether or not he be true Pope, but also in the Assurance that is to be had, whether he be lawfully chosen or not, 
Etiam ritè electi.  as they did undoubtedly hold John XXIII. to have been.  
Wherefore that Question, both before and after the Sermon of Gerson, having been examined in the Conferences of Nations, according to the Order appointed by the Council, a Report of it was made in the fourth Session, 
Act. Concil. Constan. t. 12. con. Ed. Paris. Anton. tit. 22. c. 6. §. 2.  where nine Cardinals and two hundred Bishops were present with the Emperor Sigismond, the Ambassadors of the Kings of France, England, Poland, Norway, Cyprus, Navarr, and many Princes of Germany; and there, seeing it had been already declared in the preceding Session, that the Council subsisted, and still retained all its Force and Authority, though the Pope had withdrawn himself, it was by common Consent thus concluded and defined; That the Holy Council lawfully assembled, and representing the Church Militant, hath received immediately from Jesus Christ a Power which all and every one, even the Pope himself, are obliged to obey, in all that concerns the Faith, the extirpation of Schism, and the general Reformation of the Church of God, in its Head and Members.  
And to the end that it might not be said what some have said since without having carefully read the Council of Constance, that that is only to be understood during the time of a Schism, it is added to the Decree in the following Session, That whatever Pope refuses to obey the Decrees not only of this Council, but also of any other that shall be lawfully called, aught to be punished if he amend not.  
The Council afterward exercises its sovereign Authority over Pope John XXIII. acknowledged by them for true Pope, by the Church of Rome, and by all Christian People, except a very few who still adhered to the Schismatics. Martin V. who was chosen Pope in place of John XXIII. in the forty fifth Session, approved the Decrees which had solemnly been made in that Council, and protested that he would observe them inviolably. In fine, in the Bull wherein he enjoins what is to be asked of Heretics who return from their Heresy, amongst others this Article is put: Whether they believe not that all Believers ought to approve and hold what the holy Council of Constance, representing the Universal Church, holds and approves for the Integrity of the Faith and the Salvation of Souls; and whether they condemn not and repute not condemned, what the same holy Council hath condemned and condemns as contrary to the Faith and good Manners. This, without doubt, is one of the most authentic Approbations that a Pope can give to a Council.  
Now seeing, in compliance with a Decree of this Council, the Pope had called another at Pavia, afterward at Sienna, and lastly at Basil, where it was held fourteen Years after that of Constance, under Eugenius IU. who caused the Cardinal Julian of St. Angelo, named by his Predecessor for that Function, to preside in it in his place, that Council in the second Session, when without contradiction it was very lawful, the Pope presiding therein by his Legate, renewed those two Decrees, and defined the same thing in the same terms, touching the Superiority of General Councils, to which Popes were obliged to submit, in matters concerning the Faith, the extinction of Schism, and the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members.  
This was not all: for sometime after, Eugenius having sent the Archbishops of Colossis and Taranto to the Council, to represent the Reasons and Authority that he had to dissolve it, and to transfer it to another place: The Fathers, in a general Assembly, made a Synodal. 
Respons. Synod. Sess. 6.  Answer by way of Constitution, containing more than twenty four large Pages; wherein having refuted all the Reasons whereby one of these Archbishops would have proved the Superiority of the Pope over a Council, 
Septemb. 1432.  they, on the contrary, evince by many Reasons, and by the Authority of the Council of Constance, and of the Gospel which remits St. Peter to the Church, that the Council which represents her hath all her Authority; and again define once more, that the Council is above the Pope  
However, Eugenius dissolved it contrary to the Advice of Cardinal Julian who presided therein. But when he perceived that that began to produce very bad Effects, 
Ann. 1433.  he made the Year following a new Constitution, whereby annulling and rescinding all that he had done for dissolving it, 
Illas & alias quascunque & quicquid per nos aut nestro nomine in praejudicium & der●gationem sacri Concilii B siliensis, seu contra ejus authoritatem factum, attentatum seu assertum est, cassamus, revocamus, nullas & irritas esse declaramus.  that that Council had lawfully continued till then from the Beginning, and approves whatever had been done in it, even so far, as to declare null certain Constitutions, in one whereof he declared, that in matters belonging to the Government of the Church, he had power over all Councils. And that was so authentic and solemn, that Pius II. even in the Bull of his Retractation, ingenuously confess, that Pope Eugenius consented to the Decrees of that Council, 
Accessit & i●sias E●g●nit consen●us, qui dissolutionem Con●●●ii à se sactam revocavit, & progressam e●●e approbavit.  approved its progress and continuation, and recalled the Bull whereby he had dissolved it.  
There are two Councils then without speaking of that of Pisa, whereof the Council of Constance was a continuation, and two Councils in formal terms approved by two Popes, Martin V and Eugenius IU. and these Councils determine, the one during the Schism, and the other after the Schism was extinct, that every Council representing the Universal Church, is superior to the Pope. Now all the Doctors of that party which hold for the Pope's Superiority, acknowledge that a Council universal and approved, cannot err in its Decisions; whence it may easily be concluded, that since the Decrees of these Councils, one is obliged to believe what all Antiquity before these Councils believed, that is, that an Ecumenical Council lawfully assembled, is above the Pope. I don't see how one can avoid this, without finding ways to invalidate the Authority of the Councils, and particularly of that of Constance, which is held for the sixteenth General Council. And this a modern Author hath attempted to do in a Book written on purpose, and last Year printed at Antwerp by John Baptista Verdussen. We are now to see how he hath succeeded in it.   

CHAP. XXII. Of the Writing of the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate against these two Decrees of the Council of Constance.  
THree years since, 
Ann. 1682. Cleri Gallicani de Ecclesiasticâ potestate declaratio.  the Clergy of France representing the Gallican Church, being by Order of the King assembled at Paris, made an authentic Declaration in four Articles, of what they believe and define concerning Ecclesiastical Power, conform to the Holy Scriptures, Tradition, and the practice of the whole Church, and particularly of that of France. Amongst other things, they declare in the second Article, That the Popes, Successors of St. Peter, have in such manner full power over the spiritual, That the Decrees of the holy Council of Constance, approved by the Holy Apostolic See, and contained in the fourth and fifth Session, concerning the Authority of General Councils, must also remain in their full force, and not at all be infringed. And they add, That the Gallican Church approves not the Opinion of those who would weaken these Decrees, and rob them of all their force, saying that their Authority may be called in question; that they are not sufficiently approved, or that they extend not beyond the time when there is a Schism in the Church.  
Doubtless there is nothing more authoritative, (and at the same time more modest) than that Declaration of a Church so venerable in all Ages as the Gallican hath been, and which, next to that of the Apostles, hath always maintained, and made the Catholic Faith to flourish in France in its full Integrity, without having been ever suspected of the least Error. Nevertheless, there is a late Writer, to wit, the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate, Canon of Antwerp, and Under-Library-keeper of the Vatican, who, as he declares at first in the Scheme of his Dissertation, undertakes to overthrow all that the Clergy of France hath asserted concerning these Decrees, and to show in three Chapters; first, that one may and ought rationally to doubt of their Authority; secondly, that it is only to be understood during the time of a Schism, and in regard of controverted Popes; and lastly, that they are so far from being approved, that they have been manifestly rejected by an express Bull.  
Now seeing the authentic Acts which we have of the Councils of Constance and Basil are in the hands of every Body, and owned for true for above two hundred and threescore Years, and no man ever dreamed to call them into question: he hath bethought himself of disputing us that lawful and peaceable possession, authorised by the long Prescription of almost three hundred Years. And this he pretends to do, by opposing to us certain old Manuscripts that he hath raised out of the Grave, which contain the Register and Acts of the Council of Constance, which had never been seen, as they are there, and which God, by a singular Providence, as he saith, hath suffered to be found almost at the same time when the Gallican Church made her Declaration; as if he would afford means of confounding it at the very Instant that it was published.  
This, without doubt, is an Undertaking magnificently projected. But what is it founded upon? Upon the most ruinous Foundation in the World, and which I might easily overturn, and by consequent all the Superstructure, by saying in one word, which is most true, that the pretended good Manuscripts that he produceth against us, after a Possession of two hundred threescore and ten Years, are not more to be received, and are not near so good, as those from which the Decrees that we have of the Council of Constance have been taken. Should I answer him in this manner, it would lie at his door to prove that his Manuscripts are better than ours, which he will never be able to do, as we shall presently see. But to do him a favour, I am content not to handle them according to Rigour, only will clearly and calmly make it out to him, with all the respect that is due to his Character, that the Consequences which he draws from what he finds there are false; and that after his way of arguing, all Ecumenical Councils might be stripped of the Authority which they ought to have, and which they have had in the Church to this present.   

CHAP. XXIII. A Refutation of the first Chapter of the Dissertation of M. Schelstrate.  
THIS Author undertakes to prove in this Chapter against the Gallican Church, That the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session of the Council of Constance are of dubious Authority; first, because the Decree of the fourth Session hath been corrupted by the Fathers of the Council of B●sil, who in the Extract that they caused to be made in the Year 1442. of the Decrees of the Council of Constance, omitted in the first Decree the words ad fidem, and added thereunto these words; Et ad reformationem generalem Ecclesiae Dei in capite & in membris: That all men, even the Pope, are obliged to obey that Council, in what concerns the Reformation of the Church in its Head and Members. As to the Omission of the word ad fidem, he is so favourable as to excuse it, for it appears only to have been done by the fault of the Transcriber, because that word is generally to be found every where, and indeed aught to be there. As to the words which he pretends have been added, he confesses that they are in all the Editions of the Councils that have been hitherto made; because, as he says, they have all followed the first that was made in the Year One thousand four hundred fourscore and nineteen, at Haguenau, from a Copy of that Extract of the Fathers of Basil: but he pretends that it is not lawful, and that those Fathers have added these Words; upon no other proof, but that they are not to be found in the ancient Manuscripts which he hath seen.  
Well, must it be allowed then upon a proof of this Nature, and a bare negative Argument which does not conclude, to accuse a whole Assembly of Prelates of an Imposture, in which a Cardinal presided, a man of a very austere Virtue, whom Pope Clement VII. hath canonised? Let him be accused of Headstrongness, and of abounding in his own Sense, in what he thought to be just; I consent to that, there was his weak side: but that he should be taken for an Impostor and a Falsary, and be treated so, upon so bare a conjecture, is a thing that honest men can hardly suffer.  
The Manuscripts which M. Schelstrate hath seen contain not these last Words of the Decree: be it so, we take it upon his Word, reckon him an honest man, and shall never accuse him of having imposed upon us, but only of having reasoned ill, in concluding from thence, that the Fathers of Basil have falsified that Decree: for who hath told him that the Manuscript from which the Fathers of Basil made their Extract, contained not these words? Why does he, without being well assured of it, accuse them of Imposture? Don't we daily see, that there is difference amongst several manuscript Copies of one and the same work, that there is to be found in one what hath been omitted in another, and that therefore ancient Editions are corrected? Witness that true and famous History of St. Austin, which the Fathers of Saint German des Prez cause to be made from a great many Manuscripts, the differences whereof they mark, and from some of which they take what they add to the ancient Editions which want certain words that are not to be found in the Copies from which they have been printed. Ought he not to presume that that Copy of Basil hath been taken from a Manuscript that had these last Words, which he hath not found in his own, that aught to be reckoned defective?  
And to prove to him that they are so, I declare, that those which I have seen, and which are very ancient, have the same Words at the end of the Decree of the fourth Session. And at the very Instant that I am writing this in my Apartment in the Monastery of St. Victor at Paris, where the Canons regular of that Royal Abbey have done me the favour to let me choose an honourable Retirement, suitable to my Profession and way of Living. I have before me that famous Manuscript of their celebrated Library, from which Monsieur de Sponde hath taken all that is most rare in his History of the Council of Constance, which is certainly the finest part of his work. Now in this Manuscript which is the most ancieat that can be seen, I read that Decree word for word as it stands in the printed Acts, and in the last Editions, the most exact and most correct of all.  
But there's one thing still more observable. We have in these Manuscripts of St. Victor, the Extract of the Sessions which they who were at the Council for the French Nation, sent to Paris, as fast as they got them; and that Decree of the fourth Session is to be found therein in express terms as we have it. Will M. Schelstrate say, that the Council of Basil, which was not held till many Years after the Council of Constance, hath falsified these Extracts? What can he answer to that?  
And, that he may not think to object to us the multitude of his Manuscripts, for he quotes nine of them, I can tell him that there are ten in Paris, all conform to that of St. Victor, which alone is worth all his. And certainly I can very well exceed that number, seeing I myself, not to speak other her Manuscripts which they who are more curious than I am, without doubt, have in their Libraries, have discovered ten of them.  
