Of the Church fiue bookes. By Richard Field Doctor of Diuinity and sometimes Deane of Glocester.

CHAP. 43.

Of such Popes as are charged with heresie, and how the Romanists seeke to cleare them from that imputation.

HAuing examined our Adversaries proofes of the infallibilitie of the Popes judgement, taken from the acceptation of his judgement as right and good by all the world, whensoeuer hee defined anything: let vs come to the o∣ther proofe of the same, taken from the felicity of the Romane See in for∣mer times. a 1.1 Ruffinus saith, that before his time no heresie had euer taken be∣ginning in the Romane Church, but our Adversaries proceede farther, and feare not to b 1.2 pronounce after sixteene hundred yeares, that no hereticke did euer sit in the See of Rome: which their proud bragge will bee found much more vaine then true, and many vnanswerable instances will bee brought of wicked heretickes

possessing that chaire. Tertullian in his booke against Praxeas speaketh of a Bishoppe of Rome, but nameth him not, that admitted and allowed the prophecies of Monta∣nus and his two Prophetesses, Prisca and Maximilla, and held communion with the Montanists till he was disswaded by Praxeas. Who (as he saith) caused the prophe∣cies of Montanus and his Prophetesses to be banished, and brought in heresie, who banished their Paraclete, and crucified the Father. But because Tertullian was a Mon∣tanist, and wrote partially in things that concerned them (though c 1.3 Rhenanus say, the Bishop of Rome did Montanize) yet for my part (no other history reporting any such thing of any Romane Bishoppe) I will not vpon Tertullians bare word, charge any of them with any such heresie.

But (howsoeuer wee thinke of Tertullians report) we finde in the Councell of Si∣nuessa, in the d 1.4 Pontificall, in the Epistle of Nicholas the first, to Michael the Empe∣rour, in e 1.5 Platina and others, that Marcellinus did sacrifice vnto idols, and so at least in outward action shewed himselfe an infidell; which is a higher degree of impiety then heresie. If it be said, he committed that execrable act of idolatry, not out of a∣ny mis-perswasion of his minde, but feare of death, it will be replied, that if the pas∣sion of feare bee able to worke so ill effects in Popes, as the vtter abnegation of Chri∣stianity, and the professing of themselues to bee Pagan infidels, by publicke outward acts of idolatry, there is little reason to be giuen, but that some other sinister and vile affection may carry them as farre to make profession of heresie, a thing not so ill as Paganisme. Wherefore f 1.6 Baronius, to prevent the worst, and to make all sure, incli∣neth to deny, that euer Marcellinus committed any such act of idolatry, and discredi∣teth the report of the Councell of Sinuessa, in which he is said to haue beene condem∣ned. Wherein hee doth as much disaduantage the Romane cause another way, in de∣priuing his friends of so good an authority as the resolution of that sacred Synode, that Prima sedes á nemine iudicatur, that is, that the first See is iudged of none; as hee advantageth it in the clearing of Marcellinus; and therefore hee is rightly blamed by Binnius for his inconsiderate rashnes in this behalfe. * 1.7

But that wee may be assured, that Popes may be hereticks as well as infidells, wee haue the confession of as good a man as Baronius, acknowledging the same. For h 1.8 Bel∣larmine saith, that Liberius (howsoeuer for a long time he continued constant in the profession of the true faith, so that for the same his constancie he was banished, and a∣nother by the Arrian faction put into his place) yet in the end weary of banishment, he was brought to subscribe to heresie, and was in his outward courses an hereticke whatsoeuer his heart was, whereof God onely is the searcher; so that iustly as an he∣retick he was condemned, & pronounced to be no Pope any longer by his own Cler∣gie. This he proueth out of the testimonies of i 1.9 Athanasius and k 1.10 Hierome, who say expressely, that being weary of his continuance in banishment, he was at last brought to subscribe to heresie: And l 1.11 Hilary (who speaking to Constantius the wicked Arri∣an Emperour) hath these wordes: Afterwards thou diddest turne the course of thy warre against Rome, whence thou tookest the Bishop, ô wretched Emperour! I canne hardly say, whether thy impiety were greater in sending him into banishment, or in sending him home againe. Thereby insinuating that he restored him vpon very ill conditions. And that he was not restored, but by some kinde of consenting with the Arrians, it is most cleare, in that m 1.12 Zozomen reporteth, that the Arrian Bishops assembled at Sirmium, sent their letter to Felix, then Bishop of Rome, & the Clergy there, kindly to receiue Liberius, and that both Felix and he might sit as Bishops, and gouerne the Romane Church together: which they would neuer haue done, if they had not found him tractable & yeelding; yet could not these two Bishoppes endure one the other long, notwithstanding these letters. And therefore n 1.13 Hierome saith, that Liberius impati∣ent of any longer continuance in banishment, subscribed to hereticall prauity, and so returned to Rome as a conquerour, and cast out Felix who had possessed himselfe of the Episcopall chaire, and put divers other of the Clergie also out of the Church; and o 1.14 Bellarmine himselfe confesseth, he hath seene in the Vatican Library, manuscript E∣pistles of Liberius, some written to the Emperour, and some to the Easterne Bishops,

