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 onely presided therein upon his refusal For thus it is in the Original praesidente nobis vestrâ beatitudine and not residente 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 controversie 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 onely against our Protestants but also against the sentiments of some Catholick Doctours 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 Emperours 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 protectours 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 then 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 de 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 doubtfull universal Customs the deposing of Bishops and some others which I have observed elsewhere the decision whereof belongs and ought to be referred to him In that manner the Inferiour 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 Patriarchs This appears clearly by the judgment 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 judgment of the causes of Bishops I shall onely 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 wickedst 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 Emperour 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 lawfull dispensation Besides that naughty man was both a frank Heretick and great Cheat. For though he was not onely Eutychian but also the head of those Hereticks Justin Nov. 42. Niceph. l. 17. c. 9. yet he always professed that he might deceive the Emperour who at that time was a good Catholick 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 Catholicks presented him Petitions against that Intruder and Heretick 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 Emperour 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 Emperour 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 Emperour shining in glory After the defeat of the Vandals in Africa Constantinople in great splendour Anthimius most powerfull 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
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 Heresie soever it be let nothing be innovated and let nothing be done but what Tradition authorises that is to say that hands be onely 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 Hereticks to be Re-baptized from what Heresie 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 Heretick to be Re-baptised This St. Austine confirms when he expresly assures us that Stephen would have no Heretick to be Re-baptized and that he was extreamly 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 Heresie whatsoever ought to be Re-baptized 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 Baptized by Hereticks to be Re-baptized so that Holy Pope on the contrary forbad the Re-baptizing of any who had been Baptized by Hereticks And that is also the errour 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 Hereticks which may be seen in Epiphanius who Baptized in a quite different manner from what Jesus Christ prescribes when he commanded his Apostles to Baptize 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 onely that the Baptism administred in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost by any Hereticks whatsoever should not be reiterated And certainly without necessity of alledging 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 Heretick The Question was onely then about the Baptism of Jesus Christ which ordains Baptism to be administred 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 Heretick soever it had been conferred and the Africans maintained that it was null if it was conferred by Hereticks out of the Church or by Schismaticks And this is the precise state of that great Controversie 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 custome 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 Hereticks 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 administred out of the Church And as Hereticks can neither absolve from sins nor give the Holy Ghost by the Imposition of hands so neither can they Baptise And as to the custome 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 stedfast 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 Anti-pope Novatian having written to these Bishops to engage them severally unto their party they had in fine all of them condemned Novatian and his Heresie 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 Asiaticks had quitted their opinion concerning the nullity of the Baptism of Hereticks But without doubt that is an evident Anachronism and manifest
Three Chapters and forbids to condemn them But notwithstanding all his efforts that Council where he would not assist absolutely condemned them and because Vigilius would not consent to that condemnation he was banished by Justinian who some time after gave him his liberty and sent him home to his See because once more changing his conduct and opinions he condemned in Writing the Three Chapters Evagr. l. 4. c. 37. Phot. de septom Synodis according to the Decree of the Council and that was the fourth and last time that he had changed for as he was upon his return to Rome Appen Marcell he died in Sicily the year following However this last change did not cure the Schism that was formed in the Church about that point For though the Successours of this Pope had admitted the Decrees of that Council Greg. Pap. 1. Ep. 24. alib saepe which holds the fifth place amongst the Ecumenical Councils yet many Bishops and amongst others those of Africa and Istria Vict. Tun. Farund Herm. taking no notice in the least of that last change of Vigilius stuck obstinately to his former constitution whereby he had publickly declared for the Three Chapters forbidding all Believers to condemn them and though Pelagius II. who held the Holy See Two or three and twenty years after Vigilius did all he could to persuade and bring them to their duty and to undeceive them of their errour he could never succeed in it For they always alledged Pelag. 