flagrant suppression of important facts necessary to a correct understanding of the Council of Constance, let us come directly to the important points of his explanation. He says that in condemning the heresy of the Wycliffites, the council "did not pronounce new ecclesiastical censures against them, but contented themselves with reminding the faithful that the sect and its infamous doctrines had been previously condemned by the decisions of the Holy See. These decisions are irrefragable, remarks the council, because it is impossi ble that the Apostolic See-that is to say, the pope-should err."(")

It requires but a moment's thought to see that it was im possible, in the very nature of things, for the fathers of Constance to have stultified themselves by any such declaration as this. It would have been as diametrically opposed to what they actually did, as darkness is to light. They had tried, condemned, and deposed John XXIII., a lawful pope, for innumerable crimes, including heresy; and to have followed such an act with the assertion that it was impossi ble that "the pope should err" would have made them the laughing-stock of all Europe. But it is not necessary to ar gue upon general principles to show how entirely this assertion of Weninger is without any fact to support it. Du Pin the decree of the Council of Constance says, 66 concerning the authority of the council above the pope did plainly decide the question, and subjected the pope, as well as to faith as manners, to the judgment of a general council;" which applied not only to times of schism, or where there were rival popes, "but generally in all other cases." And he gives the reason for this decision: "Because they deduce the authority of the council above the pope from its repre sentation of the Church, and from its infallibility." And when speaking of the bull of Martin V. against the errors of the Wycliffites, he says also, that, in the forty-first decree, "the authority of the Universal Church is distinguished from that of the pope; and there it is ordained that the Universal Church, or the General Council, have a sovereign

(4) "Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope," by Weninger, pp. 145, 146.

authority indefinitely; whereas 'tis only said of the pope that he hath a primacy over other particular churches, which amounts to the same thing with the decision of the council." (")

This same author asserts, moreover, that, after Martin V. had been elected by the Council of Constance, and while it was yet in session, he issued a bull prohibiting all appeals from the pope to any other tribunal, and that it was approved by the council. The words of this bull given by him are these: "It is not lawful for any person to appeal from the Roman pontiff, who is the supreme judge and the Vicar of Christ on earth, or by subterfuge to elude his judgment in matters of faith."("") This statement is untrue, or else Du Pin did not understand, or has perverted the facts-neither of which is probable. When the Council was nearly drawn to a close, a question arose about which there was so much disagreement that the embassadors of Poland talked about appealing to a future council-a remedy in entire accord with the common sentiment of the time. Martin V., like some of his predecessors, was disposed to avail himself of every opportunity to resist this idea, so as to concentrate all the power of the Church in his own hands, and accordingly issued the bull alluded to, notwithstanding, as was then declared, it was directly contradictory of what the council had decreed. But it did not receive the sanction of the council, as Weninger asserts. On the other hand, if the council had acted upon it, there can be no reasonable doubt that it would have been not merely rejected, but sternly condemned. Du Pin says: "However, the bull of Martin V. containing the prohibition of appealing to the council was not read, nor approved, in this session of the council, but published in a private assembly of the cardinals,”(") that is, sent out as the popes have generally promulgated their "constitutions," with the hope that, in the course of time, their custom of asserting universality of power would ripen into the force of law. They understood full well the nature and import of that principle of their Church organization

(6) Du Pin, vol. xiii., p. 15. (37) Du Pin, vol. xiii., p. 24.

(3) Weninger, p. 147.

which construes silence into acquiescence-as do also the hierarchy of the present day. And they acted upon this principle, if not with impunity, at least with courage, until at last it has come to be a part of the settled faith of the Church that no layman has any right to inquire by what authority a papal decree has been issued, or to what extent it goes, or what it commands to be believed or done, but is bound to accept it as true and obey it accordingly, without any regard to whatsoever human power and authority it may defy.

Notwithstanding the contrary assertion of Weninger and other Jesuits, no man can study the history of the Council of Constance without seeing that the infallibility of the pope was directly contradicted by it-not merely by the act of deposing an obnoxious and heretical pope, and electing another in his place, but by the enactment of a decree to that effect, which was approved by Martin V. And if it be true, as alleged, that Martin V., after approving this decree, endeavored to counteract its effect by a papal bull—of which there seems to be no doubt-he is presented to all impartial minds in the attitude of having played a double part-of having misled the council by the pretense of approving what it did, while, at the same time, he cherished the purpose of resisting it at the earliest opportunity. But this is nothing new in the conduct of the popes, who, in building up the wonderful system of the papacy, have taken care to reserve to themselves the right of doing whatsoever they may sup pose the interest of the Church requires, without any regard whatever to what they themselves or any others may have done or said. Martin V. found ample justification for his duplicity in the example of many of his predecessors, and only increased the number of those popes whose conduct has since added to the significance of the precedent.