Besides, we may produce against him the unquestionable Evidences of Peter D' Ailly Cardinal of Cambray, and of the famous John Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris, who was at the Council of Constance, not only as the Deputy of that great Body, but also as Ambassador from the King: for, in fine, that holy and learned man, who cannot be suspected of Imposture, and whose Manuscripts we have, in many places relates that first Decree of the fourth Session, word for word, as it is in the Manuscript of St. Victor, 
Tractat. de potestat. Ecclesiast. Tract. an & quomodo licèt apple. Serm. pro viagio Reg. Rom. directione prima. Serm. coram Council dom. secunda post Epiph.  and the printed Acts; and what can never be answered, he related it even in presence of the whole Council, in the Sermon which he made for the Journey of the King of the Romans; and having recited the Decree entirely with that Clause, Ad generalem reformationem Ecclesiae Dei in Capite & in Membris, immediately after he said to all the Fathers of the Council, declaring his Judgement, these very significant and expressive words.  

Conscribenda prorsus esse mihi videretur in eminentioribus locis, vel in culpenda per omnes Ecclesias, saluberrima haec definitio, lex vel regula: tanquam directio fundamentalis etc. vilut infallibilis, adversus monstruosum horrendumque offendiculum quod hactenus positum erat per multos de Ecclesia in itinere mandatorum Dei, determinantes ex textibus Glossae, non ad regulam evangelicam & aternam acceptis, Papam non esse subjectum Generali Concilio, neque Judicari posse per ipsum: quod praeterea Generale Concilium ab ipso robur immediatè sumebat, nec poterat sine eo casu quocunque convocari, vel stabiliri: quod nemo poterat ei dicere, Cur ita facis? Quoniam solutus erat legibus, & supra jus. Et ita de plurimis per quae blonda, fallax & subdola adulatio fovebat libidinem dominandi, & in tyrannidem Ecclesiae destructricem Papatum seu ejus usum convertebat, ita ut non pateret via reductionis seu pacis.  I am of Opinion, that in all Churches, and in the most eminent Places of the World, this holy and most useful Definition, this Law or Rule of the Council, aught to be written, or even engraved, in great Letters, as being the fundamental and infallible Direction which we ought to follow against the horrible and monstrous Scandal, which is a stumbling Block that many amongst us have cast in the way of the Commands of God, determining, and endeavouring to prove by Texts of the Gloss ill understood, contrary to the Evangelical and Eternal Rule, that the Pope is not subject to a General Council, and that he cannot be judged by it; besides, that a General Council receives from him immediately all its force, and that in no case it can be called and held without him; that no man may say to him, Why do you do that? because he is not bound to obey the Laws, and that he is above all Canons: and many other such Maxims, whereby a soft, fallacious, and malicious flattery fomented the unbridled desire of predominating, and changed the Pontifical Power, or the exercise of it, into a Tyranny which wholly ruined the Church; so that there would no way remain of reducing matters into good Order, and of settling Peace.  
Now I would beseech M. Schelstrate to tell me ingenuously, if he dares think that the Chancellor of Paris had the Impudence to recite in a Sermon, and before all the Fathers of the Council, the Decree of the fourth Session, otherwise than they themselves had made it; and add impudently these words, Ad reformationem Ecclesiae in Capite & in membris, which the Council had not put into it; and afterwards to speak to them in the manner I have now mentioned. I take him to be a man of too much Honour, and too prudent, ever to let that Thought enter into his Head; and I make no doubt but that he will give Glory to God by confessing, That since Gerson recited that Decree before the whole Council as we have it in the printed Acts, it is altogether evident that the Council made it so, and that it is not in the least falsified; that otherwise the Council would have given him the Lie as an impudent Impostor.  
But what now if I show that that so famous Doctor hath done the same oftener than once, as may be seen particularly in the Sermon which he made before all the Fathers of the Council, the second Sunday after the Epiphany, upon that Text of the Gospel, There was a Marriage in Cana of Galilee? There he treats very amply of the Marriage of Jesus Christ with his Church, represented by the Council of Constance; and having said that the second Advantage of that Spouse, is the fullness of Power that the Council which represents her hath even over the Pope, and that that was solidly proved in a Book lately before published; he speaks in this manner.  

Quamvis ultra multiplicare sermonem quid opus est super eâ veritate; cujus decisio clarissima solidissimaque facta est per hoc sacrum Concilium, cui non licet obniti, nec ipsam in argumenta deducere, quoniam disputationum & argumentationum, & evasionum frivolarum nullus unquam esset finis, sed casus assiduus in errores absurdos, insanos, & impios. Vere & graviter Ecclesiastes, Quia cito non profertur contra malos sententia, filii hominum absque ullo timore perpetrant mala. Nunquid non ideo sacra hujus synodi Constantiensis impugnantur Judicia qua sic habent?  But what necessity is there to enlarge Discourse, or reason any more upon that Truth which hath been most clearly and solidly decided by this sacred Council, to which it is not lawful to gainsay, nor to bring that Question any ways under Examination again, to clear it by Arguments? for there would be no end of disputing; Evasions and frivolous Distinctions would always be found out, to betray men into absurd, mad, and impious Errors. The Preacher hath truly and gravely said, that because Sentence against an evil Work is not executed speedily, therefore the Heart of the Sons of Men is fully set in them to do Evil; Is it not therefore that there are some who dare boldly impugn the Determinations and Decrees of this Council of Constance, of which the Tenor follows?  
Primo declarat, etc. Here he relates at length the Decree of the fourth Session, with that Clause, Et ad reformationem Ecclesiae in capite & in membris; and having done so, This, says he to the Fathers of the Council, is the Decree that you have made. Dare M. Schelstrate, after this, still say, that those of Basil have falsified that Decree, by adding thereunto those Words?  
And since, for convincing him, he hath obliged me to allege so authentic a Piece in that part of this excellent Sermon which John Gerson made to the Council of Constance, I should be glad he might know what, after the Rehearsal of the Decree as we have it, that learned Doctor adds speaking still to the Council. These are his own Words, which are very considerable. 
Huic veritati fundatae supra petram sacr●e Scripturae quisquis à proposito detrahit, cadit in haeresim jam damnatam, quam nullus unquam Theologus, maxim Parisiensis, & Sanctus asseruit.  Whoever opposes and contradicts that Truth founded upon the Rock of Holy Scripture, falls into the Heresy that now hath been condemned, which no Divine, especially of the Faculty of Paris, nor no Saint, ever maintained. In this manner Gerson speaks of the Opinion of those who will not have a Council to be above the Pope. We give it a softer term, and reject it, not as heretical, but as contrary to the Doctrine of Antiquity, and consequently false.  
Then he goes on with greater force still, and expresses himself in these Words. I lately saw St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure; I have not here the Books of other Doctors. They allow the Pope the supreme and full Ecclesiastical Power; 
Vidi nuper Sanctum Thomam & Bonaventuram, hic reliquorum libros non habeo, daunt supremam & plenam summo pontifici potestatem Ecclesiasticam, rectè proculdubio, sed boc faciunt in comparatione ad fideles singulos & particulares Ecclesias. Dum etiam comparatio facienda fuisset ad anctoritatem Ecclesiae Synodaliter congregatae subjecissent Paepam & usum potestatis suae eidem Ecclesiae, tanquam matri suae, cujus legem dimitti non debere iradit sapiens; tanquam praeterea regulae vel legi directivae infallibiliter, cui se submittere tenetur omnis frater peccabilis de Ecclesia, cujus anctoritatem si non audierit frater quilibet, etiam Papa qui nobiscum dicit Pater Noster, audi itur quid dixerit omni Catholico Christus: sit tibi, inquit sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus, id est, excommunicatus.  and without doubt they are in the right, because saying so, they compare the Pope with all Believers and all Churches taken particularly. But if they had been to compare him with the Authority of the Church assembled in a Council, they would have subjected him, and the exercise of his Power, to the same Church, as to his Mother, whose Laws the Wise Man says one should never forsake, and as to the Rule which directs us infallibly, and to which all men in the Church liable to failing, are obliged to submit. And if any one, whoever he be, of our Brethren, though he were Pope, who says his Pater Noster as we do, will not acknowledge her Authority, and obey her, let us hearken to that which Jesus Christ enjoins to every Catholic, Let him be to you, saith he, as an Heathen and as a Publican; that is to say, as an excommunicate Person. And this is just the same which the Pope Silvester II. said in express terms many Ages before Gerson. And to prevent M. Schelstrate from offering to say, that the Text of this Doctor hath been falsified, by adding thereunto these words, Et ad reformationem Ecclesiae in caepite & in membris; I declare unto him, that the Treatise de potestate Ecclesiastica, where that great man quotes that Decree, hath been collationed with four Manuscripts, two of the History of St. Victor, marked N N. S. and M M. 11. with one of the College of Naevarr, and of the Bibliotheke of Monsieur Colbert, marked 99 That the Treatise An & quomod● appellare liceat à summo pontifice, where the same Decree is to be found, is altogether conform to two Manuscripts, one of St. Victor marked N N. 9 and the other of the Bibliotheke of Navarr. That the Sermon, pro viagio Regis Romanorum, hath in like manner most exactly been compared with a Manuscript of St. Victor, marked according to the ancient Catalogues, N N. 11. with one of the Bibliotheke of Navarr, and with one of the Library of Monsieur Colbert, marked 99 In a word, that what is to be read in the Sermon, Nuptiae factae sunt, etc. wherein Gerson repeated before the Council the Decree of the fourth Session, is to be found in a very ancient Manuscript of St. Victor, marked N N. 19 word for word as we have caused it to be printed.  
All these Manuscripts have been communicated to me by Monsieur d' Herouval, Regular Canon of St. Victor, and Doctor of the Surhonne, whose merit already well known to the Learned, will shortly be to the Public, in the new Edition that he is preparing of the Works of Gerson, which by his Care and Pains, will be found restored to their Perfection, that they have never hitherto had.  
This, I think, is enough to oblige M. Schelstrate to yield. Would he have any thing more precise? He shall be satisfied. The Council of Basil, ten Years before the Extract made, which he pretends they falsified, proposed that Decree such as we have it, and renewed the same in the second Session. Cardinal Julian, who was nominated by Martin V to preside in that Council, and who after the Death of that Pope presided therein in Name of Eugenius iv consented to that Decree in behalf of the Pope in that second Session, and defended it in the Letter which he wrote to Eugenius, to remonstrate to him the Reasons which obliged his Holiness not to offer to dissolve that Council. Had not this Decree been that of Constance most faithfully proposed, would he have consented to it; Would not he have objected against that notorious Falsification? 
Et tibi prout opus ●●deris esse juxta tibi injuncta & ordinata in Concilio Constantiensi optimè provideas. Julian. Ep. 2. ad Eugen.  Would not he have protested, that what was added to the end of the Decree was no part of it, he who was very well acquainted with his Council of Constance, and daily studied it, having express Orders from Eugenius, to act in the Council of Basil, as he should find it expedient, according as he was enjoined and directed by the Decrees of the Council of Constance.  
Would he have more still? Here is enough to satisfy him. Eugenius IU. in the Bull which he published during the sixteenth Session, declares, That, according to the Decrees of Constance, he had called the Council of Basil for the Extirpation of Heresies, the Peace of Christian People, and the general Reformation of the Church in Capite & in Membris: and seeing the Council was lawfully assembled, 
Qui nimo praefatam dissolutionem irritam, & inanem declarantes, ipsum sacrum Concitium purè, simpliciter & cum effectu, ac omni devotione & favore prosequimur, & prosequi intendimus.  it hath still continued, and so ought to be continued, for procuring those three ends, as if it had never been dissolved. Then he rescinds all that he had done for the dissolution of it, protesting that he approves it, and will have it to continue purely, simply, and with all Devotion and Favour. Thus the Pope speaks, who when he was Cardinal was present at the Council of Constance, whose Decrees he could not be ignorant of; and by consequent, if the Decree of the second Council of Basil, related in the same Council, as being that of Constance, had not been the same in proper terms, it is not to be doubted but that Eugenius would have affirmed it to be false, and have rejected it.  
