258 SUCH A PRESIDENCY WOULD BE UNREASONABLE. In the synod of Constance, sometimes the cardinal of Cambray, sometimes of Hostia, presided, by order of the synod itself, and sometimes the king of the Romans supplied that place;1 so little essential was the pope's presidency to a council deemed even then, when papal authority had mounted to so high a pitch. Nor is there good reason why the pope should have this privilege, or why this prerogative should be affixed to any one see; so that if there be cause, as, if the pope be unfit or less fit, if princes or the church cannot confide in him, if he be suspected of prejudice or par- tiality, if he be a party in causes or controversies to be decided, if he himself need correction,[there is no reason why] princes maynot assign, or the church, with allowance of princes, may not choose, any other president more proper in their judgment for that charge. In such cases the public welfare of church and state is to be regarded. Were an erroneous pope, as Vigilius or Honorius, fit to govern a council gathered to consult about defining truth in the matter of their [his] error? Were a lewd pope, as Alexander VI., John XII., Paul III. (in- numerable such, scandalously vicious) worthy to preside in a synod convocated to prescribe strict laws of reformation? Were a furious, pugnacious pope, as Julius II., &e., apt to mode- rate an assembly drawn together for settlement of peace? Were a pope engaged in schism, as many have been, a proper moderator of a council designed to suppress schism? Were a Gregory VII., or an Innocent IV., or a Boniface VIII., an allowable manager anywhere of controversies about the papal authority? Were now, indeed, any pope fit to preside in any council wherein the reformation of the church is concerned, it being notorious that popes, as such, do most need reformation, that they are the great obstructers of it, that all Christendom has [had] a long time a con- troversy with them for their detaining it in bondage? In this and many other cases we may reject their presidency, as implying iniquity, according to the rule of an old pope: " I would know of them how they would have the judgment which they put forth examined? By themselves? that the same persons may be ad- versaries, witnesses, and judges? To such judgment as this even human affairs are not tobe trusted, much less the integrity of the divine law."' Dominus Rom. rex indutus vestibus regalibus recessit de sede sua solita, et transi- vit ad aliam sedem positam in fronte altaris, tanquam presidens pro tune in concilio. Syn. Const., sess. xiv. p. 1044. 2 Quero tarnen ab his, judicium quod prntendunt, ubinam possit agitari, an spud ipsos, ut iidem sint inimici, et testes, et judices ? Sed tali judicio nec human debent committi negotia, nedum divine legis integritas. P. Gelas., Ep. iv.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=