COUNCILS OF BASEL AND FLORENCE.

645

CHAPTER XXI.

The Condition of the Church at the Time of the Councils of Basel and Florence.-Council at Pavia fixed by that of Florence.-Approved by Martin V.-Transferred to Basel.-Meets there, and is presided over by Legate of Eugenius IV.-It is Ecumenical.-Agrees with that of Constance about its Power over the Pope. Eugenius IV. endeavors to defeat It. — His Proceedings against It. — Organizes a Factious Assembly at Ferrara.— Proceedings of the Council against Him.-He pretends to yield, and approves its Decrees.-He violates his Pledge.-He draws the Greeks to Florence, and calls the Meeting there a Council. It is not Ecumenical; the Council at Basel is at first, when its Decree against the Pope's Infallibility is passed. It represents a Majority of Christians. The Council at Florence is mainly Italian.—The Pope's Agreement with the Greeks about his Primacy.-Limited by Decrees of Councils and Canons of the Church.-The Greeks reject the Agreement, and it falls.-This is called a Decree.-Its Terms.-Misrepresentation of Them.-Do not make the Pope Infallible.-Give Him the Primacy conferred by Decrees and Canons.-Primacy of Honor, not Jurisdiction.-The Fifteenth Century, after the Council of Florence.-The French Church.-Charles VII.-Council at Bourges.-Pragmatic Sanction.-Opposition of the Popes to it.Revoked by Louis XI. - Parliament resisted. Council of Pisa. - The Fifth Lateran Council in Opposition to it.-The Former renews the Decrees of Constance and Basel.-The Latter factious at Beginning.—Afterward assents to.-Concordat of Bologna agreed to by Francis I. and Pope Julius II.-Rejected by France.-French Bishops do not attend the Council. It is not Ecumenical.-No Deliberation in it.-Submissive to Leo X.-Council of Trent.-Does not assert the Pope's Infallibility.— Does not deny the Validity of the Decree of Council of Constance.Concedes merely Power of Pope to interpret the Canons, not to set them aside.-Pius IV. does this only in his Profession of Faith.

It is so positively and dogmatically asserted that the pope's infallibility was recognized by the Council of Florence, that, in order to know whether it is to be accepted as a fact or rejected, we must understand the character of that council, the circumstances which led to it, and the nature of its decrees.

The Church at the time of the two Councils of Basel and Florence was fearfully rent by a most disgraceful schism.

The Council of Constance, only a few years before, had appointed a council to meet at Pavia, which had the sanction and approval of Martin V. This fixed its ecumenical character; and when it did afterward meet, in 1423, and was attended by five legates of the pope, and by deputies from France, Germany, and England, it, of course, retained this character. It was, therefore, an ecumenical council at the beginning, according to the principles then and now universally recognized by the Roman Catholic Church. It was subsequently transferred to Basel, where it was presided over by a legate of Pope Eugenius IV.-his immediate predecessor, Martin V., having, in the mean time, died. One of the first questions that came before it was that which had been decided by the Council of Constance, involving the relative powers of popes and councils. It became apparent, at once, to the pope that the council would decide, as that at Constance had done, in favor of its own and against his authority; in other words, that it possessed the rightful power to settle and prescribe the faith, independently of the pope, and that the pope had no such power without its consent, because it alone represented the Universal Church. To prevent this, Pope Eugenius IV. immediately began a most disreputable war against the council, intending, if possible, at whatever cost or injury to the Church, to defeat this action. He did not hesitate to inaugurate a war between the Church and the papacy; the former represented by a regularly or ganized ecumenical council, and the latter by the pope alone. He undoubtedly supposed that the times were favorable to the recognition of the claim of papal supremacy and infallibility; a supposition well warranted by the condition. of affairs then existing. The long residence of the popes at Avignon had corrupted the highest authorities of the Church to so fearful an extent, and the disgraceful schisms existing but a little while before had so rent the Church into factions, that it only required a bold and courageous pope to bring the bishops into obedience, especially when they were assured that they would be the sharers with him of whatsoever pow er he should acquire over the lay members of the Church. Therefore, Eugenius IV., in the very first step taken by him, exhibited a determination to take advantage of the times,