In fine, in the very same Manuscript which M. Schelstrate produces, there is to be found in the Preface of the Decree, as in our Acts, that, This Holy Council of Constance lawfully assembled for the Extirpation of the present Schism, for the Union, and for the Reformation that ought to be made of the Church in its Head and Members, to the end that that Union and Reformation of the Church may the more easily, more surely, more amply, and more freely be obtained, ordains, declares, and defines as follows; to wit, That all men, of whatsoever Dignity they be, even Papal, are obliged to obey the Council in all things belonging to the Faith, and the Extirpation of this Schism. And who does not see that for completing the Sense according to the Intention and express words of the Council, one must not stop there, but that it must necessarily follow, and to the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members thereof? So it is in our Copies which are true, and is wanting in his, which unjustifiable Omission makes them clearly appear to be defective.  
But, says M. Schelstrate, one of my Manuscripts affirms, that the day before, and the very same day of the fourth Session, there were great Debates concerning the matters to be put into the Decree, and that at length by a sudden Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, all agreed, that nothing should be put into it but the Points that are to be seen in that Copy; and the other Manuscript informs me, that the Emperor made them all agree by finding a moderation to which he brought the Cardinals to consent. Now that is exactly what we would be at: I'll tell ye how. There were four Points to be examined relating to that Decree: first, Whether the Council hath received immediately from Jesus Christ, a full Power to which the Pope himself is obliged to submit in what concerns the Faith and the Extirpation of Schism; secondly, and if it ought to be put into it, in what concerns the Reformation of the Church, in the Head and Members; thirdly, whether in case the Pope would not obey it, he might be punished; and fourthly, if all that aught to be understood of any other Council as well as of that of Constance.  
As to the first, since all the Nations agreed upon it, it easily passed; but as to the three others, some, and especially the Cardinals, who, at least, would therein gratify the Pope, opposed them. Now the mean and moderation which the Emperor Sigismond found out to unite all dissenting minds, was, that in the Decree of the present fourth Session, the two first Points only should be inserted, and that for the other two they might afterwards consider what was to be done about them in the following Senssion. That appears manifestly by our Acts, by our Manuscripts, and even by that of M. Schelstrate, wherein, as I have just now proved, there is a necessity, considering that Proceeding, for making a rational and complete Sense, that these Words which have been omitted in it, be added, And as to what concerns the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members.  
This is more clearly still to be seen in the fifth Session which was held eight days after, and wherein for putting an end wholly to that Affair, and for proposing without Interruption, and at one glance, what men ought to believe concerning that Point, they put in the first place the Decree of the fourth Session word for word as we have it; and then made a Decree, by which the two other Points were defined and declared, to wit, that the Pope himself is obliged to obey not only that Council of Constance that was held during the Schism, but also all others; and that if he refuse to submit to them he may be punished. And this is to be seen not only in our Acts and Copies, but likewise in the Manuscript of M. Schelstrate, as he himself confesses; and therefore he must acknowledge, that even though these Words, for the reformation of the Church in the Head and Members, had not been put into the Decree of the fourth Session, as he pretends, yet that would not at all reach the bottom of the Affair, because they are actually in the Decree of the fifth Session. For to render a Decree authentic, what matters it in what Session it hath been made?  
After all, it must necessarily be concluded from what I have now said as to these uncontroverted matters of Fact, that we ought not to correct the Council of Constance, according to the Manuscripts of M. Schelstrate. But on the contrary, it is his part to correct them according to ours, and according to the Council, as we have it. And so, the first Argument that he alleges why we should doubt of the Authority of these Decrees, is null.  
The other two are of the same force, and in a few words, may without any difficulty be overthrown. Seeing he cannot deny but that these two Decrees are in the fifth Session, he saith what he hath learned from those Vltramontanian Authors who have written for the Superiority of the Pope against that Council; to wit, that they were made in a hurry, without sufficient Deliberation, and against the Judgement of many who opposed them. This is the very same thing that the Nestorians, nay and some of our Protestants, have said against the Council of Ephesus, and against St. Cyril, whom they accuse of having caused Nestorius to be condemned with extreme Precipitation, without hearing him, and without possibility of having the cause sufficiently examined. All Heretics might say as much, and do, indeed say so of all Councils which have condemned their Heresy.  
But, not to rest on that, I maintain to M. Schelstrate, that there never was a Question better examined, than that which was moved in this Council. For, since the Council of Pisa, where it was first started, had decided in favour of the Council, it was almost the whole Subject of Disputes and Conferences, and was tossed to and fro● in the Council of Constance even before and after the Sermon of John Gerson. Besides, after that Assembly wherein all that the Cardinals who were sent from the Pope objected, had been convincingly refuted, it was so well examined, that all the four Nations acquiesced in the Point.  
I know very well, there were great Debates about it, and that the Cardinals opposed it; I even grant him what he hath found in his Manuscript, and which he confesses had never been known before, and which, perhaps, is not true, that the Cardinals, nay and the Ambassadors of France, made a private Protestation in the Chamber of Presence, that it was only for avoiding of Scandal that they assisted at the fifth Session, and not for consenting to what they knew was to be defined in it. What can he conclude from thence? Hath not he read the History of the Conclaves, where, after a thousand Intrigues, a thousand Oppositions, and a thousand other things more than I can tell, at length a lawful Election is made, to which all the Cardinals who were so divided before, consent? Let him read the Histories of the Council of Trent written by Fra. Paolo and Cardinal palavicini, there he will find a great many Debates about Points that were to be decided in the Sessions; and nevertheless the Holy Ghost, which unites all minds into one Judgement, made all the Decrees of that Council to pass with the unanimous Consent of all the Fathers who had been so divided before.  
It is just so with this Council of Constance; I grant there may have been Oppositions, Contests, private Protestations, and whatever M. Schelstrate pleases to inform us of from his Manuscripts: yet when all is done, these Cardinal and all they who debated and protested privately, were present at the fifth Session: and seeing the Holy Ghost unites all minds in a Council, to the end they may say, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis, the two Decrees of that Session passed by common Consent, as the Acts say, to which M. Schelstrate has nothing at all in his Manuscripts that can be objected. 
Quibus articulis sive constitutionibus lectis, concilium eos & cas uniformiter approbavit & conclusit.  This is the Language of the Acts: These Articles and Decrees having been read, the Council with a common Consent approved them.  
In fine, the third Argument he makes use of to weaken the Authority of the Decrees of these two Sessions, is, that the Council being then only made up of those of the Obedience of John XXIII. could not represent the Universal Church. Now, to convince him of the Insignificancy of that Argument, which without doubt is the weakest of all, I need only tell him in two words, that what he supposes after Bellarmine, who hath supplied him with all his weak Objections, is very false. For almost all the Cardinals of the two Obediences of Gregory XII. and Benet XIII. were united in the Council of Pisa, where these two pretended Popes, who by Collusion played upon all Christendom, were declared Schismatics and Antipopes, and Alexander V chosen, who was acknowledged for true Pope by most Churches, without any Competition, and especially by the Church of Rome.  
Now the same Cardinals and Bishops who constituted that numerous Council, continued it at Constance, as Pope John XXIII owned by the same Council for true Pope, declares in express terms in the Bull whereby he calls that Council, according as it had been decreed at Pisa five Years before. So that the Obedience of John XXIII. besides the Concurrence of almost all the Kingdoms of Christendom, nay and of the Church of Rome also, was over and above composed of the greater and sounder part of the two other who were reunited at Pisa, and continued that Council at Constance. If M. Schelstrate pretend that the Absence of those who held for the one or other of those two who had been declared Schismatics and Antipopes, hinders the Council from being Ecumenical, he must know that his unjust Pretence would ruin most of the Ecumenical Councils; for the Heretics that have been condemned in them might say, that those of their Party who had right to be present in them, either were not there, or would not own them for lawful and Ecumenical Councils.  
And Protestants might say the same, especially of the Council of Trent, where neither the Bishops of the Church of England, nor of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and that part of Germany who followed the Confession of Ausbourg, nor the Bishops of Greece, of the East, and of Egypt, who own not the Pope for Head of the Church, and who are no more of his Obedience, than those at the time of the Council of Constance, who held for Pietro de la Luna or Angelo Corario, were present. All these Bishops, I say, of so great a part of the Christian World, were absent from the Council of Trent when it made its Decrees, and would not own it. Is there any thing more certain? And nevertheless M. Schelstrate is obliged to confess with all other Catholics, that their Absence could not hinder that Council from being Ecumenical, because for making it universal, it is enough that all be invited to it, as they were, and that they might be present there if they pleased, or if the Princes on whom they depend gave them leave. So that the Absence of the Prelates who were the Dregs of those two Obediences, hinders not but that the Decrees of Constance are the Definitions of an Universal Council, and that they have an infallible Authority.  
But there is still somewhat that presses more home: for if it were not so, and if it were to be approved which Bellarmine says before M. Schelstrate, that these Decrees have no Authority, by reason of that Absence, and that there was no Pope in Council when they were made, strange things would follow from thence. In the first place, the Condemnation of the Errors of Wicleff and John Huss would be null, because they were condemned in the fifteenth Session, 
Sess. 15.  before the Union of the remnant of those two Obediences, and when as yet there was no Pope there in the Council. Secondly, that detestable Proposition of John Petit, that any private man might meritoriously kill a Tyrant, any way whatsoever, would not be lawfully condemned of Heresy by the same reason. And lastly, that the Condemnation, and afterwards the Deposition of John XXIII. 
Sess. ●.  which happened long before the Union of the two Obediences, must have been made without any lawful Power.  
Cardinal Julian, who presided in the Council of Basil for Pope Eugenius, wrote this to him to take him off of his design of dissolving it because of the Decrees of the second Session. And would to God Cardinal Bellarmine and M. Schelstrate had read and considered that Letter before they made an Objection that draws after it so dangerous Consequences! 
Nam ●quis dixerit decreta illius concilii non esse valida, ne●ess● babet sateri privationem oli●● Joannis factam vigor● illorum decretorum non valuisse. Si illa non valent, nec etia●●apae M●rtini tenuit electio facta illo superstite. Si Martinus non fuit Papa, nec sanctitas vestra est. quae per Cardinales ab ipso factos electa est, etc. Ep. 2. Juliani ad Eugen.  I am obliged, said he to him, most holy Father, to remonstrate to your Holiness, that if the Decrees of Constance, which the Council of Basil has renewed, have no Authority, that whereby John XXIII. was deposed, is of no force. If it be so, the Election of Pope Martin V. which was made during the Life of John XXIII. is null, and consequently that of your Holiness, seeing you must then have been elected by Cardinals of his Creation who was not Pope. By the same reason it is evident, that all the other Elections made since Martin V until the present Pope, must be unlawful.  
M. Schelstrate, without doubt, will answer to that, that John XXIII. consented to his Condemnation, and even ratified it when he was at liberty. But he must needs have done so, considering the condition he was in; and it is enough to read the very Author who is cited, that is Leonard Aretin, to be informed that the poor deposed Pope went to Florence to cast himself at the feet of Martin V. only because he knew not whither to betake himself, 
Consilio Martini cognito (id erat ut Man●ouae perpetuo carcere tencretur) antequam, etc. Leonard Aretin. Hist. ver. Italic.  and that he was informed, that it was resolved, that if he did it not, his Person should be seized, and confined to perpetual Imprisonment. And besides, is it not well known that the Ratification cannot be good if the Act that is ratified be null?  
Bellarmine's Answer has as little force: Though, saith he, 
Etsi Concilium sine Papa non potest definire nova dogmata fidei, potest tamen judicare, tempore Schismatis, quis sit verus Papa, etc. L. 2. de Conc. c. 19  the Council without the Pope cannot determine new Doctrines of Faith, yet it may judge during a Schism, who is the true Pope, and provide a true Pastor for the Church, when there is none certain. In the first place he grants by that, that all which the Council determined against Wicleff, John Huss, and Jerome of Prague, and against that damnable Proposition of John Petit, is null, as having been decided by an incompetent Judge: Who dare maintain such a thing? Secondly, it is absolutely false that a General Council, without the Pope, cannot make Decrees concerning the Faith. Did not the first Council of Constantinople make such against Macedonius, concerning the Divinity of the Holy Ghost? And did not the fifth condemn the Heresy of the three Chapters, not only without Pope Vigilius, but likewise contrary to his Constitution, who would have had them not to be condemned? Besides, it was not the Business of that Council to judge who was the true Pope: for the Council of Constance never questioned but that John XXIII. was, it would only have had him perform the Promise which he made to renounce his Right, and freely to lay down, for Peace sake, though he was true Pope. And in the fourth place, if that Council was not then, as he called it before, but a particular Council where a third part of the Church only met, it could not lawfully have condemned John XXIII; because, as all agree, none but an Ecumenical Council, representing an Universal Church, hath that Power and supreme Authority; nay, and many deny that it can, unless in case of Heresy, proceed against any Pope, much less if that Council held him for a true Pope, as the Council of Constance owned John XXIII, to have been.  
