Council over the Pope What in signifies in M. Schelstrates Manuscript That the Pope Elected cannot be bound The Judgment of the Vniversity of Paris and of the Gallican Church concerning the superiority of a Council over the Pope p. 317 CHAP. XXVI The state of the Question touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal THE distinction of the direct and indirect Power p. 341 CHAP. XXVII What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have taught us as to that A False distinction of Buchanans refuted It was upon an obligation of Conscience and not through weakness that Christians obeyed infidel Emperors and Persecutors The Allegiance that Subjects owe to their Sovereigns is of Divine Right with which Popes cannot dispence All the passages cited for the contrary opinion are understood contrary to the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church which is forbidden by the Council of Trent p. 345 CHAP. XXVIII What hath been the Judgment of the Ancient Fathers of the Church as to that Point THE distribution that God hath made of the Spiritual for the Church and her Pastors and of the Temporal for Kings An Exhortation of the passage Here are two Swords Dominion forbidden to the Popes and how p. 359 CHAP. XXIX The Judgment of Ancient Popes touching the Power over Temporals that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope THE Testimony of Gelasius Of Gregory II. That Pope offered not to depose Leo Isauricus nor to make Rome revolt against him Testimonies of Pelagius I. Stephen II. St. Gregory the Great and of Martin I. supposititious Bulls of St. Gregory Pope Gregory VII is the first that offered to depose Emperors Pope Zachary deposed not Childerick and Leo III. transferred not the Empire to Charlemagne p. 370 CHAP. XXX What hath always been the Opinion of the Gallican Church and of all France as to that The Conclusion of this Point and of the whole Treatise HOW the Bishops of France opposed the attempts of Gregory IV. against Louis the Debonnaire They have always done the like upon all occasions What the Chamber of the Clergy declared concerning the absolute independence of our Kings in the Estates Assembled in 1914. Their Declaration in the year 1682. in relation to the same Subject The sentences of Parliament and the Edicts of Kings upon the same occasion Conclusion of this Treatise p. 387 AN Historical Treatise Concerning the FOUNDATION AND PREROGATIVES OF THE CHURCH of ROME And of her BISHOPS CHAP. I. The Design and Draught of this Work and the Principle on which it moves TO maintain a State in peace and tranquillity which makes Subjects happy according to the scope that true Policie proposes to it self The first thing that is to be done is to beat off the enemy that hath taken up Arms for the ruine of it and then to take care that the quarrels and troublesome contests which sometimes arise amongst the chief members of the State proceed not so far as to occasion a Civil War All Christians agree that the true Church of Jesus Christ is that Spiritual Kingdom which he came to establish in this world and which nevertheless as he himself hath said is not of this world because the whole end of it is to procure us eternal happiness a thing no ways to be attained to upon Earth Hereticks and Schismaticks have often risen against the Lord and his Christ that they might overturn that beautifull kingdom and establish their particular Churches upon its ruines every one pretending that his is the Church of the Lord though indeed they be no more all of them but the Synagogue of Satan and the Kingdom of him who in the Gospel is called the Prince of this world Besides it falls out many times that amongst Catholicks who alone are members of the true Church disputes and controversies arise which may trouble the tranquillity and peace that Jesus Christ hath left unto them for securing their happiness in his Kingdom It is necessary then for the service of the Church and for maintaining it always in the flourishing state wherein Jesus Christ hath established it to fight and beat off the enemies that attack it and to compose and calme the quarrels that arise amongst the children of the Church about points that are disputed with heat on all hands and which might in the end disturb the repose and peace of the Kingdom of the Son of God As I have wholly devoted my self to the service of the Church so have I endeavoured as much as lay in my power to acquit my self of the former of those two duties in my Treatises of Controversie and especially in that of The true Church I think I have been pretty successfull in that engagement and repelled all the efforts of our Protestants in making it appear by evident and unanswerable Arguments That there is no true Church but ours which is enough without more dispute to put an end to all our Controversies since they acknowledge with us that the true Doctrine is always that of the true Church of Jesus Christ I discharge my self also as well as I can of that obligation in one part of that Treatise where I maintain against Hereticks the declared enemies of the Holy See the primacy rights power and authority of the visible head of the Church At present then that I may fulfill my duty in its full extent I must labour to prevent the springing up of any dangerous division amongst Catholicks by reason of some private opinions that divide them as to that important subject of the Church into which they are all equally incorporated Now that I may solidly carry on so laudable and necessary an undertaking It is at first to be presupposed that according to Catholick doctrine the Universal Church which ought allways to be visible and to continue without Interruption untill the consummation of all things is the Society of Christians dispersed all over the World united