wherein he signifieth plainly enough, that in the end hee was content to yeeld to the will of the Emperour. And besides, if the Romanists doe not acknowledge that Li∣berius was a conuicted hereticke, (there being no other cause but heresie for which (as they thinke) a Pope may lawfully bee iudged and deposed) they must put Felix, who was Pope while Liberius yet liued, out of the number of Popes, whom yet their church doth worship as a Pope Saint, and a Martyr. So that wee see, Liberius was justly judged and condemned as an hereticke; and that, seeing a Pope, in that he be∣commeth an hereticke, ceaseth to be Pope, hee lost all the priuiledges that belong to Peters successours, and so might decree for heresie: yea, I thinke there is no reaso∣nable man but will confesse, that his subscribing to heresie that is the head of the church, is a decreeing for heresie. Now that he subscribed to heresie, we haue the expresse testimony of Saint Hierome. p 1.15 After the banishment of Liberius by the meanes of Acatius, Bishoppe of Caesarea in Palestina, who was a great man with Con∣stantius the Emperour, Felix, a Deacon of the church of Rome, was chosen Bishop, and appointed to succeed him. This Felix, (as q 1.16 Theodoret testifieth) was a Catho∣licke, and held the profession of faith agreed on at Nice, but communicated freely with the Arrians. Wherevpon hee was so much disliked by those that were Ca∣tholickes, that none of them would once enter into the house of prayer while he was within. For that, though he were not in perswasion and vocall profession a full Ar∣rian, yet by communicating with them, and being ordained by them, he consented to their wicked and hereticall courses. Neither doth it appeare by any history of cre∣dit, that euer he refused to communicate with the Arrian heretickes, during the time he quietly possessed and enioyed the Bishopricke of Rome. But the contrary is more then probable, because when Liberius subscribed, and was thereupon sent home with letters of commendation from the Arrian Bishoppes assembled at Sirmium, r 1.17 they carefully prouided for Felix his continuance in the Episcopall office still, and desired that the violences and outrages committed in the time of his ordination (when the people for the loue they bare to Liberius were in an vprore, and some of them were slaine) might be forgotten, and that both of them might sitte and gouerne the church together, as Bishops of the place; which fauour the Arrian Bishoppes would neuer haue shewed to Felix, if he had disclaimed their communion. So that it is more then probable, that he neuer forsooke the communion of the Arrian hereticks. For Libe∣rius returning as a conquerour, so soone as hee came to Rome, cast him out of the Church, and shortly after hee dyed; and therefore I cannot see what reason the Roma∣nists haue to put this good man into the Kalender of their Pope Saints, whose entrance into the Episcopall chaire was not onely schismaticall (there beeing a catholicke Bi∣shop yet aliue, & suffering banishment for the catholicke faith) but violent & bloudy also (for he got the place by the meanes of bloody heretickes, making himselfe guilty of all the sinnes of those heretickes with whom he communicated) and of whose re∣linquishing and abandoning the communion and fellowship of the Arrians, there is no mention found in any Authour of credit, but in the Authour of the s 1.18 Pontificall on∣ly, who hath as many lies as words in his narration concerning Felix. For first, hee saith, he sate but one yeare, three moneths, and three daies, whereas it is reported by t 1.19 Theodoret, that Liberius had beene more then two yeares in banishment before suite was made to the Emperour for his returne; all which time Felix was Pope. Second∣ly, he saith, Felix declared and published Constantius the sonne of Constantine to be an hereticke, and that Constantius was rebaptized, or the second time baptized by Eu∣sebius Bishoppe of Nicomedia, neare vnto Nicomedia; which thing is most false, as u 1.20 Binnius in his Annotations telleth vs, because both x 1.21 Athanasius and y 1.22 Socrates doe affirme, he was baptized by Euzoius an Arrian, when he was ready to die. And Hi∣larius after the time of this supposed baptisme inueyeth against him, for that not be∣ing baptized, he presumed to prescribe to the Church a forme of faith. Thirdly, he saith, Felix built a certaine Church, while he was a Presbyter, whereas it is certaine, that of a Deacon hee was made a Bishoppe, and neuer liued in the degree of a Presby∣ter. And fourthly, touching the death of Felix he is very vncertaine and doubtfull, * 1.23