From all this it follows, that the three Reasons alleged by M. Schelstrate in as many Articles, to prove against the Clergy of France, that one may doubt of the Authority of the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session of the Council of Constance, are not only false, but also of dangerous consequence to the Church. Thus we have dispatched his first Chapter: the other two will not long hold out.   

CHAP. XXIV. A Refutation of one of the two Chapters of M. Schelstrate.  
THis Writer, in one of these Chapters, pretends to prove, that those Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session are not approved. I have already made it out, that Martin V approved them twice solemnly; once, by ordaining that those who return from Heresy should be interrogated, whether or not they approved, without Exception, all which that Council approves, and condemned all that it condemns; and another time in the last Session, where he declares, that he approves, and will inviolably observe, all the Decrees that have been made in that Council concerning matters of Faith, and as he expresses it by a new word, Conciliariter. Upon which, two Objections are raised against us.  
The first, from these Words, concerning matters of Faith: from which M. Schelstrate concludes, that the Pope hath only approved the Decrees against Wickleff, and John Huss, because they alone, saith he, concern matters of Faith. What then will become of the other Decrees that were made for the Extirpation of Schism, and for the Reformation of the Church, which are the two principal Points for which the Council and the Pope's Martin and Eugenius, in express terms, declare that the Holy Synod, representing the Universal Church, was called?  
Let him tell me, whether those Decrees be approved or not: if they be not, he must then, according to his Principles, grant that the Deposition of John XXIII. is null, that all that followed upon it is invalid, and that all the good Laws that were made in that Council for Reformation, are of no Authority, and oblige no Man. And if they be approved, it is not to be doubted but that those of the fourth and fifth Session are also approved, seeing they were chief made for the extinction of Schism. For if the Council were not above the Pope, even lawfully elected, as John Gerson saith, and if it had not Power to depose him, when that is necessary for the common Good of the Church, in case of Heresy, Schism, or enormous Scandal, as it hath happened oftener than once; the Council could never have compelled the Pope, who was acknowledged to be true and lawful, to renounce his Right for peace sake.  
The other Objection brought against us is weaker still than the former. Cardinal Bellarmine, whom M. Schelstrate hath followed step for step, upon that word Conciliariter; from which he concludes, that these Decrees of Constance have not been approved by Pope Martin V because the Pope declares, 
Id est move aliorum Conciliorum, re diligenter examinata. Constat autem hoc decretum sine ullo examine factum à Concilio Constantiensi. L. 2. de Council c. 19  that he only approves those which have been made Conciliariter, or, as that Cardinal interprets it, in the manner as other Councils have made their Decrees, the Matter having been diligently examined. Now it is sure, adds he, with the greatest Confidence imaginable, and as if no body could doubt of the truth of what he says, without so much as bringing any proof for it, the thing being clear in itself: It is then, says he, most certain, that that Decree of the Superiority of a Council was made by the Council of Constance without any Examination, sine ullo examine.  
I have two things to say to that; first, that a manifest Falsehood was never asserted with so much Boldness: for never was there a Question examined nor debated in the Council with greater heat than this, as I have already made it appear, and as it even appears by the Manuscript of M. Schelstrate. For there it is to be seen, that before the fourth Session, the Deputies of the Nations, and the Cardinals, after many Contests and Oppositions of the same Cardinals, all agreed, 
Habita fuit non modica disceptatio inter D. Regem D. D. Cardinals & deputatos nationum, etc.  by a sudden Inspiration of the Holy Ghost, in one Judgement concerning that Point of the Superiority of a Council over the Pope, who ought to obey it in what relates to Faith and the Extirpation of Schism. And he adds, that before the fifth Session, 
Die Sabbati 6 Aprilis, cum per prius inter D. D. Cardinals & Nations altercatum fuisset— tandem ordinatum & conclusum est, etc.  which was not held till eight days after, and wherein, according to himself, it was defined, that the Pope ought to obey the Council in what concerns the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members, there fell out again great Debates betwixt the Cardinals and the Deputies of the Nations. How can it then be said so boldly, without boggling, as Cardinal Bellarmine hath done, Nullo facto examine? I declare that it is a thing I cannot comprehend, after the unquestionable Testimonies that I have before alleged to the contrary.  
The next thing that I have to say against the Answer of Bellarmine, is, that that word Conciliariter signifies not only, as he hath interpreted it, the matter in question having been well examined, but also being afterwards solemnly decided in a Session of the Council, without which nothing is defined. In the Council of Constance Votes went by Nations. There were at first four, the Italian, English, French, and German, and afterward the Spanish was added. The Deputies of every Nation consulted first severally; and then all the Nations communicated their Opinions: after which, all these Nations held an Assembly, where every private Person had liberty to speak and give his Voice, yet all the Voices made but one Suffrage for each Nation, though they differed in the number of Prelates and Doctors.  
In fine, when they were all agreed, after much disputing and debate, that was no more but preliminary, and a necessary Condition to a final Decision, which was only made in a General Assembly of Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Generals of Orders, Ambassadors of Princes, and, in a word, of the whole Council, with great Ceremony, after high Mass, Litanies, and other Prayers, in the public Session held in the Cathedral Church, where after that a Cardinal or Bishop having from the Pulpit read the Decrees and Articles framed in the Assembly of the Nations, demanded if they approved them: it was still free to every one to say what he pleased concerning them. And when they had all unanimously said Placet, We consent to them, as they never failed to do after these previous Deliberations, shorter or longer, according to the greater or less difficulty of the matters that they had examined; then was the Decree authentically made, and had its full force: and that, in the terms of Martin V is called a Decree made Conciliariter.  
In this manner the Errors of Wickleff were condemned in the eighth Session; that of John Huss, and the damnable Proposition of John Petit, in the fifteenth; definitive Sentence pronounced against John XXIII. who was deposed in the twelfth; and the Decrees of the Superiority of the Council made in the fourth and fifth Session. Before that, the Council had determined nothing at all, nor laid any Obligation upon Believers.  
This the Pope, like a very knowing man, expresses in the terms he makes use of, approving the Council, in the five and fortieth Session. The College of Cardinals and of the Nations, concluded, that a certain Book of F. John Falkenberg, full of Heresies, aught to be condemned. The Ambassadors of the King of Poland, and of the great Duke of Lithuania, who concerned themselves in that Condemnation, publicly besought the Pope to condemn it in full Session before the conclusion of the Council, according to the Resolution taken by the Cardinals and the Nations; and they pressed him to it in so offensive a manner, that they protested in name of those Princes their Masters, that in case of a refusal, they appealed to the next Council.  
Seeing these Ambassadors had spoken so haughtily, and in so disobliging a manner, under the specious Pretext of an extraordinary Zeal for the Faith; and that besides it was not at all to the purpose, that the Pope, in the present Juncture, should give cause to think, that he thought himself obliged to submit to what the Cardinals and Nations had determined in their Assemblies: he weighed his Words, and answered very prudently, making it by his Answer appear, that on the one hand he was not wanting to comply with his Obligations; and on the other, that he knew very well how to preserve his Rights and Liberty.  
For he told them, that he would always inviolably observe and stick to what the Council had decided in matter of Faith, Conciliariter. That shows that he had at least as much Zeal for the Faith as these Ambassadors had, who pressed him in so disrespectful a manner to condemn a Book. And at the same time he adds, that he approves all the Decrees which the Council had made authentically, and according to the forms Conciliariter, but not at all what was done otherwise; as if he would give them to understand, that though he be obliged to obey the Council, and inviolably to approve and observe what hath been defined in the Sessions, yet he is not at all bound to submit to what the Cardinals and Nations might conclude in their Assemblies, without the Authority and Approbation of the Council in their Sessions. This, I think, may undeceive M. Schelstrate, who pretends, that the Pope, by speaking so, makes it appear, that he is above the Council: he ought to say above, not the Council, but the College of Cardinals, and the Assemblies of the Nations, when they are not authorised in the Sessions.  
And therefore, when one of the Ambassadors of the King of Poland would still appeal to the next Council, the Pope commanded him Silence upon pain of Excommunication: and he did very well, because that Appeal was manifestly rash, abusive, and unwarrantable, it being most evident, that a bare Resolution of the Cardinals and Nations, without the Authority of the Council, could not oblige the Pope. And this was the reason why Martin, justly provoked by so unworthy a Proceeding, made shortly after a Bull, 
Joan. Gerson. Tract. an & quomodo possit appellari à Papa.  which he caused to be read, not in the Council, but in a public Consistory, whereby he declares, that it is not lawful for any one to appeal from the Holy See▪ or the Pope, nor to decline his Judgement in cases of the Faith, which, as being greater Causes, aught to be brought before the Pope, and Holy Apostolical See.  
M. Schelstrate alleges these words as his last Argument which he thinks invincible, to prove that the Pope is absolutely above all Councils. But it is very easy to give him an Answer that hath been an hundred times made without Reply, That these Words, and others of the like nature, aught to be understood with relation to all Churches taken particularly, to all Bishops, Archbishops, Primates, and Patriarches, from the Judgement of any of whom Appeals may be made to the Pope, and not to any of them from the Judgement of the Pope who is their Superior, not when they are assembled in Body in a General Council representing the whole Church; but when they are taken separately and each of them in particular, according to these Words of St. Austin in his second Book of Baptism against the Donatists: 
Quis nescit illam Apostolatus prercipatu cuilib●t Episcopatui pr●fere●dum. L. 2. de Bapt. contra Donatist. c. 1.  Who knows not that St. Peter, by reason of the Primacy of his Apostleship, aught to be preferred before any other Episcopacy whatsoever? He says, before every Episcopacy, and not before all Episcopacy in a General Council. So that that Bull of Martin V. no more than another of P●as II. which gins Execrabilis, cannot absolutely condemn and forbid the Practice, but only the Abuse that may be made of an Appeal to a General Council, by appealing to it rashly, without Reason and a lawful Cause, as those Ambassadors of Poland and Lithuania did.  
If, notwithstanding all this, M. Schelstrate will have the Pope, by that Bull, absolutely to condemn all Appeals to a General Council, which nevertheless it doth not express; he may be answered without difficulty, that were it so, yet it could be of no force, because it was not made Conciliariter, and facro approbante Concilio, nor with the consent of the Church, which hath never pretended but that in certain Cases Appeals may be made from the Pope to a Council. 
Quomodo & an liceat à summo pontifice appellare, & ejus Judicium declinare?  To be persuaded of this, he need only read the Treatise written upon that Subject by that learned and holy man John Gerson, Chancellor of the University of Paris, and the Declaration which that famous University made by an authentic Act to Philip the Fair, 
Decl. Uniu. Paris. Ann. 1303. mense Septemb.  that a Comcil might be called, and appealed unto, against Boniface VIII. and that the University consented and would stick, according to the holy Canons, to that Convocation and Appeal, which the King and all France made to the Council.  
If I mistake not, I have hitherto shown the Weakness, or rather, the Nullity of what M. Schelstrate objects, and that Martin V. solemnly approved the Decrees of the fourth and fifth Session, by the Declaration which he made in the last Session, and by the Questions that he will have to be put to Heretics that are converted. But though we had not those two so formal Declarations of that Pope, would our Author make no account of that of Pope Eugenius, concerning which it hath not pleased him to tell us one word? Nevertheless, he cannot be ignorant, that the Council of Basil, 
Basiliense Concilium initio quidem fuit legitimum, nam & legatus aderat Pontificis, & Episconpi plurimi. Bellar. l. 3. de Eccles. Milit. c. 16. & l. 2. de Conc. c. 19  which all men, even Cardinal Bellarmine himself, own to be lawful, in the second Session after its first opening renewed these Decrees of Constance, which were approved by the Cardinal of St. Angelo Juliano Caesarini, who presided therein in name of that Pope. Nor do I doubt but that he knows, that Eugenius iv himself, in the Bull which he made during the time of the sixteenth Session, approved all that the Council till then had done, and consequently these Decrees of Constance renewed in the second Session, and the Synodal Answer wherein the same Council anew confirms those Decrees, and backs them with very strong Reasons, which are there specified at length.  
And now I have but two words to say to M. Schelstrate concerning the Approbation of these Decrees. First, if he be not satisfied with it, he must of necessity reckon as null all the Decrees which the first Councils made against the Arians, Macedonians, and the other Heretics, because it is never to be found, that these Councils have been approved, neither so formally, nor so many times, as the Decrees of Constance have been, by the Pope's Martin V. and Eugenius IU.  