11. Ep. 7. quae est tertia ad Episc Istriae Dicentes quod in causae principio sedes Apostolica per Vigilium Papam omnes Latinarum Provinciarum principes damnationi trium capitulorum fortiter restiterunt ibid. Errorem tarde cognoverunt tanto eis celerius credi debuit quanto eorum constantia quousque verum cognoscerent à certamine non quievit ibid. that the Roman Church had formerly Taught them the contrary of what they would have them at present confess and that the Holy See by Pope Vigilius and the other Bishops of the West when that cause began to be debated had vigorously opposed the condemnation of these Three Chapters Whereupon that wise Pope told them ingenuously and convincingly That for that very reason they ought to condemn them because that vigorous resistance was an evident sign that the Romans and other Occidentals yielded not till at length they came to the knowledge of the truth which they had not known before and clearly saw that they had been mistaken in approving and maintaining Writings which ought to be condemned and he adds that it is a very laudable change to turn from errour to truth He moreover confirms that Argument by the examples of St. Peter and St. Paul St. Paul Quia diu veritati restitit unde ad confirmanda corda credentium in ejusdem praedicatione veritatis adjutorium sumpsit said he long resisted the truth of the Gospel and was the most zealous asserter of Judaisme against the Christians whom he persecuted By that he proves to the Jews and Gentiles that they ought to embrace Christianity because after so great resistance he would not have yielded to Jesus Christ if he had not clearly known the truth and that he had been in an errour before St. Peter continues he Diu quidem restitit ne ad fidem Gentes sine Circumcisione c. diu se à conversaram Gentium communione subtraxit c. Ab eodem Paulo pestmodum ratione suscepta cum vidisset quosdam c. dixit cur tentatis Deum imponentes jugum c. held long for the necessity of the legal observations compelling the Gentiles to Judaize He yielded afterward to reason and truth by the reproof that St. Paul gave him telling him that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel After that changing his conduct he powerfully withstood those who in the Council of Jerusalem would have subjected Christians to the yoke of the Ancient Law Would they have had reason then to have said to him Haec quae dicis audire non possumus quia aliud ante praedicasti when they saw him Teach the quite contrary to what he had Preached before We will not hear what you tell us at present because you formerly Preached to us quite another thing Not at all because these two Apostles having long resisted the truth of the Gospel each in his way and at length followed that truth changed from evil to good So goes on that Pope making a right application of these two instances to the point of the Three Chapters The Holy See ought not to be upbraided with a change Si igitur in trium capitulorum negotio alind cum veritas quaereretur aliud autem inventâ veritate dictum est cur mutatio sententiae huic sedi in crimen objicitur c. since after it hath found out the truth which it searched into it now condemns the Three Chapters which it approved before it found the truth It is in my Judgment very clear that Pope Pelagius in that place says plainly and without biass that as St. Peter and St. Paul had erred before their change to which they ought to adhere so Vigilius was mistaken in his constitution whereby he obliges Believers to maintain the Doctrine of the Three Chapters and that they must imitate the Holy See in its change Quid obstat si ignorantiam suam deserens verba permutet when having approved them with Vigilius it condemns them after he had discovered the truth which he knew not before These are the words of Pelagius II. I know very well that Cardinal Baronius says and labours to prove in his Annals that St. Peter upon that occasion erred not at all and committed not the least fault I shall not undertake to refute and overthrow his Arguments Baron ad Ann. 51. n. 39. as some think they have done with very little difficulty I dispute not at all in this Treatise where I am onely to relate matters of Fact It is enough then that I say It 's true that that great Cardinal is of that Judgment because he believed Saint Peter to be infallible In the mean time St. Austine so far from believing it thought he erred five times when he was in fear of being drowned and our Saviour told him Et cum in mari titubasset cum dominum carnaliter à passione revocasset cum aurem servi gladio praecidisset cum ipsum dominum ter negasset cum in si mulationem postea superstitiosam lapsus esset August de agone Christiano c. 30. O thou of little faith wherefore didst thou doubt when he would have diverted him from suffering for us and was rebuked by these piercing words Get thee behind me Satan When he cut off Malchus his Ear and three times denied his Master and last of all when he fell into that failing for which St.