and others speake nothing of his martyrdome at all. Heereupon (as both a 1.24 Bellar∣mine, and b 1.25 Binnius report) in the time of Gregory the thirteenth, in the yeare of our Lord 1582. where certaine learned men in Rome were deputed to correct the Mar∣tyrologe, they were doubtfull whether they should put his name into the new Marty∣rologe or not, seeing both his entrance into his Bishopricke was violent, bloudy, and schismaticall, and his end vncertaine, and they inclined to leaue it out; which they had done, if a certaine marble chest had not beene found in the Church of Cosmas and Da∣mianus, the 28 of Iuly, the day before his wonted and accustomed feast, with this in∣scription in olde characters: Heere lyeth the body of Felix the Pope and Martyr, who condemned Constantius the hereticke. Whereby wee see how little reason the Roman Church hath to worship this Saint, and to admire the providence of God, in preser∣uing this See Apostolicke from heresie; in that, as they would beare vs in hand, Felix after he heard of the subscription of Liberius, who thereby ceased to bee Pope, con∣demned the Arrians, was admitted by the Catholickes, and became a true Bishop, suffering death vpon the returne of Liberius; as if the very See did change the mindes of all that sit in it, and make them good, how bad soeuer they were before; whereas Felix c 1.26 being in his entrance a schismaticke, in communion, if not in profession, an he∣reticke, and in his ordination which was voyde, no Bishop, and no history of credite reporting either his condemning Arrianisme, or his admission to bee a Bishop after the deposition of Liberius by the Catholickes, or what his end was; it appeareth that heretickes and schismatickes may possesse the chaire of Peter, and bee worshipped for Pope Saints after their death. But whatsoeuer became of Felix, they say, Liberius af∣ter the death of Felix became a Catholicke, and got the loue of the Catholickes; and so by their acceptation of him, became a true Bishop againe, and in that state dyed. Thus doe our Adversaries seeme to carry this matter very fairely, as if all were safe & well, whereas indeed they are in a very great straite, for either Liberius was an heretick be∣fore his returne home, and justly deposed for heresie, or else Felix was neuer true Bi∣shop, and then their Church hath worshipped a schismaticke as a Pope-Saint for the space of a thousand yrares: if he were an hereticke, and justly deposed (as to iustifie Felix, they must be forced to confesse) hee could neuer bee restored to the Episcopall office and dignity againe. For the d 1.27 Canon of the Church is, that no Catholicke be∣comming an hereticke, and being condemned by the Church for such a one, shall euer bee receiued to Ecclesiasticall honour againe: so that hee could not dye true Pope, as our Adversaries dreame he did. Let them shew vs how they can cleare themselues from sundry absurd contradictions in this point, and we will rest satisfied. For wee doe not deny, but that hee might repent of his subscribing to heresie, and dye a Ca∣tholicke, though some of the testimonies that Bellarmine bringeth, will scarse proue it.

The next Pope that we finde to haue beene touched with any suspition of heresie, is Anastasius the second, whom the Author of the e 1.28 Pontificall taxeth. First, for that he communicated with Photius, a Deacon of the Church of Thessalonica, that had com∣municated with Achacius, Bishop of Constantinople, without the counsell of the Bi∣shops and Presbyters of the Catholique Church; which his inconsiderate action, made many of the Presbyters and Cleargy refuse to communicate with him. Secondly, for that he sought to restore Achacius, whom Felix and Gelasius his predecessours had condemned: for which fact hee was suddenly stricken of God, in such sort that he dyed. To these f 1.29 Gratian addeth another taxation, reprehending him for that hee al∣lowed the baptisme and ordination of such as were baptized and ordained by Achaci∣us after he was become an hereticke. But because the baptisme and ordination of he∣retickes is holden good, and it appeareth by the Epistle of Anastasius to Anastasius the Emperour, that Achacius was dead before he was Bishop, and that hee desired to haue the name of Achacius razed out of the Diptickes of the Church, after his death: I will passe by this censure of the Authour of the Pontificall, and Gratian as doubtfull, and leauing Anastasius, come to Vigilius; who (as g 1.30 Liberatus reporteth) to get the Pope∣dome like a notable dissembling hypocrite, pretended at Rome to be a Catholicke, but

in his letters to Theodora the Empresse, who was an hereticke, condemned the Catho∣licke faith: and promised that if Syluerius might be thrust out, and hee put into his place, he would restore Anthemius Bishop of Constantinople, reiected by Agapetus for heresie. Which being brought to passe by Theodora the Empresse, and Syluerius vn∣iustly banished, he sate for a while as an Anti-pope and an heritique. But when as Syl∣uerius was dead, he professed himselfe a Catholique, and refused to performe that hee had promised to Theodora. Whether this man being an hereticke in his outward pro∣fession at his entrance, and by such profession getting the Popedome vnjustly, schisma∣tically, and as an Anti-pope, could euer after be true Pope, let our Aduersaries giue vs answere, when they haue aduisedly thought of it.