Again, that he ought to know, as I have formerly made it appear, that in the Ancient Church no other Approbation nor Confirmation was ever known to have been made of Councils by the Popes, but the consent which they themselves, as well as others, were obliged to give to them. For, if after that the Councils of Nice and Constantinople which were lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, had defined the Consubstantiality of the Word, and the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Pope's Silvester and Damasus would not have received these Decrees, nor have approved them: it is certain that they would have been reputed Heretics by the whole Church; Who can doubt of that? And these Councils would have been no less infallible than they were in making their Definitions, by the Inspiration of that divine Spirit, which is the Soul of all Ecumenical Councils, according to these Words, Visum est spiritui sancto & nobis.  
For to say that all the Authority of Councils is derived from the Pope, who may not follow and approve their Decisions concerning the Faith, and thereby take from them all their force, is an error condemned by the learned Cardinal of Cambray, Peter D' Ailly, in most significant terms, when preaching before the whole Council of Constance and Pope Martin V in the Year 1417. the second Sunday in Advent, about a month after the Election of that Pope, he related the whole History of the Council which the Apostles celebrated at Jerusalem, and then expressed himself in these Words: By that it is manifest, 
Manifestè reprobatur error quorundam perniciosissimus, & toti Ecclesiae periculosissimus, qui adulando potestati Papae, ita detrabunt Authoritati sacri Concilii, etc.  that the Authority of deciding and defining ought not to be attributed to the Pope alone, but to the whole General Council; whence it follows, that the most pernicious and dangerous Error to the Church, of some men, aught to be condemned, who, to flatter the Pope, so rob the Council of its Authrity, that they have the Boldness to say, that the Pope is not of necessity obliged to follow the Decisions of the Council; and that on the contrary, we should test upon the Judgement of the Pope, if he oppose that of the Church, or of a General Council.  
Thus that great Cardinal, from the chair of Truth before the whole Council of Constance, conform to its Decrees, and in presence of the Pope himself, who found no fault with it, and seemed not at all displeased, that that Opinion was called an Error most pernicious and most dangerous, invented by the Flatterers of Popes.  

Decr. Facult. Ann. 1429. Kal. April.  So also the sacred Faculty, following so good an Example, about twelve years after made F. John Saracen retract that Proposition which he had put into one of his Theses: All the Authority that gives force to the Decrees of a Council, 
Tota authoritas dans vigorem statutis residet in solo summo pontisice.  resides in the Pope alone. He was obliged to make a public recantation, and to change his Proposition into this, All the Authority that gives force to the Decrees of a Council, 
To●● authoritas dans vigorem statutis residet non in solo summo pontifice, sed principaliter in spiritu Sancto & in Catholica Ecclesia.  resides not in the Pope alone, but chief in the Holy Ghost and Catholic Church.  
And certainly it is very rational that the Pope should depend upon the Will of the Holy Ghost, who teaches, as it pleases him, all Truth to the Church, and to the Council which represents it; and not that the Holy Ghost should depend upon on the Will of the Popes, as it must needs do, if after that divine Spirit hath by the Council defined the Consubstantiality of the Word, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Unity of Person, and the Plurality of Natures, Wills and Operations ●n Jesus Christ, and such other Truths concerning the Faith, his Decisions had no Authority, if it pleased not the Pope to consent to ●hem. And this, I think, is sufficient in relation to the Approbation of the Decrees of Constance: one word more as to what M. Schelstrate pretends, that they were only made for the time of a Schism.   

CHAP. XXV. A Refutation of the other Chapter of M. Schelstrate.  
THis Objection that is made against us, is of an old ruinous Engine ready to fall of itself, though we set no strong hand to it to push it down. The truth is, the Council of Constance, which foresaw that it might be made use of to weaken the supreme Authority of Ecumenical Councils, did anticipate and overthrow it even before it was made; and for that end, in the fifth Session, wherein it declared that all men of what Dignity soever, are obliged to obey the Decrees and Ordinances of that sacred Council of Constance, these words are added, And of any other General Council lawfully assembled. 
Et cujuscunque alterius Concilii Generalis legitimè congregati.  He that speaks of any other Council without Restriction, comprehends all times, both out of Schism and during a Schism. So the Council of Basil which was a long time lawful, when there was no Schism● declared that the Pope was obliged to obey it, and every other Council; and the Reasons given for it in that long Synodal Answer approved by Pope Eugenius, necessarily comprehend all times, as may be seen in the two Reasons which only I shall allege.  
The first is, That an Ecumenical Council is a whole, and a Body whereof the Pope, or he that presides in it in his place, is the Head For there is no Acephalous Council, as M. Schelstrate speaks, that is to say, without a Head, calling that of Constance so in the Absence of the Pope. Nay if he refuse to preside when he might, or withdraw himself from it, there is always some body that presides therein in his place; and represents him in that quality of Head, as the whole Council represents the Universal Church; and it will be acknowledged without difficulty, that the Head is no more but the chief Member and principal Part of that great Body, 
Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum universalis Ecclesiae est. Gregor. l. 4. Ep. 8.  as Saint Gregory, speaking of Saint Peter, positively affirms.  
Not as Jesus Christ, who is not only the Head, but also the Master of the Universal Church which he hath purchased with his own Blood; and by consequent it is his Church, it properly belongs unto him, and he can dispose thereof as he thinks fit, as an Owner can do with his Estate, Dominus est. Hence it is that he cannot be said to be but a part of the Church: 
Domious Vniverss, no● est pars universi●●● Arist. 12 Me●aph.  he is over all, as God who is the absolute Master of the World, is not a part of that whole, of that Universe whereof he is the Master, as Aristotle himself hath acknowledged.  
It is not so with the Pope, who is indeed Head of the Church Universal, but not Master, Jesus Christ having said to St. Peter, as well as to all the other Apostles: 
Matth. 20. Mark 12. Luke 22.  The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you. And that entirely ruins that odious Comparison that some would make between our Kings, who are over the States of their Kingdom, and the Popes whom they would place over the whole Church. There is a great deal of Difference: Our Kings are the Masters in their States, exercise Dominion over them; but not the Popes in the Church, but it shall not be so with you. The Pope than is but a part of the Church, and of a General Council that represents it, and not the Master.  
Now it is evident by the light of Nature, that the whole is more noble than every part, and carries it over them, according to that sentence of St. Austin, 
L. de Bapt. c. 4.  Vniversum partibus semper optimo Jure praeponitur. And upon that Maxim received of all Men without contradiction, St. Jerome in one word derides that question, when he saith, 
Ep. ad Evagr.  Major est Authoritas orbis quam urbis. Thus the Pope as the chief part and Head of the universal Church, is above every part, and his power regulated according to the Canons extends over all the Churches taken particularly, and none are exempt from his Jurisdiction, but no ways over all the Churches assembled in a General Council, unless it be for calling of them, and presiding therein. And in this manner is to be understood what is to be found in the Bulls of Eugenius IU. and Leo X. in the Councils of Florence and the Lateran, besides that this last is not agreed upon to be an universal Council.  
The other reason of the Council of Basil in its Synodal Answer is, that an Ecumenical Council hath received the gift of Infallibility as well as the universal Church, which it represents; and that the Pope may err, as I have proved it to have been the belief of all Antiquity. But to avoid disputing: This reason may be set off in a stronger and more convincing manner, by saying, They who hold an opinion contrary to that of the Superiority of a Council, are still ready to grant that during a Schism it is above the Pope, who is controverted, because what is certain aught always to be preferred before the uncertain. This is a Principle then agreed upon on both sides, from whence it may be thus argued.  
It is certain that a general Council representing the Universal Church is Infallible; no Catholic can doubt of this. On the other hand it is not certain that the Pope is so, seeing many very able and Catholic Doctors, and most famous Universities, not only doubt of it, but teach and vigorously maintain that he is not. Hence it must necessarily be concluded, that, seeing what is certain aught to be preferred before the uncertain: The tribunal of a Council which, as it is certainly known, cannot err in its determinations, is over that of the Pope, who, perhaps, may be deceived, there being no certainty of his Infallibility.  
It is evident that those two reasons of the Council of Basil, when it was very lawful and approved by Pope Eugenius, make it appear that every General Council is above the Pope, both in the time of a Schism, and when there is no Schism; seeing in both times the Council is a whole, of which the Pope is but a part; and that it is certain that in both these times the Council is alike Infallible; and that at least, it is not certain that the Pope is, neither in the one nor other of these times.  
Having said so much, I think I have fully answered M. Schelstrate as to what he hath alleged in the dissertation that he hath made against one of the chief Articles of the Declaration of the Clergy of France. For as to the long discourse which that Author makes in one of his Chapters, to persuade us, upon the credit of his Manuscript, that after great debates among the Nations it was at length resolved, by common consent, that the Reformation of the Church in the Head and Members should not be attempted till after the election of the Pope: It is without doubt pitiful and deserves not any answer.  
Can it be concluded from thence that a Pope lawfully elected, who is present and presides in the deliberations of a Council, is not a part of that whole and of that Body which represents the Universal Church, whose Authority ought to be preferred before that of any of its Members in particular, by that reason which proves that the whole is greater and more noble than any of its parts? And by what Philosophy does he pretend to make us acknowledge, that from the presence of a Pope in a Council, it follows that that Pope is not obliged to submit to the Decrees that may be made in it, even contrary to his own Judgement, when they are carried by the plurality of Voices, whether it be of individual Persons or of Nations? That is the very thing in question, to wit, if a Council whether the Pope be there or not, is above the Pope: How will he make out his proof?  
Besides, it was not concluded in that Assembly of the Nations, that no Decrees concerning Reformation could be made before the Election of a Pope, but only that before that time, they should not all be made, and especially such as moderated the Power of the Pope, and confined it to just limits, it being very reasonable that he should be present at those deliberations wherein he was so much concerned. The truth is, not to speak of the other Decrees of Reformation that were already made in the Council, there was a very considerable one made relating to the Pope in the nine and thirtieth Session, before the Election of Martin V. who was not chosen till after the one and fourtieth.  
It is appointed by that Decree that the Pope's being so much the more obliged to make the light of their Faith conspicuous, by how much they are raised in Dignity above all others, shall for the future make in presence of those who have elected them, and before their Election be Published, their Confession of Faith according to the Form prescribed to them by the Council in the same Session. That, without doubt was a pretty important Reformation, seeing thereby was revived what heretofore had been practised, and what King Childebert demanded of Pope Pelagius I. to inform himself of his belief, because it was thought that that Pope had too much favoured the Eutichyans, who had surprised him by their Artifices.  
The Council then might have made the other Decrees of Reformation before the Election of the Pope: but they were willing they should not be made till after that the Pope was elected; and the manner how they appoint that Reformation to be made, is so far from favouring M. Schelstrate, that it infers a conclusion quite contrary to what he pretends, and manifestly proves that the Pope, even when not questioned, is inferior to a Council.  

Statuit & decernit.  And indeed the Council wills and ordains in the fourtieth Session, that the Pope, either with the Council, or with the Deputies of the Nations, do reform the Church in the Head and Members, as to the Points that were to be given him, and that he make that Reformation before the dissolution of the Council. Was there ever a more authentic act of supreme Authority than this? When there was no more Schism, after the union of the three obediences, as M. Schelstrate owns. The Council ordains, that an undoubted Pope, such as certainly he that was to be elected must be, do reform the Church in the Head and Members; but it will have it to be done with consent of the Council. Any Bishop may do as much: the difference is, that he shall not be Precedent of the Assembly, where he shall give his Vote as all the rest do. Now if the Council will not in Body set about that work, it refers it to the care of the Pope in conjunction with the Deputies of the Nations. He doth not act then in that Reformation but by the authority of the Council that deputes him; and all the advantage that he is to have over the rest, is that he shall be the first Deputy at the Head of all the others.  
In fine, they prescribe to him both the Articles upon which they would have the Decrees of Reformation made, and the time wherein they should be expeded. If that be not to ordain, prescribe, command, and consequently if these be not evident marks, and Authentic acts of Authority and Superiority; I know none in the World. What will M. Schelstrate then say now with his long discourse about the five Nations agreeing that the Reformation should not be made till after the Election of a Pope?  
But once more: What does he mean with the great mystery he makes of this, that after much debate in the Assembly of these Nations, concerning the manner how the Decree should be made, whether by obliging the Pope with these Deputies to make the Reformation formation before his Coronation, 
Postea fuerunt factae diversae formae decreti ad h. c: Tandem dictum fuit, quod Papa electus ligari non poterat.  or after, it was at length, said Papa electus ligari non poterat, that when a Pope is chosen he cannot be bound? Does he by that then pretend, that we are obliged to believe, that a Pope lawfully elected, as St. Silvester was, is not obliged to subscribe to the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council, as that of Nice was: And that when such a Council hath decided the consubstantiality of the word, and forbidden Priests to marry, the Pope is not bound by these Decrees as well as the rest of Christians are, and that he is still at liberty to believe of the one what he thinks fit, and to act in regard of the other as he pleases?  