together by the profession of the True Faith the participation of the True Sacraments by the bond of the same Law and under one and the same Head Because the Church Joh. 10. v. 16. Ephes 1. v. 22. August Ep. 50. whose first and principal property is to be perfectly one is the mystical body of Jesus Christ and that the members of a living body may receive the influences of life they must be united to the Head Hence it is that according to Saint Austin Epist 48. p. 151. l. de un Eccl. c. 4. though one may have all the rest yet if he be separated from the Head and by consequent from the body which is united to him he is out of the Church Catholick by Schism as Hereticks are cut off from it because of the want of True Faith And as all the members of the body have not the same functions but the parts that constitute it being subordinate one to another in a lovely order there are some which are for giving motion to the
seemed they had done in the first Article of their address That was the sole cause of the difference that was betwixt the two Chambers as that of the Clergy informed Pope Paul V. in the answer they made to his Brief of the last of January one thousand six hundred and fifteen Augebamur enim non mediocriter cum videremus ipses Catholicos zelo quodam minus prudenti abreptos cognitionem earum rerum quae ad fidem pertinent ad se trahere de quaestionibus ejusmodi statuere velle quas nisi pastorum suorum vocibus edocti non debeant attingere Sed ea molestia è vestigio in laetitiam versa est postquam iidem nostris monitis justis rationibus adducti demum agnoverunt omnem hanc autoritatem penes Ecclefiam eosque solos esse quos illa fidelium gregi preesse voluerit 7 Calend. Nartii We were not a little troubled say these Prelates to see even Catholicks transported with an undiscreet zeal offer to take cognisance of matters relating to Faith and to decide such kind of questions as they must needs first be instructed about by their Pastors before they can meddle with them But our grief was soon changed into gladness when these Gentlemen yielding to our Admonitions and just Remonstrances at length acknowledged that none but the Church hath that Authority and that none but the Pastors have from her received the Power and Right of instructing and guiding the Flock That was the thing in question and not at all the substance of the Article wherein the Clergy of France agreed though they judged it not a proper business to be proposed in the Estates especially at that time The truth is that Chamber of the Clergy was so far from invalidating in the least the substance of the Doctrin contained in that Article and in all times received in France concerning the absolute independence of our Kings as to Temporals that on the contrary they oftener than once protested that they acknowledged that independence Manifeste de ce qui se passa aux Estat Generaux entre le Clergi et le Tiers Estat 1615 and that it ought to be held for a Maxim That the King in Temporals can have no other Superiour but God alone Discours veritable de ce qui se passa aux Estats Generaux and that the Vicar of Jesus Christ hath no jurisdiction over matters purely Temporal So that although the Clergy declared that it belonged only to the Church to handle and decide a Point of Doctrin and Religion nay and that that was not an affair to be consulted about in the Estates Procés verbal de cequi s'est passé en la Chambre du Tiers Estat Avis donné au Roy en son Conseil par M. le Prince sur le Cahier du Tiers Estat yet they avowed that they believed in substance the same thing which the third Estate had proposed and which the late Prince of Conde a great Defender of the Catholick Faith most prudently represented to the King in Council the fourth of January the same year and which the University of Paris expressed in most significant terms in their Petition presented to the Estates upon the same occasion the two and twentieth of January To wit Discours veritable dece qui s'est passé c. That our Kings depend upon none but God us to Temporals and that there is no Power upon Earth that can depose them nor dispence with or absolve their Subjects from the Obedience and Allegiance that they owe to them under any pretext whatsoever That was their Doctrin which they would not have to be weakned or impaired in the Remonstrances which they had caused Cardinal Du Perron to make to the Chamber of the third Estate And certainly after so many proofs one cannot doubt of the Opinion of that learned Clergy always uniform as to that Point I might here produce a great many very convincing Testimonies but that would not be necessary now after that famous declaration which the Archbishops and Bishops assembled at Paris by order of the King in the year one thousand six hundred and eighty two as representing the Gallican Church have made of their Judgment concerning the Ecclesiastical Power This is the first Article of it whereby they declare That God hath given to St. Peter and his Successors the Vicars of Jesus Christ and to the Church Power over Spiritual matters which belong to Eternal Salvation but not over Civil and Temporal The Lord having said My Kingdom is not of this World and Render unto Cesar the things that are Cesars and unto God the things that are Gods And that Apostolical Decree ought to remain firm and inviolable Let every Soul be subject unto the higher Powers for there is no Power but of God The Powers that be are ordained of God whosoever therefore resisteth the Power resisteth the Ordinance of God That Kings and Princes then according to the Ordinance of God are not subject to any Ecclesiastical Power and that they cannot be deposed neither directly nor indirectly by the Power and Authority of the Keys of the Church that their Subjects cannot be exempted from the obligation that lies upon them to obey them nor be absolved from the Oath of Allegiance which they have taken to them and that that Doctrin ought inviolably to be observed as not only necessary for the publick Peace but also useful to the Church And as being conform to the word of God the Tradition of the Fathers and the examples of Saints This now is a positive Doctrin that saith all and all that I have written upon this Subject hath only been to exhibit the convincing proofs of all the parts of that Article which contains so excellent and solid a Declaration As to the sacred Faculty of Theology it hath never failed on any occasion to evidence its zeal for the true Doctrin authorising and confirming this by its Decrees and Censures of the contrary opinion from time to time renewed especially in the years 1413. 