The next Pope that is charged with heresie, is Honorius the first, whom the Christi∣an world, and not a fewe particular men onely condemned as a Monothelite. For in the h 1.31 sixth generall Councell, his Epistles to Sergius the heretique are publikely read and condemned, and he accursed as an hereticke. The i 1.32 seauenth generall Councell like∣wise doth anathematize Honorius, Sergius, Syrus, and the other Monothelites. In the k 1.33 eigth generall Councell, called about the matter of difference betweene Ignatius and Photius, the acts of the Councell of the West vnder Adrian the second, are read and allowed; wherein Adrian professeth, that none of the inferiour Sees may judge the greater, and specially Rome, vnlesse it be in case of heresie; in which case they of the East did anathematize and accurse Honorius: which yet (he sayth) they would not haue aduentured to do, if the Romane Church had not gone before them in such condemna∣tion of her owne Bishop. Pope Leo the second in his Epistle to Constantine the Em∣perour, which wee finde in the end of the sixth generall Councell, accurseth the same Honorius as an heretique and a wicked one, that defiled and polluted the Apostolike chaire with heresie. With Leo consenteth l 1.34 Tharasius Bishop of Constantinople, m 1.35 Theo∣dorus Bishop of Hierusalem; n 1.36 Epiphanius in his disputation with Gregory, in the sixth Action of the seuenth generall Councell: o 1.37 Psellus, p 1.38 Beda, and the q 1.39 Author of the Pon∣tificall. These authorities may seeme very sufficient to proue, that Honorius was an here∣tique: yet so well are our aduersaries affected to him, that they will rather discredit them all then suffer him to be spotted and disgraced: and therefore some of them say, that the sixth generall Councel is corrupted; & likewise the Epistle of Leo the second, in the end of it: & that the Fathers in the 7^th Councell were deceiued by the 6^th, as like∣wise Pope Adrian with the whole Romane Synode, and the other Authors, that con∣curre with them in the condemnation of Honorius. Others thinke that indeede the 6^th Councell condemned Honorius, but vpon false information, and so erred in a matter of fact. Which conceipt is no way probable. For that the Fathers of the Councel procee∣ded not rashly, r 1.40 but caused the Epistles of Honorius written to the heads of the faction of the Monothelites (for which he was suspected,) to be openly read and examined. But (say they) first, these Epistles haply were counterfeit, 2^ly If they were not counterfeit, there is nothing in them contrary to the truth. Neither of these answeres is sufficient. For first, that the Epistles were not coūterfeit, it appeareth by Maximus, s 1.41 who answe∣reth a place brought out of one of thē, & sheweth the meaning of it, as frō the Secreta∣ry that wrot it, then liuing. 2^ly, If these Epistles had bin coūterfeit, the Legates of Aga∣tho present there, would haue taken exception to thē, & not haue cōsented to the con∣demnation of one of his predecessors vpon coūterfeit euidence. Neither is the 2^• an∣swere better thē the 1^st: for that the Fathers assēbled in a generall Coūcel, should not be able to vnderstand the Epistles of Honorius, & judge whether they were hereticall or not, as well as the Iesuites now liuing, is very strange. But let vs suppose the Iesuites to haue more wit thē all those worthy B^s & Fathers that were assembled in the sixt Coun∣cel, & let vs see by taking a view of the Epistles themselues, whether they may be clea∣red frō the error they haue bin charged with, or not. It is not to be denied, but that Ho∣norius in these his Epistles t 1.42 confesseth, that the nature of God in Christ, worketh the things that are diuine: & the nature of man, the things that are humane, without diuisi∣on, confusion, or conuersion of one of thē into another: & that the differences of these natures remaine inuiolable. But in that he denyeth, that there are two actions in Christ,

the one of Deity, and the other of Humanity; in that he saith, it is absurd to thinke, that where there are more natures then one, there must be more actions then one: and al∣loweth of Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, and Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, who were Monothelites, rather then of Sophronius Bishoppe of Hierusalem, a right worthy and learned Bishop (who defended the truth against them both, and whose learned Epistle to Sergius Bishop of Constantinople, we finde in the u 1.43 sixth generall Councel:) it cannot be avoided but that he erred in matter of faith, in such sort, as by consequence it ouerthroweth that distinction of the two natures of God & man in Christ, which hee seemed to acknowledge. Neither can it be cleared from suspition of hereticall & bad meaning, that he maketh it but a curiosity of philosophers to acknowledge a two∣fold action in Christ, & denieth that the fathers euer defined any such thing; whereas Pope Martine the first in the x 1.44 Synode of Rome saith, it is cleare by the determination of the Fathers, that the two natures of Christ remaine vnconfounded in the vnion, & vndiuided, as also his two wills, and the two distinct actions, & naturall properties of them. Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrhus, found in the second Tome of the Councells, cleareth one sentence of Honorius, wherein hee seemeth to acknowledge but one will in Christ; affirming out of the testimony of him that wrote that Epistle for Honorius, that hee meant it of one will of the humane nature of Christ; thereby shewing, that there was no such contrariety of desires found in him as in vs. But what is that to the other things that are obiected to him? Two obiections our Aduer∣saries haue against them who thinke that Honorius was condemned for heresie. The first is, that the sixth generall Councell could not condemne him, without being con∣trary to it selfe, in y 1.45 allowing the Epistle of Agatho, wherein he saith; that the faith neuer failed in Peters chaire, and that his predecessours did alwayes confirme their brethren. The second, that some Writers speaking of the Monothelites, and naming diuers of them, omit him; that z 1.46 Maximus in his Dialogue against Pyrrhus, Theopha∣nes Isaurus in his History, cited by a 1.47 Onuphrius, and Emmanuel Chalica in his booke in the defence of the Latines against the Greekes, affirme, he was euer a catholicke; & some other, as Beda, Anastasius Bibliothecarius, Blondus, Nauclerus, Sabellicus, & Platina, doe speake of him as of a Catholicke Bishop. The first of these obiections I haue answered else-where, shewing that some of Agathoes predecessours, might * 1.48 for some short space faile to doe their duty, in confirming their brethren, & swarue from the trueth; and yet that be true he saith in that Epistle, that in the See it selfe the faith neuer failed: and that his predecessours fell not either so many, or in such sort, but that the Bishoppes of that Church did euer reach forth their helping hands to o∣ther, either in the beginning of each heresie, or before it was vtterly extinct and sup∣pressed; as it fell out in this, both in respect of Pope Martine and others before, and of himselfe now. To the second wee say, that it doth not seeme to be strongly pro∣ved, that Honorius was no hereticke, by the silence of some few. That Maximus doth not cleare Honorius generally, but one sentence of Honorius onely. That Theophanes Isaurus doth not goe about to cleare Honorius from heresie, but saith onely, that the Canons of the sixth Councell were not made by the same Fathers that were at first assembled, but by others. So speaking nothing of Honorius, who was condemned in the Councell, and not in the canons; and that the rest, to wit, Chalica, and some few other liuing long after the time of Honorius, are no sufficient proofe against that cloud of witnesses, which wee produced in the beginning. And therefore there is yet no∣thing brought to reproue the testimony of onr witnesses, or to make good that hee was alwayes a catholicke, which is the thing to be proued.