But does he not see, that to have the true meaning of those words they are to be applied to the Subject in question: to wit, whether it should be put into the Decree that the Pope who was to be chosen, 
Ante Coronationem Pape, & Administrationem aliquam.  should be obliged to make the Reformation before his Coronation, nay and before he could have any part in the Government of the Church, and to give good security for it, as the Germane Nation demanded? Whereupon they had reason to say that a Pope could not be obliged to a thing so unbeseeming the Pontifical Majesty, nor so tied up as to deprive him of the Power he hath, by Divine Right, to Govern the Church, by virtue of his Primacy, from the very instant that he is Canonically elected Successor of St. Peter.  
Thus ought these words to be understood in relation to what goes before, and not that the Pope is not obliged to any thing. The truth is, in the Decree that was made after that Conciliariter, in the fourtieth Session, The Pope was not obliged in that manner, as the Germans had proposed, nevertheless he was bound in another most reasonable manner, if I may say so, that is to say, he was obliged to reform the Church in the Head and Members, with consent of the Council, or with the Deputies of the Nations, before the end of the Council. But if M. Schelstrate will still be opinionative and pretend that the Nations understood something else by these words, Quod Papa electus ligari non poterat; there need no other answer to be made unto him, but that we must not stick to what hath been said in the Assembly of the Nations, as he doth, but to what hath been defined Conciliariter, in the Session, as we have just now mentioned.  
I am apt to believe now that M. Schelstrate will be fully satisfied with me, seeing I have exactly answered Point for Point all that he hath said upon his Manuscripts unknown to the whole World for near three hundred years, and which at present, he thinks fit to object to us, as most Authentic Pieces, in the dissertation he hath made against the Declaration of the Gallican Church, and against the perpetual Edict of the King, who, as Protector of the Church, and of her Canons, makes it to be observed in all his Territories; and in fine, against the Council of Constance received by all Christendom, and especially by France, which looks upon and reuerences it, as its Palladium, the prop, support and defender of its liberties.  
This being so, there remains no more but in a few words to conclude what I have hitherto said of the superiority of a Council over the Pope. I made it out in the beginning that all Antiquity believed it, without the least dispute as to that Subject, as there happened about the time of the Council of Pisa. Then I clearly showed what that Council, and the two following of Constance and Basil even approved by the Pope's Alexander V. Martin V and Eugenius iv determined on that Subject in favours of Councils. As to the times that have succeeded these three Councils, it is certain that all those great Men, those Bishops, Cardinals, Popes, those Universities and Learned Doctors of all Nations, who, as I have said, have taught that Popes are not Infallible, have by consequent maintained that an Ecumenical Council, which cannot be doubted but to be Infallible, is above the Pope. But in a particular manner it is a Doctrine which the more renowned Doctors of Paris have always taught; I say, of that learned University the ancientest and most famous of all others; of whom if I should make a List, with the quotations of their Opinions, it would easily fill up a whole Book.  
It is enough for me to mention here what the great Cardinal of Lorraine, fearing that some term might be slipped in the Council of Trent that might be interpreted against that Doctrine of all France, caused his Secretary to represent to Pope Pius iv in the year 1563. These are the proper terms that he put into his instructions concerning that Point. I cannot deny but that I am a French Man, and have been bred in the University of Paris, where it is held that the Pope is subject to a Council; and they who teach the contrary there, are looked upon and noted as Heretics— The French will sooner lose their lives, than renounce that Doctrine— It would be folly to think that there is one Bishop in France, that ever would consent to the opinion contrary to that truth.  
The truth is, 
Edit. Card. Borom. 9 Jan. 1563. Pallabicin. Hist. conc. Trid. l. 19 c. 12. n. 10. etc. 13. n. 2.  The Legates of the Council being instructed from Rome, that they should endeavour so to bring it about, that in the Canon concerning the Pope the terms of the Council of Florence should be used, by putting into it that the Pope hath received the Power of Governing the Universal Church, 
Ibid. n. 7.  inesse summo Pontifici potestatem regendi Ecclesiam universalem, the Bishops of France opposed it, and were followed by most of the Fathers of the Council. Not that these words, regendi Ecclesiam universalem, signify any thing else but that general Jurisdiction of the Pope, which reaches all the parts of the Church, in what concerns the Public good of all Christendom, that he may see to it, according to the Canons, as the Council of Florence expresses it, so as we have made it appear. But they would not have these words Ecclesiam universalem, so much as abused, to insinuate thereby that the Pope is above the Church universal, taken altogether assembled and represented by an Ecumenical Council.  
And therefore, to remove all ambiguity, and to prevent the wresting of these words to a sense contrary to the Superiority of a Council, they said, that instead of Regendi Ecclesiam universalem, it ought to be put into the Canon, Potestatem regendi omnes fideles, & omnes Ecclesias; that the Pope hath the Power of Governing all Believers and all Churches: which is to be understood of all, not Assembled in Council, but taken severally and in particular, none of them being exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Pope in what relates to the public good, the general Government, and the cases limited by the Canons. So careful even to a scruple, have our Ancestors been, to stand upon their guard on that side; that not attack in the least might be made against the ancient Doctrine always inviolably observed in this Kingdom. And it is most remarkable, that at that time when the Doctors of Paris most strenuously maintained that Doctrine, after the Councils of Constance and Basil, against those that strove to invalidate their Decrees, 
Innoc. VIII. Litter. ad Theol. Paris. 7. i●. Sept. Ann. 1486.  Innocent VIII. sent them a Brief, wherein he makes their Elegy, and amongst other things magnifies the greatness of their zeal which they expressed for maintaining the honour and rights of the Holy Roman Church, and for defending the Catholic faith against the Heresies, which they incessantly confuted.  
After all, that I may end where I began to handle this question, I shall conclude with the testimony of another Pope, whom the Authors who will have it, as M. Schelstrate will, that Popes are above Councils, can never reject. And that is Pius II. who when he was no more but Aeneas Silvius Picolomini, Clerk to the Council of Basil, whereof he hath given us the History, maintained with all his might, as well as the Doctors of Paris, that the Authority of a General Council is Superior to that of a Pope. But when he himself was promoted to be Pope, he thought, for a reason that may easily be guessed at, that he ought to make known to the World, that he had changed his Opinion, and that then he thought the quite contrary of what before he had maintained with all the heat that a Man ought to have who is well persuaded of the Justice of the Cause whereof he undertakes the defence.  
And that he solemnly did by a Bull, wherein he retracts; and in that Recantation, that he might declare that he followed another Opinion, he would not stifle the manifest truth, concerning the nature of the Opinion which he forsook, and of the other that he embraced. For in this manner he speaks in his Bull, hinting at the Conferences and Disputes that were had with Juliano Cesarini Cardinal of St. Angelo, who stood up for the interest of the Pope as much as he could, and yet for all that agreed in Judgement with the Council wherein he presided. 
Tuebamur antiqaam seutentiam, i le novam defendebat: Extollebamus generalis concilii autoritatem, ille Apostolicae sedis potestatem magnopere commendabat.  He defended, says that Pope, the Ancicient Doctrine, and he took the part of the new. We extolled the Authority of the Universal Council, and he magnified extremely the Power of the Apostolic See.  
This now is plain dealing. 
Pius II. in Bull. retract.  That Pope, who was willing to change his Opinion with his condition, which after him Adrian VI. did not declares fairly and honestly in his Bull, that the Doctrine whereof he had formerly undertaken the Defence, concerning the Superiority of a Council, is the Doctrine of Antiquity, and that the other is new. And that is all I would be at, I need no more to gain my cause: For all that I have pretended to in this Treatise, is to show what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Points in hand. So that after so authentic a Declaration of Pope Pius II. I have ground to say, as to this Article, what I have already oftener than once said in relation of the others, with Pope Celestin I. writing to the Bishops of the Gallican Church, Desinat incessere novitas vetustarem.   

CHAP. XXVI. The state of the question, touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal.  
I Have, if I mistake not, made it clearly appear in all the preceding Chapters of this Treatise, how far the Ancient Church hath believed that the Power over Spirituals which Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter and his Successors, as Heads of the Universal Church extended. I am now to show, whether, according to the Judgement of venerable Antiquity, they have also any Power over the Temporal of any person whatsoever, and especially of Kings and other Sovereigns, by virtue of the primacy that by Divine right belongs to them.  
Heretofore there have been some so passionately concerned for the Grandieur of the Apostolical See, or rather so blindly devoted to the Court of Rome, that differs much from the Holy See, that they have dared to publish that the Pope representing the person of Jesus Christ, who is King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Universal Monarch, who hath an absolute Power over all Kingdoms, from which he may even depose Kings, if they fail in their duty, as these Kings may turn off their Officers who behave not themselves as they should. And this is called the direct Power which Boniface VIII. thought fit to take to himself in his Tuae unam Sanctam, that his Successor Clement V was obliged to recall.  
That is not the question here: For I cannot think that now a days there is any Man who hath the boldness to maintain so palpable and odious a falsehood. But there are a great many beyond the Alps, who by the Philosophical distinction of an indirect Power which they have invented, teach that the Pope may dispose of Temporals, depose Kings, absolve Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they have taken to them and transfer their Dominions to others, when he judges it to be necessary for the good of Religion, because, say, they since he hath the inspection over every thing that concerns it, so hath he Power to remove, destroy, and exterminate every thing that may annoy the same; and by that clinch they cunningly enough come home to their Point though they would seem to forsake it. For a Pope will always take the pretext of the welfair of Religion, when he has a mind to undo a Prince, as all these Popes have done who after Gregory VII. deposed Emperors, and since them Julius' II. who transferred the Kingdom of John King of Navarre to Ferdinand King of Arragon, because that King would not declare against Lovis XII. whom this Pope persecuted.  
Now seeing that Opinion which the Gallican Church, and all our Doctors have always reckoned very dangerous and inconsistent with public tranquillity, hath still vouchers amongst some Modern Doctors, especially beyond the Alps: I must now make it appear, according to the method which I have followed in this Treatise, what the Doctrine 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 merely 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 own 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 Caesar's, 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 Desert; when they talked of making him a King? 
Luke 12.  Who would not so much as judge of a difference betwixt two Brothers concerning their Succession? And that he positively told his Apostles oftener 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 shows 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, though 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 learned 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, says he, 
Si hosts exertos, non tantum vindices occultos, agere vellemus: deesset nobis vis numerorum & copiarum?— vestra omnia implevimus, urbes, insulas, castella, castra ipsa etc. sola vobis relinquimus Templa— cui Bello non idonei, non prompti fuissemus, etiam impares copiis, qui tam libenter trucidamur; si non apud istam disciplinam m●gis occidi liceret quam occidere?  revolt by openly declaring ourselves 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 ourselves to be inhumanly put to death with so much Joy, if we had not learned in the School of Christ, that we had better suffer ourselves 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 satisfy 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 own to them, is of Divine Right.  
Now neither Popes nor the Church can destroy and overthrow what God hath fixed, nor dispense 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, that the contrary opinion has not so much as the least appearance of any rational ground in Scripture. For of all the passages that are cited for maintaining it, there is not so much as one that is interpreted by the Church in Councils, nor by any of the Holy Fathers, in that most erroneous sense that they put upon them. Wherein these Modern Authors who in that manner do interpret them, act directly contrary to the Decree of the Council of Trent, fourth Session, and against the Confession of Faith enjoined by Pius IU. which will have Scripture never to be interpreted but according to the sense that Holy Church gives it, and according to the common Interpretation of the Fathers. These new Doctors in that most dangerously follow the conduct of Heretics, who for maintaining their Errors, interpret as they please, and not as the Church pleases, the Scriptures, that they may wrest them to their sense. 
Bellar. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Suarez. l. 3. de Prim. Sum. Pont. c. 3. l. 6. de form. Jur. fidel. c. 4. Becan. Anglico contr. c. 3. qu. 3.  This appears manifestly in those two passages, upon which Bellarmin, Suarez, and after them Becanus and all the others, who, as these, have copied or abridged them, chief ground their opinion.  