1561. 1595. 1610. 1611. 1620. 1726. And lately in the condemnation of an ultramontanean Jacobin by renewing the censure of the Book of Santarelli This appears still in a stronger and more Authentick manner Non esse Doctrinam Facultatis quod sammus Pontifex aliquam in Temporalia Regis Christianissimi antoritatem habeat imo Facultatem semper obstitisse etiam iis qui indirectam tantum modo illam Authoritatem esse voluerunt by the six Propositions that were presented to the King in the year one thousand six hundred threescore and three in name of the Faculty By my Lord De Prefixe Archbishop of Paris Visitor of the Sorbonne Take here two of them which relate to that Article Esse Doctrinam Facultatem ejusdem quod Rex Christianissimus nullum omnino in temporalibus habet supersorem praeter Deum eamque esse suam antiquam Doctrinam à quâ nunquam
that the contrary opinion has not so much as the least appearance of any rational ground in Scripture For of all the passages that are cited for maintaining it there is not so much as one that is interpreted by the Church in Councils nor by any of the Holy Fathers in that most erroneous sense that they put upon them Wherein these Modern Authors who in that manner do interpret them act directly contrary to the Decree of the Council of Trent fourth Session and against the Confession of Faith enjoyned by Pius IV. which will have Scripture never to be interpreted but according to the sense that Holy Church gives it and according to the common Interpretation of the Fathers These new Doctors in that most dangerously follow the conduct of Hereticks who for maintaining their Errors interpret as they please and not as the Church pleases the Scriptures that they may wrest them to their sense Bellar. l. 5. de Rom. Pont. c. 7. Suarez l. 3. de Prim. Sum. Pont. c. 3. l. 6. de form Jur. fidel c. 4. Becan Anglico contr c. 3. qu. 3. This appears manifestly in those two passages upon which Bellarmin Suarez and after them Becanus and all the others who as these have copied or abridged them chiefly ground their opinion John Last The first passage is that where Jesus Christ saies to St. Peter Feed my Sheep Feed my Lambs Is there so much as one of the Holy Fathers who hath understood these words of the Power which St. Peter hath received over the Temporal of Princes There is none of them who hath not expounded them as they ought to be of the Spiritual Pasture which Popes are bound to give to Believers by Doctrin Example and good Government and never one of these Doctors and Masters in the Church ever let it enter into his Head to wrest them to a Temporal meaning as these new Divines have done And more Ambres l. de dig Sacer c. 2. Chrys hom 79. in Matth. c. 24. August de Agen. Christian c. 30. Tractat. 47. in Joan. in Ps 108. alii most part of these Holy Fathers having said what is most true that Jesus Christ applies these words in the person of St. Peter to the whole Church in general and to all its Pastors in particular if the new sense that these new Doctors give to them were to be followed it must be said that all Bishops and all Curates had right to dispose of the Temporals of those who by their bad Doctrin or scandalous deportment do injury to the Spiritual good of their Churches And as to that comparison which they make betwixt the Shepherd in respect of the Wolf which he may dispatch omni modo quo potest and the Pastor of the Church in regard of a Prince who may have fallen into Heresie it is not only a base Sophism contrary to the rules of right Logick but also impious and detestable which leads Men in a full career to Parricide and for which the Books that contain it have been justly condemned to the fire The second passage is taken out of St. Matthew Chapter sixteenth where the Son of God saies to St. Peter That whatever he shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever he shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven Whence these new Rabbies conclude that the Successors of St. Peter have Power to dissolve the obligation that binds Subjects to their Prince by the Oath they have made to him and by the tie of Allegiance which binds them in fidelity to him Is it not strange that Catholicks should take this liberty of wresting the sense of Scripture to what they list without any respect to the common interpretation of the Fathers to which the Council of Trent obliges them For of all the Holy Fathers who have expounded that passage there is not so much as one to be found who hath so understood it all of them have interpreted it of the Power that that Apostle received of loosing and absolving Penitents from their sins Nor do the Popes themselves expound it otherways Paul 1 Ep. â—0 ad procem Fran. Adâ—i Ep. 1. ad Carol Magn. as it may be seen in the Epistle of Pope Paul I. to the French Lords and in that of Adrian I. to Charlemagne To absolve Men from their sins is it to absolve them from their Allegiance And that whatever which signifies only any sort of sin