With Honorius wee may joyne Gregory the third, who in his c 1.49 Epistle to Bonifa∣cius, giueth leaue to a man, whose wife falleth into some such infirmity, as maketh her vnfit to company with him, to marry another; so that hee giue her maintenance. And that he speaketh not of any impediment before marriage not knowne, which maketh the contract voyde from the beginning, but of such infirmities as fall out afterwards, it is evident. First, in that he saith: If any mans wife shall be taken with such infirmity, &c. Secondly, in that he prouideth: That the husband shall prouide for her main∣tenance;

which in case of a voyde contract from the beginning, is no way reasonable. Thirdly, in that he saith: He shall thus prouide for her, seeing infirmity, and not wicked∣nesse driueth him from her. Fourthly, in that he saith: It were better he should containe; seeing in case of abuse by vnknowne defect and impediment, making the contract void from the beginning, there is no more cause why a man so abused, should containe and refraine from marriage, then any other. Now to permit marriage by reason of any defect or infirmity ensuing after the first marriage, I thinke our Adversaries will not deny to be erroneous, seeing the contrary is defined in the d 1.50 Councell of Trent. Nei∣ther doth it excuse this errour of Gregory, that Bellarmine alleadgeth out of e 1.51 Austin, who maketh some doubt whether the wife with her husbands consent, yeelding to the wicked desires of him in whose hands he is, to saue his life, bee excusable from sin; seeing he doth but vpon a particular accident propose a disputable question; and the o∣ther resolueth and giueth warrant for the practise of an vnlawfull thing, and that as a Pope in his directions to Bonifacius, hauing newly converted certaine barbarous peo∣ple to the faith of Christ.

Wherefore let vs proceede to see whether therebe any moe Popes that may justly be charged with errour or heresie. Wee reade in the f 1.52 stories of the Church, that one Formosus, Bishop of Portua, being hardly thought of, and suspected by Iohn the Pope, left his Bishopricke, and fled for feare of him; that being called backe by Iohn, & refusing to returne, he was anathematized by him; & that at last comming into France to satisfie the Pope, he was degraded, and put into a Lay habite, and made to sweare neuer to enter into Rome any more, nor euer to communicate but as a Lay man: yet afterwards by Martinus, Iohns successour, he was restored to his Bishopricke, absol∣ued from his oath, came to Rome, and in the end obtained to be Pope, contrary to the mindes of many of the Romanes, who desired rather to haue had one Sergius a Deacon of the Church of Rome, but prevailed not. Whereupon there grew great question with much scandall, some affirming that his consecration, and the consecration of such as he ordained, was voyde: others, that whatsoeuer were thought of Formosus, yet for the dignity of his Bishoply office, and the faith of those he ordained, their ordinati∣ons were to be holden for good, especially seeing he was absolued from his perjury by Martinus the Pope. The next Pope (saue one) that succeeded Formosus, was Stephen, who sate but foure moneths, yet was not idle, but though hee had beene ordained Bi∣shop of Anagnia by him, persecuted him with deadly hate, and pronounced the ordina∣tions of all such as he had ordained to bee voide. After him succeeded Romanus, and after Romanus, Theodorus, who being contrarily minded to Stephen, reconciled those whom Stephen had degraded, but presumed not to consecrate or ordaine them againe. After Theodorus, followed Iohn, who, to confirme the ordinations of Formosus, pro∣nounced voide by Stephen, called a Councell of 72 Bishops, the Archbishops of France, and the King being present: and in the sight of them all, caused the Acts of the Synode which Stephen held for condemnation of Formosus, to be burned. After Iohn succee∣ded Benedictus, and aftet him Sergius the Deacon, that missed the Popedome when Formosus got it. This Sergius in revenge of his former repulse, forced the Romanes with threates and terrours, to account the ordinations of Formosus voide, and (which is not to be spoken) drew him out of his graue after hee had rested in it a good space: put vpon him the Papall vestures, set him in Peters chaire: commaunded him to bee beheaded, and then cutting off three of his fingers, caused him to bee cast into Tiber, degrading all that he had ordained. Heere we see Popes clearely convinced of here∣sie, and defining and decreeing for heresie. For seeing Formosus was sometime vn∣doubtedly a true Bishop, it was an errour in faith to say, that his ordinations were voide. This is so cleare, that g 1.53 Bellarmine denyeth it not, but saith onely, that neither Stephen, nor Sergius published any decree, that their ordinations were voide, whom Formosus had ordained, and that they were to be re-ordained: but did onely so re-or∣daine, de facto, in their fury, & distempered passions: wherein he is clearely refuted by h 1.54 Sigebert, who saith expressely, that they decreed omnes ordinationes eius irritas esse de∣bere: that is, That all his ordinations were to be taken and reputed for voide.