John, Last.  The first passage is that where Jesus Christ says to St. Peter, Feed my Sheep, Feed my Lambs. Is there so much as one of the Holy Fathers, who hath understood these words of the Power which St. Peter hath received over the Temporal of Princes? There is none of them who hath not expounded them as they ought to be, of the Spiritual Pasture which Popes are bound to give to Believers, by Doctrine, Example and good Government, and never one of these Doctors and Masters in the Church ever let it enter into his Head to wrest them to a Temporal meaning, as these new Divines have done. And more, 
Ambres. l. de dig. Sacer. c. 2. Chrys. hom. 79. in Matth. c. 24. August. de Agen. Christian. c. 30. Tractat. 47. in Joan. in Ps. 108. & alii.  most part of these Holy Fathers having said, what is most true, that Jesus Christ applies these words in the person of St. Peter to the whole Church in general, and to all its Pastors in particular, if the new sense that these new Doctors give to them were to be followed, it must be said, that all Bishops and all Curates had right to dispose of the Temporals of those who by their bad Doctrine, or scandalous deportment do injury to the Spiritual good of their Churches. And as to that comparison which they make betwixt the Shepherd in respect of the Wolf, which he may dispatch omni modo quo potest; and the Pastor of the Church in regard of a Prince who may have fallen into Heresy; it is not only a base Sophism contrary to the rules of right Logic, but also impious and detestable, which leads Men in a full career to Parricide, and for which the Books that contain it have been justly condemned to the fire.  
The second passage is taken out of St. Matthew, Chapter sixteenth, where the Son of God says to St. Peter, That whatever he shall bind upon Earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever he shall lose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Whence these new Rabbis conclude that the Successors of St. Peter have Power to dissolve the obligation that binds Subjects to their Prince, by the Oath they have made to him, and by the tie of Allegiance which binds them in fidelity to him. Is it not strange that Catholics should take this liberty of wresting the sense of Scripture to what they list, without any respect to the common interpretation of the Fathers, to which the Council of Trent obliges them? For of all the Holy Fathers who have expounded that passage, there is not so much as one to be found who hath so understood it: all of them have interpreted it of the Power that that Apostle received of losing and absolving Penitents from their sins. Nor do the Popes themselves expound it otherways, 
Paul. 1 Ep. ●0. ad procem. Fran. Ad●i. Ep. 1. ad Carol. Magn.  as it may be seen in the Epistle of Pope Paul I. to the French Lords, and in that of Adrian I. to Charlemain.  
To absolve Men from their sins, is it to absolve them from their Allegiance? And that whatever, which signifies only any sort of sin and censure, and some obligations that are not of Divine Right; can that Power, I say, be extended to this Temporal, and to the duty that Subjects own to Kings? To persuade us of the contrary, we need only read the words that go before these. I shall give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, says Jesus Christ, and not, of the Kingdoms of the Earth, for deposing of Kings. And those that follow comprehend the use of the Power of the Keys that he giveth him, for opening the Kingdom of Heaven, by forgiving Men their sins, or for shutting it, by not absolving them, 
John 20.  as he in another place expresses himself, speaking to all the Apostles after his Resurrection.  
But that we may not swerve from the words in question, we need no more but read the Eighteenth Chapter of the same Gospel of St. Matthew. There it is to be seen that Jesus Christ repeats them to all his Disciples, and gives them the whole Power that they import, by saying to them: Verily I say unto you, that whatever ye shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever ye shall lose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven. If these words comprehend the sense that the new Authors give them, and that their meaning is also of the Temporal, it must needs be said that all the Bishops who are the Successors of the Apostles, nay and all Priests who have the Power of binding and losing, may depose Kings, and dispense their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance, which is the highest extravagance. Or else, let these Gentlemen tell us by what Authority of the Church or Holy Fathers they find that when they were said to St. Peter, they have a different meaning from that which they ought to have when they were spoken to St. Peter and to all the Apostles.  
Now that is a thing they'll never be able to find out. 
Miss. Rom. An. 1520. Paris. apud Francis. Renaud. Miss. Rom. à Paulo III. nefar. Ann. 1543. Diurn. Monast. Congrez. Cassin. à Greg. XIII. confir. Venet. ap. Juris.  And this is so true, that the Church of Rome herself, sticking to the sense wherein all the Holy Fathers have expounded these words which Jesus Christ said to St. Peter, will not understand them but of the Power which he hath given him of binding and losing Souls. For in all the ancient Missals, Breviaries, and Diurnals, in this manner was read that Prayer, which is said in the Feastival of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch: Deus, qui Beato Petro Apostolotuo, collatis clavibus animas ligandi atque solvendi Pontificium tradidisti. This perfectly well expresses the nature of that Power of binding and losing, which reaches not beyond men's 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 guests 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 Judgement 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. chrysostom speaks, aught to be Subject to their Sovereigns, though they be Pagans and Heretics, 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. chrysostom, St. Austin in his fifth Book of the City of God, and above all Tertullian in his Apology, where he says 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 learned 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. chrysostom 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. de 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 joined to their ministry, 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 Caesar's, 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 though 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 Judgement 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, says, that these two Swords signify 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 easy matter to answer them, first that that is a witty thought and an Allegory of St. Bernard's 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 Doctrine 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 Pope? We maintain that it signifies there, according to the absolute will of the Pope? We maintain that it signifies there, According to the advice and counsel of the Pope: which is plainly to be seen by the opposition of these words, ad nutum Sacerdotis & ad jussum Imperatoris, which signify two different things, that the Soldiers take Arms by the command of the Emperor, ad Jussum, and by the advice of the Pope ad nutum. It cannot be said that that is by the command, otherwise St. Bernard would have said briskly, ad Jussum Sacerdotis & Imperatoris; but he makes a distinction, and for the one says ad Jussum, and for the other ad nutum, by the counsel and advice.  
Just so as it is said of the Disciples in the Gospel, Annuerunt sociis qui erunt in alia navi; They beckoned to their companions that were in the other Ship: that annuerunt, beckoned does not signify a command, but an advice, an exhortation. They pray them to come: So that ad nutum which comes from the same verb annuere, means nothing more, but the advice, counsel and exhortation of the Pope, as urban II. exhorted the Emperor and all Christian Princes to cross themselves, and to take Arms against the Saracens for rescuing the Holy Sepulchre. And as we see at present that Pope Innocent XI. exhorts all the Potentates of Europe to League against the Turk, and sends Money to the Emperor and King of Poland to carry on the War in Hungary against that common Enemy of all Christians. It will not be said for all that, that the Pope commands these Princes to employ the material Sword: all that can be said of it is, that the Germans and Polanders make good use of their Swords in Hungary, and beat the Turks, ad nutam Sacerdotis, & ad Jussum Imperatoris; by the counsel and exhortation of the Pope, and by the command of the Emperor and the King of Poland.  
But to prove to these new Doctors that that is the true sense of St. Bernard, I'll only object to them the same Saint in the same Treatise of Consideration to Pope Eugenius, wherein doubtless it will not be said that he hath contradicted himself, by overthrowing in one place what he hath built up in another. For in this manner he speaks to the Pope, upon what our Saviour three or four times told his Apostles, that he would not have them to be like the Kings of the Gentiles, that bear Rule over their Subjects: It is plain, saith that Holy Man, that all Dominion is forbidden to the Apostles. 
Planum est Apostolis interdicitur dominatus: ergo tu, & tibi usurpare aude, aut dominans Apostolatum, aut Apostolicus dominatum, plane ab alterutro prohiberis, aut si utrumque similiter habere voles utrumque perdes l. 2. de cons. c. 6.  Go then boldly and usurp the Apostleship either by domineering, or Dominion by retaining the Apostleship. From one of the two you are excluded: If you think to retain both, you shall lose both. Are these the words of a Man that would have Popes so far to domineer over Kings as to depose them, and transfer their Crown to others, seeing he will not so much as have them to have any Dominion?  
Not that he finds fault that Eugenius III. as other Popes have had, should enjoy Lands and Principalities, and those vast demains which they hold of the liberality of the Kings of France, and which, by the favour of times they have since converted into Sovereign and independent States. Grant, 
Esse, ut aliâ quâcunque ratione haec tibi vindices, sed non Apostolico Jure: nec enim ille (Petrus) tibi dare quoth non habuit potuit.  adds St. Bernard, that you have that Temporal Dominion by any other title: but I declare you have it not as Pope, nor by any right of Apostleship; for St. Peter who had no such thing, could not give what he had not. So that Popes as Popes have no other Power but what is purely Spiritual, for binding or losing Souls, and have nothing to do with the Temporal of the meanest of Christians, much less with that of Kings.  
After this, I am not of the mind that the new Doctors will be found of alleging to us the words of St. Bernard, nor indeed, be able to oppose any considerable Authority to that of all the Ancient Fathers, since Bellarmin himself, in the Treatise that he made of the Power of the Pope as to Temporals against William Barclay, produces only for justifying his Opinion, the Authors of the last four or five hundred years. What can all these upstarts do against the Fathers of the Ancient Church? It is enough to send them packing to tell them once more, what Pope Celestin I. said, Desinat novitas incessere vetustatem. But because we speak with a Pope; and that the question in Hand concerns the intetest of all Sovereign Popes, let us now see what the Belief of the Ancient Popes hath been as to the same Point.   

CHAP. XXIX. The Judgement of Ancient Pope's touching the Power over Temporals, that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope.  
THESE of all Men are evidences of greatest Authority, and least to be rejected, seeing the question is about a Power that some would attribute to them, and which they openly declare they have not. I mean Ancient Popes, who for most part were great Saints, and who very well understanding their obligation, have always kept within the bounds of that Spiritual Power which they have received from Jesus Christ, for Governing his Church according to the Laws and Canons of Ecumenical Councils, so as the Council of Florence defined it.  
The truth is, they were so far from attempting any thing upon the Temporal of Emperors and Kings, though even Infidels and Heretics, as to deposing of them, and absolving their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they had taken to them, that they have always openly protested that they were wholly submitted unto them, as most humble Subjects, and have acknowledged, as well as the great Osius, that distribution which God hath made of the Temporal for Sovereigns, and of the Spiritual for the Church, for the Popes and Bishops.  
There is nothing more evident than this in Ecclesiastical History: We need only read the Epistle of Pope Gelasus I. to the Emperor Anastasius, wherein he makes that distinction of the two Powers, one Temporal, and the other wholly Spiritual, and both independent one of another: That of Nicolas I. to the Emperor Michael, wherein he distinguishes them, Actibus propriis & dignitatibus distinctis, by their Dignities and proper Functions, which are of two quite different kinds; and what Gregory II. wrote to Leo Isauricus, a most wicked Arch-heretick and cruel Persecuter of Catholics, saying to him in one of his Letters: In the same manner as the Pope has no Power of inspecting the Palace of Emperors, 
Quemadmodum Pontifex introspiciendi in Palatium poteftatem non habet, ac dignitates regales conferendi: sic neque Imperator in Ecclesias introspiciendi, etc. Gregor. II. Ep. 2. ad Leon. Isaur.  nor of conferring Royal Dignities, so neither hath the Emperor any right to meddle with the Government of the Church.  
This is enough, to show that Cardinal Bellarmine hath impertinently made use of the example of that Pope against us, because according to the relation of some Greek Historians, though the Latins of that time take no notice of it, he by his Authority hindered the Romans his Subjects from paying the Tribute which they owed him. To overthrow this weak Argument there needs no more, but to consider Gregory in the quality of Pope, and then in the quality of the chief Citizen of Rome. As Pope he wrote to that Iconoclast Emperor long and excellent Letters, wherein joining force to affection, he admonishes, reproves and exhorts him, he prays him, and threatens him with the Judgements of God; and then, so far was he from deposing him from his Empire, that he prevents as much as in him lay, all Italy from revolting against him, and from acknowledging another Emperor, thereby maintaining the People, who were ready to shake off the insupportable yoke of so wicked a Prince, in their obedience.  
But when he saw that Leo grew more and more obdurate in his impiety; that he had attempted two or three times to have him assassinated; and that he gathered together all the Forces of the Empire, to come and do at Rome, as he gave it out in all places, what he had done at Constantinople, in beating down the Holy Images, and putting all to Fire and Sword, if they renounced not the Ancient Religion: Then, having as Pope, declared him Excommunicated, he did, as chief Citizen of Rome, as the rest did, what the Law of nature allows, to wit, take the Arms out of a mad Man's Hand, and prevent the giving him money, which he would have used for their ruin and desolation, and afterward he put himself with the other Romans under the protection of Charles Martel, for the safety of their Religion and Lives, though for all that, this Pope never offered to depose Leo, nor to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance. For he himself and his Successors long after acknowledged the Greek Emperors for their Sovereigns, and it was not before the Empire of Constantin and Irene, that the Romans, and with them the Pope, as a Member of that Civil and Politic Body, and not by his Pontifical Authority, seeing that they could no longer be defended against the Lombard's by the Greeks, who had abandoned them, submitted to Charlemain.  