and censure and some obligations that are not of Divine Right can that Power I say be extended to ths Temporal and to the duty that Subjects owe to Kings To persuade us of the contrary we need only read the words that go before these I shall give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven saies Jesus Christ and not of the Kingdoms of the Earth for deposing of Kings And those that follow comprehend the use of the Power of the Keys that he giveth him for opening the Kingdom of Heaven by forgiving Men their sins or for shutting it by not absolving them John 20. as he in another place expresses himself speaking to all the Apostles after his Resurrection But that we may not swerve from the words in question we need no more but read the Eighteenth Chapter of the same Gospel of St. Matthew There it is to be seen that Jesus Christ repeats them to all his Disciples and gives them the whole Power that they import by saying to them Verily I say unto you that whatever ye shall bind upon Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever ye shall loose upon Earth shall be loosed in Heaven If these words comprehend the sense that the new Authors give them and that their meaning is also of the Temporal it must needs be said that all the Bishops who are the Successors of the Apostles nay and all Priests who have the Power of binding and loosing may depose Kings and dispence their Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance which is the highest extravagance Or else let these Gentlemen tell us by what Authority of the Church or Holy Fathers they find that when they were said to St. Peter they have a different meaning from that which they ought to have when they were spoken to St. Peter and to all the Apostles Now that is a thing they 'll never be able to find out Miss Rom. An. 1520. Paris apud Francis Renaud Miss Rom. à Paulo III. nefar Ann. 1543. Diurn Monast Congrez Cassin à Greg. XIII confir Venet. ap Juris And this is so true that the Church of Rome her self sticking to the sense wherein all the Holy Fathers have expounded these words which Jesus Christ said to St. Peter will not understand them but of the Power which he hath given him of binding and loosing Souls For in all the ancient Missals Breviaries and Diurnals in this manner was read that Prayer which is said in the Feastival of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch Deus qui
Beato Petro Apostolotuo collatis clavibus animas ligandi atque solvendi Pontificium tradidisti This perfectly well expresses the nature of that Power of binding and 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
Pope We maintain that it signifies there according to the absolute will of the Pope We maintain that it signifies there According to the advice and counsel of the Pope which is plainly to be seen by the opposition of these words ad nutum Sacerdotis ad jussum Imperatoris which signifie two different things that the Soldiers take Arms by the command of the Emperor ad Jussum and by the advice of the Pope ad nutum It cannot be said that that is by the command otherwise St. Bernard would have said briskly ad Jussum Sacerdotis Imperatoris but he makes a distinction and for the one saies ad Jussum and for the other ad nutum by the counsel and advice Just so as it is said of the Disciples in the Gospel Annuerunt sociis qui erunt in alia navi They beckoned to their companions that were in the other Ship that annuerunt beckoned does not signifie a command but an advice an exhortation They pray them to come So that ad nutum which comes from the same verb annuere means nothing more but the advice counsel and exhortation of the Pope as Vrban II. exhorted the Emperor and all Christian Princes to cross themselves and to take Arms against the Sarasins for rescuing the Holy Sepulchre And as we see at present that Pope Innocent XI exhorts all the Potentates of Europe to League against the Turk and sends Money to the Emperor and King of Poland to carry on the War in Hungary against that common Enemy of all Christians It will not be said for all that that the Pope commands these Princes to employ the material Sword all that can be said of it is that the Germans and Polanders make good use of their Swords in Hungary and beat the Turks ad nutam Sacerdotis ad Jussum Imperatoris by the counsel and exhortation of the Pope and by the command of the Emperor and the King of Poland But to prove to these new Doctors that that is the true sense of St. Bernard I 'll only object to them the same Saint in the same Treatise of Consideration to Pope Eugenius wherein doubtless it will not be said that he hath contradicted himself by overthrowing in one place what he hath built up in another For in this manner he speaks to the Pope upon what our Saviour three or four times told his Apostles that he would not have them to be like the Kings of the Gentiles that bear Rule over their Subjects It is plain saith that Holy Man that all Dominion is forbidden to the Apostles Planum est Apostolis interdicitur dominatus ergo tu tibi usurpare aude aut dominans Apostolatum aut Apostolicus dominatum plane ab alterutro prohiberis aut si utrumque similiter habere voles utrumque perdes l. 2. de cons c. 6. Go then boldly and usurp the Apostleship either by domineering or Dominion by retaining the Apostleship From one of the two you are excluded If you think to retain both you shall lose both Are these the words of a Man that would have Popes so far to domineer over Kings as to depose them and transfer their Crown to others seeing he will not so much as have them to have any Dominion Not that he finds fault that Eugenius III. as other Popes have had should enjoy Lands and Principalities and those vast demains which they hold of the liberality of the Kings of France and which by the