declared in relation to the same Controversie in his Epistles to Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople one of the chief Authors of that Heresie The Judgment 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 Judgment upon him and no body ever objected against it in Antiquity This is sufficient to conclude invincibly that the Council is superiour 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 Emperour 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 Judgment of the Pope whom they distrusted August Ep. 162. ad Gelor Eleus Ep. 165. ad Generos 166. ad Donatist 167. alib saepe The Emperour 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 Judgment fifteen Bishops of Italy to whom he joyned three famous Bishops of the Gallican Church Maternus of Cologne Rheticius of Autun and Marinus of Arles whom the Emperour 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 Schismaticks appeared there with ten Bishops of his Party and alledged 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 Emperour so hard to give them new Judges and in greater number that that good Prince overcome by their extream Importunity Orabida furoris audacia Opt. loc cit which he called extream 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 curasse 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 Judgment 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 Schismaticks who observed no measures brought to the Tribunal of Constantine August Ep. 162. was most unjust as was frankly acknowledged by that Emperour who said that if he at length took cognizance of that Cause to stop the mouth of these Hereticks and arrest the course of their Fury he humbly begg'd 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 Judgment 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 past at Rome as a supreme Court can confirm or rescind the Judgment of an inferiour 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 Hereticks 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 alledged 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
matter of Right but onely 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 compellest 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 onely 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 interr'd the legal Ceremonies might still be observed when it was thought convenient as Saint Paul himself Act. 16.18.21 oftner 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 ate no more of meats prohibited by the Law and that those of Antioch who were converted from Judaism 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 onely 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 easie 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. Austine concerning that action of St. Peter in three or four passages of his works where he plainly calls it an errour St. Paul saith he was obliged publickly to reprove Saint Peter that he might cure all the rest by that remedy for an errour that did hurt to the publick 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 St Peter and St. Paul to bring the Jews to their duty by letting them see that their Protectour 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 lawfull 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 errour by compelling them to Judaize St. Austine then who valiantly oppugns that opinion which so little favours those two great Apostles and who alledges 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 errour of St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks 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 Re-baptizari Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. contra Donatist c. 1. Peter saith he could compell the Gentiles to Judaize contrary to the rule of truth which the Church hath since followed Why might not St. Cyprian compell Hereticks and Schismaticks to be Re-baptized 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 errour of St. Cyprian I admit not says he that Doctrine of Cyprian Hoc Cypriani non accipio
contradiction which that great Cardinal had not leisure to mind For the Patriarch Denis speaks onely here of what these Bishops had done under the Pontificate of Pope Cornelius and he prays Stephen the Successour of that Pope not to use them harshly for the Judgment they are of that the Baptism of Hereticks is null Them says he who under his Predecessour condemned the Heresie 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 Heresie Firmilian then and the Asiaticks persisted still in their opinion as well as St. Cyprian the Africans and their successours till the decision of a General Council as may be clearly seen in an hundred passages of the Books of St. Austine 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 custome saying What do we doe and that abandoning St. Cyprian they made a new Decree conform to that of Saint Stephen But all the Learned agree that that holy Doctour 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. Austine that I have just now alledged 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 Successour of St. Stephen Euseb l. 7. hist c. 4. exhorting him to follow a conduct contrary to that of his Predecessour 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 Re-baptizandis 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 Successours of Sixtus entertained Peace with the African and Asiatick Bishops every one freely following their custome and opinion as to that Point without being blamed for it untill that a General Council had pronounced Supremely in the matter This we learn from St. Austine 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 alledged continually the example of St. Cyprian and of his fellow Bishops to justifie the conduct which they held as well as those in Re-baptizing all Hereticks It is most evident that they durst not have made use of that instance if St. Cyprian and those Bishops had retracted For St. Austine would have confounded these Schismaticks 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 Hereticks must be Re-baptized but he adds that it was lawfull for them to believe it and for all who have succeeded them to doubt of that point which was then in controversie 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. Austine 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 Heresie to their Schism Now before we come to shew what that General Council decided as to that point we must make a serious and solid reflexion upon what we have now said which will suffise 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 Hereticks who are converted ought not to be Re-baptized 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. Austine and all the African Catholicks united with that great Doctour 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 Hereticks 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. Austine speaks and before that of Constantinople have believed that all Hereticks who have not the true Faith of the Trinity ought to be Re-baptized who in those first Ages of the Church were incomparably more numerous than the other Hereticks 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 alledged 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