This is fully and clearly made out in my History of the Iconoclasts: Wherein it may be seen that the example of Gregory II. which Bellarmin alleges against us, is nothing at all to the purpose. As also more it may be seen there that Pope Adrian I. wrote to Constantin Copronymus and to Leo his Son, both great Heretics, in very submissive terms, as to his Masters and Sovereigns; and that's a thing which the Ancient Popes never failed to do.  
Let it be considered with what submission Pelagius I. wrote to Childebert King of France; who would have him send to him a Confession of his Faith. He obeyed his orders, and told him that according to Holy Scripture Popes ought to be subject to Kings as well as other Men, Quibus nos etiam subditos esse Sacrae Scripturae testantur.  
In what manner did Stephen II. implore the assistance of Pepin against the Lombard's? I beg of you, 
Peto à te tanquam praesenti aliter assistens provolutus terrae & tuis vestigiis prosternens. Steph. II. Ep. 4. ad Pip.  says he, that favour, as if I were in your presence prostrate upon the ground at your Feet.  
Can there be terms of greater humility and of a more perfect obedience, than those which the great St. Gregory makes use of in one of his Letters to the Emperor Mauricius, who enjoined him a thing to which he had great aversion, and which in his own Judgement he thought contrary to the Service of God? 
Ego verò haec Dominis iners loquens, quid sum nisi pulvis & vermis?— Ego quidem Jussioni subjectus, etc. Greg. l. 2. Jud. 11. Ep. 62. ad Mauric.  What am I, says he, who represent this to my Masters, but a little Dust and a Worm? For my part, who am obliged to obey, I have done what hath been commanded me: and so I have fulfilled my obligations on both sides, for on the one Hand I have executed the Emperor's order, and on the other I have not failed to represent what the cause of God required.  
And in another Letter upon occasion of his being informed that the Lombard's had put a Bishop to death in prison, 
De quâ re unum est quod brevitur suggeras serenissimus Dominis nostris, etc.  he would have it represented to the Emperors, whom he calls his most Serene Masters, that if he would attempt any thing against the lives of the Lombard's, that Nation should have no more King, Duke, nor Count: But because I fear God, says he, 
Sed quia Deum timeo, in mortem cujuslibet hominis me miscere formido. l. 7. Jud. 1. Ep. 1.  I am loath to have an Hand in any Man's death.  
He therein followed the example of one of his Predecessors St. Martin I. who would never resist, though it was in his Power, the orders of the Emperor Constans a Monothelite Heretic, who caused him to be carried away from Rome to Constantinople, and from thence into banishment. And although those who would have opposed that violence, called out to him, 
Nulli eorum accommodavi aurem, ne subito fierent homicidia. Melius Judicavi decies mori, quam uniuscujusqu● sanguinem in terram fundi. Epist. Mart. 1. ad Theodor.  that he should not yield, and that he should be well backed, yet he would not listen to them, for fear it might come to Arms and Slaughter be committed, Judging it better, said he, to die ten times, than to suffer the Blood of one single Man to be shed.  
These holy Popes who were so afraid lest the least drop of humane Blood should be spilt, were far from deposing Kings and Emperors, and giving away their Dominions to others, under pretext of the good of Religion, as long after them some of their Successors did; which was the cause of so many cruel Wars that with Blood and Butchery filled Italy, Germany, and France itself during the League.  
In this manner the ancient Popes kept within the bounds of their Power purely Spiritual, rendering the honour and obedience which they owed to Temporal Powers, and especially to their Sovereigns, nay even to their Sovereigns who were heretics and Enemies of their Religion. This makes it very apparent, what learned Men have so clearly proved, that it is no more to be doubted of; to wit, that these Letters of St. Gregory are supposititious, wherein he ordains that every King, Prelate, or Judge that shall neglect to preserve the Privileges which that Pope gives to the Abbey of St. Medard of Soissons, and to three other Monasteries of Autun be deprived of his Dignity, and as a destroyer of the Church, separated from the communion of Believers, and from the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; that, in fine, he be smitten with all the anathemas which till then had been thundered against all Heretics, damned like Judas, and with him sent headlong into Hell, if he do not do penance, and make his peace with the Monks.  
Such extravagant terms as these, and so remote from the temper and stile of St. Gregory are alone sufficient to discover the gross imposture, and the supposition of these pretended Bulls, which some have not been ashamed to make use of, for subjecting the Crowns of Sovereigns to the Pope. That holy Pope behaved himself in a far different manner in relation to Kings and Emperors, as may be seen in all his Epistles. 
Lego & relego Romanorum regum & Imperat rum gesta, & nusquam invenio quemquam eorum ante hunc à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum, vel Regno privatum. Otto. Fris. l. 6. c. 35.  And that wise conduct which his Predecessors held, continued still after him until Gregory VII. who, according to the observation of the learned Otho Bishop of Frisinguen, was the first Pope, that contrary to so many good Examples of his Predecessors, takes to himself the Power of deposing Kings, warranting himself, as he himself says in his Letter to Heriman Bishop of Mets, by this, that Jesus Christ gave St. Peter the Power of binding and losing. 
Waltr. Naumbourg. Apol. pro Henr. IU. l. 1. c. 3. & 4.  To which Waltram Bishop of Naumbourg made the same answer that we make at present to those who abuse that passage contrary to the interpretation of all the Fathers, that that Power was given to lose Men from their sins, and not from the Oath of Allegiance which Subjects are bound by a divine and indispensable Law to observe towards their Sovereigns.  
It was upon that so weak and ruinous a foundation, That this Pope Gregory undertook against the Ancient Doctrine of above a thousand years, to settle that false and pernicious Opinion which he, the first of all Popes, put into practice, by Excommunicating and Deposing the Emperor Henry iv For as to what is said to the contrary of Pope Zachary whom Bellarmine pretends to have taken the Crown from Childerick, and given it to Pepin, is of no force, and must needs proceed from a great ignorance of our History. It was the French Lords, who, 
Ann. 752.  after that they had consulted the Pope, to be informed by him if they might lawfully make that Translation, did in effect do it, upon the Pope's answer touching that case of Conscience, whether right or wrong is not the question in Hand. The words of Ancient Authors are express in acquainting us, that it was no more but a consultation on the part of the French, that they might Authorize their action by the advice and opinion of the Doctor and Father of Christians. Missi sunt ad Zachariam Papam, 
Chron. ver. à Pith. Edit.  ut consulerent, saith an Ancient Chronicle. They sent to Pope Zachary to consult him upon the Point. Missi fuerunt ad Zachariam interrogando— si bene fuisset an non, 
Ann. Francor. Metens.  etc. says another Author. They sent to Zachary to ask the question if they should do well or ill in deposing Childerick, and putting Pepin in his place. The Pope's advice was only asked, which was not approved by his Successor.  
For Theophanes a Greek Author of that time, tells us that Pope Stephen gave Pepin absolution for the sin which he had committed by violating the Oath of Allegiance which he had taken to Childerick. If that be so, it remains to inquire which of the two Popes was in the right: But it is not my part to examine that question. It is enough at present that I say, to prove that the French applied not themselves to Zachary, as to him who had power to depose their King, that they did not so much as consult Pope John XV. when they placed Hugh Capet on the Throne, instead of Charles, who had abandoned them to close with the Germans.  
As to what concerns Leo III. who is said to have transferred the Empire of the West to Charlemain, it's a mere illusion. I have made it clearly out in the History of the Iconoclasts, that four years before Charlemain was Proclaimed Augustus, he was Master of Rome, and of Italy as King of France, and that he took not that title of Emperor, which he did not at all care for, but because the French Lords and Romans that were his Subjects besought him to do it: And it is certain that the Pope was the first who rendered Homage to him as to his Emperor, and that he had no other part in that Ceremony but the same which the Archbishop of Reims has in the Coronation of our Kings.  
It is certain then, as Otho of Frisinguen assures us, that Gregory VII. was the first Pope that offered to depose Kings. I have made it clearly enough out in my History of the Fall of the Empire, how he form and pursued so terrible an enterprise: But I should be very glad, that it might be taken from a very famous ultramontean Author, Onuphrius Panvinius à Veronese, of the Order of St. Augustine's Hermits, in the life of that Pope. In this manner he speaks of it. 
Primus omnium Romanorum Pontificum Gregorius VII. armis Normannorum fretus, opibus Comitissae Mathildis mulieris per Italiam potentissimae confisus, discordiâ Germ●norum Principum Bello civili laborantium inflammatus, praeter majorum morem, contemptâ Imperatoris Authoritate & Potestate, cum summum Pontificatum obtinuisset, Caesarem ipsum, à quo si non electus, saltem confirmatus sucrat, non dico excommunicare; sed etiam Regno Imperioque privare ausus est. Res ante ea secula inaudita. Nem de fabulis quae de Arcadio, Anastasio, & Leone Iconomacho circumferuntur, nihil moror.  Gregory VII. is the first of the Popes of Rome, who, supported by the Norman Forces, trusting to the great assistance of Money, which he got from the Countess Mathilde a most powerful Princess in Italy, and encouraged by the divisions amongst the Princes of Germany, who were engaged in a Civil War, dared, contrary to the custom of his Predecessors, slighting the Imperial Authority and Power; so soon as he was promoted to the Papacy, I shall not only say to Excommunicate, but even depose from Kingdom and Empire, the very same person, by whom, if he was not chosen, he was at least confirmed in his dignity. A thing unheard in all foregoing Ages: For I take no notice of the tales that have been spread abroad of Arcadius, Athanasius, and Leo Isauricus the Iconoclaste. Before that, (saith the same Author) Popes were Subject to the Emperors, and durst neither judge 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 complete 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. King's have been threatened 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 herself, 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 Judgement and Doctrine 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine, and upon all occasions condemned that pernicious novelty which is contrary to it. This I intent briefly to prove.  
The Gallican Church, since the settlement of the most Christian Monarchy amongst the Gauls, 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, Lovis, and Pepin, Sons of Lovis the Debonair; instigated by some who had a mind to make their advantage of the dissensions that they had sowed betwixt the Father and his Children, 
Auct. Anonym. Vic. Ludou. Pii.  risen in Arms against him, and found means to engage into their party Pope Gregory IU. 
Ann. 832.  who came in person to their Camp, to favour their pretensions. 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, cur●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 not 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 enjoin 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 Lovis 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 IU.  

To the Estates General at Paris. 1614, 1615.  Now if Cardinal Duperron hath in his Speeches said something not altogether consistent with the Doctrine 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 State's General, in name of whom he spoke, 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 Doctrine 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 Catholics 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 Doctrine 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, 
 de ce qui se passa aux Estate, Generaux entre le Clergi et le Tiers Estate. 1615  and that it ought to be held for a Maxim, That the King in Temporals can have no other Superior but God alone, 
Discourse veritable de ce qui se passa aux Estates 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 Doctrine 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 Estate. Avis donné au Roy en son Conseil par M. le Prince sur le Cahier du Tiers Estate.  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 Catholic 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, 
Discourse veritable dece qui s'est passé, etc.  That our Kings depend upon none but God us to Temporals, and that there is no Power upon Earth that can depose them, nor dispense with, or absolve their Subjects from the Obedience and Allegiance that they own to them, under any pretext whatsoever. That was their Doctrine, which they would not have to be weakened 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 Judgement, 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 Caesar's, 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 Doctrine ought inviolably to be observed as not only necessary for the public 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine, 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 Authentic 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 Prefix 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine 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 thundering sentences of Parliament, against all such as ever durst in France maintain and teach that pernicious Doctrine condemned by these Decisions and Censures, 
Of 2 Decemb. 1561.4 Januar. 1594. 7 & 10 Jan. 1595. 27 May, & 26 Nou. 1610. 27 July 1614 2 Jan. 1615. etc.  which in this Kingdom are reverenced as proceeding from God, upon whose word they are grounded. So that a Doctrine 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 registered 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 Doctrine 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 Doctrine 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 inferiors 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 Doctrine, 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 Doctrine 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 Catholics 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 knowledge, 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 itself 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 easy 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, & c●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 clothed, may have dazzled the Eyes of that crowd 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 Doctrine: 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 Doctrine.  
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 Catholic, by doing what he enjoins me, when he says:  
Christianus Catholicus providebit ut Antiquitati inhaereat, quae prorsus non potest ab ulla Novitatis fraude seduci.  
The Catholic 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 Doctor's Physician 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 Malcontent being the sequel of the progress of Honesty.  
Vivat Rex, a Sermon Preached 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.