favour of times they have since converted into Sovereign and independent States Grant Esse ut aliâ quâcunque ratione haec tibi vindices sed non Apostolico Jure nec enim ille Petrus tibi dare qâ—od non habuit potuit adds St. Bernard that you have that Temporal Dominion by any other title but I declare you have it not as Pope nor by any right of Apostleship for St. Peter who had no such thing could not give what he had not So that Popes as Popes have no other Power but what is purely Spiritual for binding or loosing Souls and have nothing to do with the Temporal of the meanest of Christians much less with that of Kings After this I am not of the mind that the new Doctors will be found of alledging to us the words of St. Bernard nor indeed be able to oppose any considerable Authority to that of all the Ancient Fathers since Bellarmin himself in the Treatise that he made of the Power of the Pope as to Temporals against William Barclay produces only for justifying his Opinion the Authors of the last four or five hundred years What can all these upstarts do against the Fathers of the Ancient Church It is enough to send them packing to tell them once more what Pope Celestin I. said Desinat novitas incessere vetustatem But because we speak with a Pope and that the question in Hand concerns the intetest of all Sovereign Popes let us now see what the Belief of the Ancient Popes hath been as to the same Point CHAP. XXIX The Judgment of Ancient Popes touching the Power over Temporals that some Doctors of late times attribute to the Pope THESE of all Men are evidences of greatest Authority and least to be rejected seeing the question is about a Power that some would attribute to them and which they openly declare they have not I mean Ancient Popes who for most part were great Saints and who very well understanding their obligation have always kept within the bounds of that Spiritual Power which they have received from Jesus Christ for Governing his Church according to the Laws and Canons of Ecumenical Councils so as the Council of Florence defined it The truth is they were so far from attempting any thing upon the Temporal of Emperors and Kings tho even Infidels and Hereticks as to deposing of them and absolving their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they had taken to them that they have always openly protested that they were wholly submitted unto them as most humble Subjects and have acknowledged as well as the great Osius that distribution which God hath made of the Temporal for Sovereigns and of the Spiritual for the Church for the Popes and Bishops There is nothing more evident than this in Ecclesiastical History We need only read the Epistle of Pope Gelasus I. to the Emperor Anastasius wherein he makes that distinction of the two Powers one Temporal and the other wholly Spiritual and both independent one of another That of Nicolas I. to the Emperor Michael wherein he distinguishes them Actibus propriis dignitatibus distinctis by their Dignities and proper Functions which are of two quite different kinds and what Gregory II. wrote to Leo Isauricus a most wicked Arch-heretick and cruel Persecuter of Catholicks saying to him in one of his Letters In the same manner as the Pope has no Power of inspecting the Palace of Emperors Quemadmodum Pontifex introspiciendi in Palatium poteftatem
non habet ac dignitates regales conferendi sic neque Imperator in Ecclesias introspiciendi c. Gregor II. Ep. 2. ad Leon. Isaur nor of conferring Royal Dignities so neither hath the Emperor any right to meddle with the Government of the Church This is enough to shew that Cardinal Bellarmine hath impertinently made use of the example of that Pope against us because according to the relation of some Greek Historians though the Latins of that time take no notice of it he by his Authority hindered the Romans his Subjects from paying the Tribute which they owed him To overthrow this weak Argument there needs no more but to consider Gregory in the quality of Pope and then in the quality of the chief Citizen of Rome As Pope he wrote to that Iconoclast Emperor long and excellent Letters wherein joyning force to affection he admonishes reproves and exhorts him he prays him and threatens him with the Judgments of God and then so far was he from deposing him from his Empire that he prevents as much as in him lay all Italy from revolting against him and from acknowledging another Emperor thereby maintaining the People who were ready to shake off the insupportable yoak of so wicked a Prince in their obedience But when he saw that Leo grew more and more obdurate in his impiety that he had attempted two or three times to have him assassinated and that he gathered together all the Forces of the Empire to come and do at Rome as he gave it out in all places what he had done at Constantinople in beating down the Holy Images and putting all to Fire and Sword if they renounced not the Ancient Religion Then having as Pope declared him Excommunicated he did as chief Citizen of Rome as the rest did what the Law of nature allows to wit take the Arms out of a mad Man's Hand and prevent the giving him money which he would have used for their ruine and desolation and afterward he put himself with the other Romans under the protection of Charles Martel for the safety of their Religion and Lives though for all that this Pope never offered to depose Leo nor to absolve his Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance For he himself and his Successors long after acknowledged the Greek Emperors for their Sovereigns and it was not before the Empire of Constantin and Irene that the Romans and with them the Pope as a Member of that Civil and Politick Body and not by his Pontifical Authority seeing that they could no longer be defended against