To Stephen and Sergius we may adde Caelestinus the third, who (as i 1.55 Alfonsus á Castro truly affirmeth) cannot by any meanes be excused from heresie, in that hee taught, that the bond of marriage is so dissolued by heresie, that he whose wife falleth into heresie, may lawfully leaue her and take another. This decree of Caelestinus is not now to be found in the Decretals, but it was in the ancient; & Alfonsus, professeth he read it k 1.56 there himselfe. Now that it is hereticall in the judgment of our aduersaries, it is euident, in that l 1.57 Innocentius the third teacheth the contrary, and the m 1.58 Councell of Trent defineth otherwise. Neither doth Bellarmines answere, that he did not passe any Decree, but on∣ly deliuer his owne priuate opinion, helpe the matter. For n 1.59 Gratian maketh the De∣cretals equall in authority with the Canons of Councels, and our aduersaries are wont to proue the Popes power by his Decretals, as if all they were subject to him, and bound to obey him to whom he writeth them.

The next Pope that is charged with heresie, is Nicholas the fourth, who o 1.60 defineth, that Christ taught both by word and example most perfect pouerty, consisting in the abandoning of al propriety in things, and right or claime to them, either in particular, or in respect of the whole Colledge & company of men living together, and that such pouerty is pleasing to God, and meritorious. For the better vnderstanding of this mat∣ter we must distinguish the vse of things, and the proprietie in them, or right & claime to them. p 1.61 The proprietie in things, and the right and claime to them, is two-fold; ei∣ther absolute, when men may judicially challenge a thing as their own, and vse it how, & in what sort they will, so that it be not prohibited by the law of God and nature; or restrained and limited: as Clergy-men may chalenge the possessions & lands belonging to them, & judicially recouer them if they be with-holden from them; yet may they not so freely dispose of them, as Lay-men may of theirs. The vse of things is two-fold. For there is vsus juris, & vsus facti. Vsus facti is when one hath the vse of a thing, but so, that he hath no right to vse it, warrantable by any positiue or humane law; & if any one will depriue him of it, he cannot by law hinder him. Vsus juris, is the right one hath to vse a thing, leauing the claime of the possessiō of the substance of it to the owner there∣of. This kinde of vse is likewise two-fold: nudus, and vsus-fructus. The former is when one hath right to vse a thing; but so limited and restrained, that he may neither sell, let, nor giue the same right. The later when he may. The Franciscan Friars imagining the height of Christian perfection to consist in extreme pouerty, by their vow of pouerty abandon, not only in particular, as do other Religious, but in generall, euen in respect of their whole company and society, all interest, right and claime to lands, liuings and pos∣sessions, or to the vse of any such thinges leauing nothing to themselues, but the bare vse of such things as by free gift, begging, or labour, come to their hands; without all right to vse them pleadable and justifiable by any course of humane law. So that if any one will take the bread out of their handes, before it come to their mouthes, or the clothes from them, wherewith they hide their nakednesse, they may not complaine of him for so doing, nor prosecute any suite against him for it. This kinde of pouer∣ty Pope Nicholas affirmeth Christ taught, both by word and example, and willeth the Franciscanes according to their rule, strictly to obserue the same. And for their safety and security taketh order, that all moueables giuen to them for vse, shall in respect of right belong to the Church of Rome, as likewise their Oratories, and Ce∣miteries But their dwellinges not so, vnlesse the giuer expresse an absolute gift (which yet must not be to the Fryers, but to the Church) and the Church expressely accept the same. For otherwise the owner may at his pleasure take them away a∣gaine. Farther he ordereth, that such such things as are giuen to them, and they haue the vse of, they may either of themselues change them for such other things as they neede or desire, or cause the gouernour and disposer of them appointed by the Pope, to sell them, and with the money to buy such things as they neede, and let them haue the vse of them, as bookes and the like. For with money they themselues may not meddle. Pope Iohn the two and twentieth, following Nicholas, and finding by experience, that these Fryers did but abuse the world with their faire shewes of perfection, q 1.62 con∣demned their hypocrisie, and would be no patron of it, as his predecessour was. First,