the sixth Council received by all the Church hath condemned Pope Honorius and ranked him amongst Monothelite Hereticks 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 your selves 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 Logick 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 Popes 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 Heretick being converted and her Husband continuing obstinate in his Heresie might be married to another which doubtless neither Catholicks 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 Sacriledge in celebrating Mass though he had never received sacred Orders Having confessed this to his Abbot who failed not to enjoyn 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 asking the Question what was to be done if such a Case should ever happen in their Monasteries the whole Assembly were as much puzled 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 Judgment to wit That such a Confession being rather Blasphemy than a Confession the Confessor in such a case ought 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 determinâ—tum à Cardinâ—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 peccaâ—um in poenitentiali Judicio sibi detectum praesumpserit revelare non solum à sacerdotali officio deponendum decernimus verum etiam ad agendara perpetuam poenitenâ—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 Supream 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
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 spight 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 Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian the younger Ann. 390. had called a great Council of the Eastern and Western Bishops at Capoua Ambros Epist ad Theoph. Alexand. Epist Syricii ad Anys 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 Heresie and Impiety against the holy Virgin who durst not appear the Council committed the Tryal 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 Judgment which they well foresaw they must of necessity pass against one of their Brethren Cum hujusmodi fuerit Concilii Capuensis Judicium ut finitimi Bonoso atque eâ—us accusatoribus Judices tribuerentur advertimus quod nobis Judicandi forma competere non possit Nam si integra esset bodie synodus recte de iiâ— quae comprehendit scriptorum vestrorum series decerneremus Vestrum est igitur qui hoc recepistis Judiâ—ium sententiam ferre di oâ—nibus vicem enim Synodi recepistis quos ad examinandum Synodus elegit Primum est uti ii 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment 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 Judgment and who received the Power to determine it to whom it belongs to pronounce about that Affair Epist Syricii ad Anys 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 it self 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 Capoua 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 superiour to that of a Council For in the great Persecution that Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria rais'd against St. John Chrysostom who was condemned and deposed in a Synod of Bishops of the Faction of Theophilus Theophili Judicium cassum irritum â—sse decrevit dicens oportâ—re conflare aliam iâ—repâ—ehensiâ—ilem Synodum occiâ—entalium sacâ—rdotum cedentibâ—s aâ—ciâ—is primun dâ—inde inimicis neutraâ—um quippe partiam ut plurimum â—ectum esse Judicium Pallad loâ— 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 Judgment 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 c. Expectemus igitur vallo patientiae communiti c. that an Oecumenical 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 Could 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
seeing the authentick 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 dream'd 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 Oecumenical Councils might be strip'd 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 Bâ—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 ought 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 canonized Let him be accused of Head-strongness 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 ought 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 chuse 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
Beato Petro Apostolotuo collatis clavibus animas ligandi atque solvendi Pontificium tradidisti This perfectly well expresses the nature of that Power of binding and loosing which reaches not beyond Mens 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 guess 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 Judgment 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. Chrysostome speaks ought to be Subject to their Sovereigns though they be Pagans and Hereticks 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. Chrysostome St. Austin in his fifth Book of the City of God and above all Tertullian in his Apology where he saies 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 learnt 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. Chrysostome 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. dc 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 joyned to their ministery 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 Cesars 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 tho 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 Judgment 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 saies that these two Swords signifie 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 easie matter to answer them first that that is a witty thought and an Alegory of St. Bernards 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 Doctrin 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