the Lombards by the Greeks who had abandoned them submitted to Charlemagne This is fully and clearly made out in my History of the Iconoclasts Wherein it may be seen that the example of Gregory II. which Bellarmin alledges against us is nothing at all to the purpose As also more it may be seen there that Pope Adrian I. wrote to Constantin Copronymus and to Leo his Son both great Hereticks in very submissive terms as to his Masters and Sovereigns and that 's a thing which the Ancient Popes never failed to do Let it be considered with what submission Pelagius I. wrote to Childebert King of France who would have him send to him a Confession of his Faith He obeyed his orders and told him that according to Holy Scripture Popes ought to be subject to Kings as well as other Men Quibus nos etiam subditos esse Sacrae Scripturae testantur In what manner did Stephen II. implore the assistance of Pepin against the Lombards I beg of you Peto à te tanquam praesenti aliter assistens provolutus terrae tuis vestigiis prosternens Steph. II. Ep. 4. ad Pip. saies he that favour as if I were in your presence prostrate upon the ground at your Feet Can there be terms of greater humility and of a more perfect obedience than those which the great St. Gregory makes use of in one of his Letters to the Emperor Mauricius who enjoined him a thing to which he had great aversion and which in his own Judgment he thought contrary to the Service of God Ego verò haec Dominis iners loquens quid sum nisi pulvis vermis Ego quidem Jussioni subjectus c. Greg. l. 2. Jud. 11. Ep. 62. ad Mauric What am I saies he who represent this to my Masters but a little Dust and a Worm For my part who am obliged to obey I have done what hath been commanded me and so I have fulfilled my obligations on both sides for on the one Hand I have executed the Emperors order and on the other I have not failed to represent what the cause of God required And in another Letter upon occasion of his being informed that the Lombards had put a Bishop to death in prison De quâ re unum est quod brevitur suggeras serenissimus Dominis nostris c. he would have it represented to the Emperors whom he calls his most Serene Masters that if he would attempt any thing against the lives of the Lombards that Nation should have no more King Duke nor Count But because I fear God saies he Sed quia Deum timeo in mortem cujuslibet hominis me miscere formido l. 7. Jud. 1. Ep. 1. I am loth to have an Hand in any Mans death He therein followed the example of one of his Predecessors St. Martin I. who would never resist tho it was in his Power the orders of the Emperor Constans a Monothelite Heretick who caused him to be carried away from Rome to Constantinople and from thence into banishment And although those who would have opposed that violence called out to him Nulli eorum accommodavi aurem ne subito fierent homicidia Melius Judicavi decies mori quam uniuscujusqu◠sanguinem in terram fundi Epist Mart. 1. ad Theodor. that he should not yield and that he should be well backed yet he would not listen to them for fear it might come to Arms and Slaughter be committed Judging it better said he to die ten times than to suffer the Blood of one single Man to be shed These holy Popes who were so afraid lest the least drop of humane Blood should be spilt were far from deposing Kings and Emperors and giving away their Dominions to others under pretext of the good of Religion as long after them some of their Successors did which was the cause of so many cruel Wars that with Blood and Butchery filled Italy Germany and France it self during the League In this manner the ancient Popes kept within the bounds of their Power purely Spiritual rendering the honour and obedience which they owed to Temporal Powers and especially to their Sovereigns nay even to their Sovereigns who were hereticks and Enemies of their Religion This makes it very apparent what learned Men have so clearly proved that it is no more to be doubted of to wit that these Letters of St. Gregory are
AN Historical Treatise OF THE FOUNDATION AND PREROGATIVES OF THE Church of Rome And of Her BISHOPS Written Originally in French By Monsieur MAIMBOURG And Translated into English By A. LOVEL A. M. LONDON Printed for Jos Hindmarsh Bookseller to His Royal Highness at the Black Bull in Cornhill MDCLXXXV The TRANSLATOR to the READER I Should be thought perhaps no less unmannerly than fanciful if I offered any other reason of the Authors publishing this Book than what he himself is pleased to give in his Epistle Dedicatory to his Great Master the Most Christian King which is that he might thereby according to his duty second the grand design of the King and his Gallican Church in removing those obstacles that hinder the reconciliation of Dissenting Believers and in confuting the mistakes of Authors who have occasioned either a scandalous separation from the Unity of the Church or a persistance in that Separation Yet seeing the Book before it came out and since it hath been Published hath made no small noise at Rome the French Court and elsewhere The Reader possibly may think that so Publick and Religious a design hath been either very ill Managed or far worse Interpreted I have nothing to say as to that it being a matter above my reach but I know the Ingenious will be apt to make remarks such as are now a days very frequent that no great matter ought or indeed can be brought about if Religion came not in for a share and if that turn not the World it will be hard for any thing else to convert it There is Religion so called that makes Turks fight against Christians and Christians not fight against Turks that makes some States invade the Rights of the Church and some Churches usurp upon the State that makes the Godly Plot and fight for Peace sake and the