therefore hee shewed, that perfection consisteth essentially in charity, wich Paule na∣meth the bond of perfection, & that the abandoning of propriety in things maketh no∣thing to perfectiō, farther thē it excludeth the care that is wont to be found in men, in getting, keeping, & disposing of them, weakning the act of diuine loue, So that if there be as much carefulnesse in men after the disclaiming of propriety in things, as before, their seeming pouerty maketh nothing to Christian perfection. Now he sayth, that after the ordination of his predecessour, these Fryers were no lesse carefull in getting and keeping things both by begging, judiciall suing, and the like meanes, then any o∣ther mendicants that haue some things as their owne in common. And that therefore howsoeuer they pleased themselues, their obseruation was of no more perfection then theirs that had something of their owne in common. Secondly, he shewed, that these mendicants hauing the vse of such things as are giuen to them, and the Church of Rome the propriety (in name and title, but not in deede, being onely to secure them in the vse thereof, and to make no benefit) that it is but a single right the Church hath, and that they are in trueth and indeede no poorer then they that haue thinges of their owne; seeing they may change the vse of one thing for another, or at least cause the procurator, designed by the Church of Rome, to change things into money, and buy for them such as they rather desire to haue, making vse of all things that come to their hands at their pleasure, as much as they that haue them of their owne. Third∣ly, hee pronounced, that to thinke that Christ and his Apostles had nothing of their owne in speciall or common, and that they had no right to vse such things, as they had, to sell them, giue them, or with them to buy other, is contrary to the Gospell, condemneth Christ and his Apostles of iniustice, and ouerthroweth the whole Scrip∣ture. Yet Pope Nicholas defined, that Christ & his Apostles had nothing of their own, either in speciall or common, and that the hauing of a common bagge no way con∣trarieth this conceit, seeing that was but by a kinde of dispensation in the person of the weake and imperfect; and to shewe, that he disliketh not them that come short of his perfection. Thus we see Pope Nicolas erred in a matter of faith, patronized hy∣pocrites in their faignes shewes of counterfeit perfection, & was disliked and contra∣ried by his owne successour Iohn the two and twentieth for the same; by reason where∣of there grew a maine difference betweene Pope Iohn and the Franciscan Fryers, hee charging them with heresie and persecuting them from place to place: and they like∣wise disclaiming him as a damnable heretique, and no Pope. The principall men on the Fryers part were r 1.63 Michael Caesenas, and s 1.64 Occam the great Schoole-man, who hath written much against Pope Iohn, touching this argument.

Neither is Pope Iohn (though in this point of Christian perfection hee were of a sounder & better judgment then his predecessor) & any happier thē he. For he is like∣wise charged with errour in matter of faith (& that not vniustly) by the same Friers, that he so much hated & persecuted. For (as Occam testifieth in his t 1.65 Dialogues) hee taught, that the soules of the just shall not see God till the generall resurrection: and that not faintly, or doubtingly, but in such passionate and violent manner, as not to en∣dure those that thought otherwise. u 1.66 Gerson likewise in his sermon vpon Easter day, before the French King and his Nobles, sayth, That the theefe on the crosse in that very hower that Christ spake vnto him, was made happy, and sawe God face to face, according to the promise of Christ made vnto him, This day shalt thou bee with mee in Paradice; and that thereby the doctrine of Iohn the two and twentieth is proued false, that was coudemned by the Diuines of Paris with the sound of trumpets, before King Phi∣lip, vncle to the King before whom then he spake; the King rather believing the Diuines of Paris, then the Court of Rome. x 1.67 Bellarmine, to deriue the hate of this matter from the Pope to others, would willingly fasten this errour on Caluine, and to that purpose alleageth y 1.68 two places out of him. But neither of them proueth any such thing. For in the first, he speaketh not of any stay of the Saints departed without, in outward courts, out of heauen till the resurrection (as the Cardinall strangely mis∣understandeth him) but sheweth by a most apt comparison, that as in the time of MOSES Law, the high Priest onely entred into the Holiest of all to make an

attonement, and all the people stayed without: So none but Christ goeth into the pre∣sence of God, to make peace, and to worke the great worke of reconciliation, and that all the sonnes of men are to expect without, till hee bring them assurance of fauour and acceptation. And in the second place where saith, that the dead are joyned with vs that liue in the vnity of the same faith, his meaning is not, that faith opposite to sight is found in the Saints after death, as it is in vs, but that they haue a cleare view, and pre∣sent enjoying of those things which we beleeue. Neither is there any thing found in Caluine that may any way excuse the errour of Pope Iohn. Thus then (I hope) it doth appeare by that which hath beene saide, that Popes are subiect to errour, that they may become Heretiques, and define for heresie, and that therefore the second supposed priviledge of the Roman Bishop, which is infallibility of judgment, is found to haue no proofe at all. Wherefore let vs proceede to the third, which is his power to dispose of the kingdomes of the World, and to ouer-rule the Princes and Poten∣tates thereof.