harmless Doves as innocent as Serpents And since these and many other such Principles are now a days in great vogue over most part of the World one may venture to say of the Religion which many nay I would it were not most Men practise at present what the Great Author of our true Religion says of the Wind It bloweth where it listeth and Men hear the sound of it but neither know whence it cometh nor whither it goeth And I should not be irreverent beyond example if I called it downright Hocus Pocus This may seem to the Reader an extravagance and a start out of the road but I had nothing else to say for my self in attempting to Translate a Book that like a Quarter-Staff strikes on both Hands pelts Protestants and knocks down the Pope save only that nothing of Modern Religion moved me to it for indeed I find not that I have any inward call to labour in anothers Vineyard but perceiving that this is an Age wherein People either open their own Eyes or desire they should be opened I was very willing since I am no loser nor I hope the Government offended by it to reach to others the Eye-salve that hath been handed to me And truly if by impartial Readers the issue of a Mans Religion should be tried by the verdict of the Authors Book perhaps it would be no easie matter to decide the Point since they 'll find in it too much either for a True Protestant or a truly Jesuited Papist How far this may justifie my undertaking I cannot tell but since the Bookseller can satisfie the Reader with how great dispatch it hath been Translated I hope he will be so kind as to pardon the hasty mistakes of the Translator A. Lovell The Authors Epistle Dedicatory TO THE FRENCH KING SIR ONE of the greatest impediments that hinders the re-union of Protestants with the Roman Church from which by a fatal Schism they are separated is that false Opinion wherewith they are prejudiced that we raise the Popes even above the Universal Church in attributing to them what only belongs to her and in giving them an absolute and unlimited Power not only in Spirituals but also over the Temporal and Crowns of Princes The Gallican Church willing to help on that great zeal which Your Majesty makes so conspicuously successful for the Conversion of your Subjects who continue still in Error hath thought that she could not do any thing to better purpose than to remove that obstacle by undeceiving them and professing as she hath done by a solemn Declaration upon a Point of that importance her Doctrin which is in all things conform to that of the Ancient Church It is the business of this Treatise which is purely Historical to make this out by matters of fact against which no subtlety argumentation nor Artifice of Novelty can hold good Nay Sir I dare even present it to Your Majesty as a Work that perhaps may be so happy as to contribute somewhat in making the Justice of your Edict known to the World whereby in quality of Protector of the Canons you make the Ancient belief current in the most Christian Kingdom This it is Sir that makes it truly to be said that Your Majesty hath done more for the Church of Rome than the Kings your Predecessors who have enriched her with the great Revenues she possesses and who have raised her to the pinacle of Temporal Grandeur and Dignities For indeed all that Wealth and these Worldly Grandeurs belong not to her true Kingdom which being that of Jesus Christ ought not to be of this World But in commanding by your Laws that this Doctrin of Antiquity be maintained in France to which the Gallican Church which hath always vigourously defended the interests and just Prerogatives of the Church of Rome hath in all Ages inviolably adhered You most solidly establish the Primacy of the Pope against the Novel attempts of Hereticks who dispute it and do all that they can to snatch it from him At the same time you take from them the pretext of their Revolt by letting them see that we believe not that which scandalises them and which some late Divines attribute to him of their own Head against the manifest Judgment of Antiquity That Sir is what may be called an effectual endeavour for restoring the true Kingdom of the Church of Rome to its Just Rights from which Hereticks who have separated from it through erroneous Notions that have been given them of our Doctrin have in little more than an Age rent away a great part of Europe Your Majesty who hath wrought and still work so many Miracles to render your Kingdom more Powerful and more flourishing than ever and to grant us once more a general Peace by making our Enemies accept it upon the conditions you thought fit to prescribe to them is apparently appointed of God to work the greatest of all in pacifying the troubles of Religion and in rendering to the Kingdom of the Church in France its ancient extent by the reduction of the remnant of our Protestants For my own part who have but very
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
Council And therefore to remove all ambiguity and to prevent the wresting of these words to a sense contrary to the Superiority of a Council they said that instead of Regendi Ecclesiam universalem it ought to be put into the Canon Potestatem regendi omnes fideles omnes Ecclesias that the Pope hath the Power of Governing all Believers and all Churches which is to be understood of all not Assembled in Council but taken severally and in particular none of them being exempted from the Jurisdiction of the Pope in what relates to the publick good the general Government and the cases limited by the Canons So careful even to a scruple have our Ancestors been to stand upon their guard on that side that no attack in the least might be made against the ancient Doctrin always inviolably observed in this Kingdom And it is most remarkable that at that time when the Doctors of Paris most strenuously maintained that Doctrin after the Councils of Constance and Basil against those that strove to invalidate their Decrees Innoc. VIII Litter ad Theol. Paris 7. iâ— Sept. Ann. 1486. Innocent VIII sent them a Brief wherein he makes their Elogy and amongst other things magnifies the greatness of their zeal which they expressed for maintaining the honour and rights of the Holy Roman Church and for defending the Catholick faith against the Heresies which they incessantly confuted After all that I may end where I began to handle this question I shall conclude with the testimony of another Pope whom the Authors who will have it as M. Schelstrate will that Popes are above Councils can never reject And that is Pius II. who when he was no more but Aeneas Sylvius Picolomini Clerk to the Council of Basil whereof he hath given us the History maintained with all his might as well as the Doctors of Paris that the Authority of a General Council is Superior to that of a Pope But when he himself was promoted to be Pope he thought for a reason that may easily be guessed at that he ought to make known to the World that he had changed his Opinion and that then he thought the quite contrary of what before he had maintained with all the heat that a Man ought to have who is well persuaded of the Justice of the Cause whereof he undertakes the defence And that he solemnly did by a Bull wherein he retracts and in that Recantation that he might declare that he followed another Opinion he would not stiffle the manifest truth concerning the nature of the Opinion which he forsook and of the other that he embraced For in this manner he speaks in his Bull hinting at the Conferences and Disputes that were had with Juliano Cesarini Cardinal of St. Angelo who stood up for the interest of the Pope as much as he could and yet for all that agreed in Judgment with the Council wherein he presided Tuebamur antiqaam seutentiam i le novam defendebat Extollebamus generalis concilii autoritatem ille Apostolicae sedis potestatem magnopere commendabat He defended says that Pope the Ancicient Doctrin and he took the part of the new We extolled the Authority of the Vniversal Council and he magnified extreamly the Power of the Apostolick See This now is plain dealing Pius II. in Bull. retract That Pope who was willing to change his Opinion with his condition which after him Adrian VI. did not declares fairly and honestly in his Bull that the Doctrin whereof he had formerly undertaken the Defence concerning the Superiority of a Council is the Doctrin of Antiquity and that the other is new And that is all I would be at I need no more to gain my cause For all that I have pretended to in this Treatise is to shew what Antiquity hath believed concerning the Points in hand So that after so authentick a Declaration of Pope Pius II. I have ground to say as to this Article what I have already oftener than once said in relation of the others with Pope Celestin I. writing to the Bishops of the Gallican Church Desinat incessere novitas vetustarem CHAP. XXVI The state of the question touching the Power that some Doctors have attributed to Popes over the Temporal I Have if I mistake not made it clearly appear in all the preceding Chapters of this Treatise how far the Ancient Church hath believed that the Power over Spirituals which Jesus Christ gave to St. Peter and his Successors as Heads of the Universal Church extended I am now to shew whether according to the Judgment of venerable Antiquity they have also any Power over the Temporal of any person whatsoever and especially of Kings and other Sovereigns by virtue of the primacy that by Divine right belongs to them Heretofore there have been some so passionately concerned for the Grandieur of the Apostolical See or rather so blindly devoted to the Court of Rome that differs much from the Holy See that they have dared to publish that the Pope representing the person of Jesus Christ who is King of Kings Lord of Lords and Universal Monarch who hath an absolute Power over all Kingdoms from which he may even depose Kings if they fail in their duty as these Kings may turn off their Officers who behave not themselves as they should And this is called the direct Power which Boniface VIII thought fit to take to himself in his Tuae unam Sanctam that his Successor Clement V. was obliged to recal That is not the question here For I cannot think that now a days there is any Man who hath the boldness to maintain so palpable and odious a falshood But there are a great many beyond the Alps who by the Philosophical distinction of an indirect Power which they have invented teach that the Pope may dispose of Temporals depose Kings absolve Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance that they have taken to them and transfer their Dominions to others when he judges it to be necessary for the good of Religion because say they since he hath the inspection over every thing that concerns it so hath he Power to remove destroy and exterminate every thing that may annoy the same and by that clinch they cunningly enough come home to their Point though they would seem to forsake it For a Pope will always take the pretext of the welfair of Religion when he has a mind to undo a Prince as all these Popes have done who after Gregory VII deposed Emperors and since them Julius II. who transferred the Kingdom of John King of Navarre to Ferdinand King of Arragon because that King would not declare against Louis XII whom this Pope persecuted Now seeing that Opinion which the Gallican Church and all our Doctors have always reckoned very dangerous and inconsistent with publick tranquillity hath still vouchers amongst some Modern Doctors especially beyond the Alps I must now make it appear according to the method which I have