Notes

• a 1.1

  In exposit. symboli.
• b 1.2

  Bell. de Rom. Pont. l. 4. c. 8
• c 1.3

  Annotat. in Tert. contra Praxeam.
• d 1.4

  In vita Mar∣cellini.
• e 1.5

  In Marcellino
• f 1.6

  Annal. Ann. 303. num. 99.
• * 1.7

  g Annot. in acta conc. Sinuessa∣ni.
• h 1.8

  De Pontif. li. 4. cap. 9.
• i 1.9

  Athanas. in e∣pist. ad solitar•…•…. vitam agentes.
• k 1.10

  Hieron. in Chronico. & in Catalog. Script. Eccles. in For∣tunatiano.
• l 1.11

  Hil. in lib: ad∣uers. Constanti•…•…
• m 1.12

  Zozom. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• n 1.13

  In Ch•…•…onico.
• o 1.14

  Vbi suprà.
• p 1.15

  Hieron. in Ca∣talog. Script. Ecclesiast. in A∣cacio.
• q 1.16

  Theodoret. hist. Eccles. l. 2. cap. 17.
• r 1.17

  Sozom. l. 4. 14.
• s 1.18

  In Felice.
• t 1.19

  Theodoret. v∣bi suprà.
• u 1.20

  Binnius an∣not. in vitam. Felicis.
• x 1.21

  Athanas. lib. de Synodis.
• y 1.22

  Socrates: lib. 2. cap. vlt.
• * 1.23

  z Hilar. lib. de Synodo.
• a 1.24

  De Pont. l. 4 c 9.
• b 1.25

  Annot. in vit. Felicis.
• c 1.26

  Ruffin. Eccl. hist. l. 1. c. 22.
• d 1.27

  Hier. contra Luciferianos. Cypr. l. 2. cp. 1
• e 1.28

  In vita Ana∣stasii 2.
• f 1.29

  Dist. 19. ca. Anast.
• g 1.30

  In Breviario c. 22.
• h 1.31

  Actione 13.
• i 1.32

  Actione 7.
• k 1.33

  Actione 7.
• l 1.34

  In Synod. 7. actione 3.
• m 1.35

  In Epistolâ Synodicâ quae habetur in eâ∣dem. 7. Synod. actione 3.
• n 1.36

  Synod. 7. acti∣one 6.
• o 1.37

  In Carm. de 7. Synodis.
• p 1.38

  De 6. aetatib. in vita Con∣stantini. 4.
• q 1.39

  In vita Leo∣nis.
• r 1.40

  Actione 12.
• s 1.41

  Disp. Maximⁱ cum Pyrrho in 2 Tom. Concil. apud Binnium.
• t 1.42

  Actione 12. Synod: 6. & act. 13.
• u 1.43

  Actione 11.
• x 1.44

  Concilior. Tomo 2.
• y 1.45

  Actione 4.
• z 1.46

  2. Tomo. con∣cil. apud Binni∣um.
• a 1.47

  In vitâ Hono∣rij apud Plati∣nam.
• * 1.48

  b Chap. 42.
• c 1.49

  Decret. part. 2. causa 32. qu. 7. Cano. pro∣posuisti.
• d 1.50

  Sess 24. c. 2.
• e 1.51

  Lib. 1. de ser∣mone Dom. in monte c. 29.
• f 1.52

  Sigebert. in Chronico anni 900. & Seq. Platina. in Ste∣phan. & Sergio.
• g 1.53

  De Pont. lib. 4. c. 12.
• h 1.54

  Anno 902
• i 1.55

  De haeres. lib. 1. c. 4.
• k 1.56

  In Decretal. cap laudabilem de conuersione Infidelium.
• l 1.57

  Cap. Quanto de diuortijs.
• m 1.58

  Sess. 24. can. 5.
• n 1.59

  Alfonsus à Castro. contra haeres. lib. 1. c. 2.
• o 1.60

  Cap. exijt de verb. signif. in Sexto.
• p 1.61

  Ockam oper is 90. dierum. c. 2.
• q 1.62

  In extraua∣gant. ad Condi∣torem Cano∣num.
• r 1.63

  Vid. litera•…•… Michael. Cae∣sen. in fine Di∣olog. Occami.
• s 1.64

  Occam. in o∣pere 90. die∣rum & alibi.
• t 1.65

  2. partis tract. 1. in initio.
• u 1.66

  Part. 4. ope∣rum ejus. With Gerson agreeth Adrian. 6. in q. de Confirmat. circa finem.
• x 1.67

  De Pontif. lib. 4. cap. 14.
• y 1.68

  Instit. lib. 3. c. 20. & 24.