Paul reproved him St. Austine then St. Ambrose St. Cyprian Pope Pelagius and even St. Paul speak positively to the contrary of what Baronius says as I have just now demonstrated This has made learned men argue from St. Austine who they think cannot be answered Either Saint Paul spoke truth when he said St. Peter was to be blamed that he walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel and compelled the converted Gentiles to Judaize or what he said was false If he spoke truth it is then true that St. Peter was not Infallible since he actually erred in that particular If he did not speak truth it must then be concluded that the Epistle to the Galatians which makes a part of H. Scripture is not the Word of God which is a manifest errour in matter of Faith Again when St. Paul spake in that manner either he thought as he spoke or did not If he believed what he said to be true it was his opinion then that St. Peter was not Infallible If he believed it not then must he in the same Epistle to the Galatians wherein he protests before God that he lied not have told a lie which is not to be said without Blasphemy since what he writes in that Epistle is the Word of God who cannot lie And thus it is made out that according to St. Paul those great Saints and that wise Pope who understood himself very well St. Peter was guilty of a notable mistake at that time when he insinuated to the Jews and Gentiles that they were obliged to keep the Law of Moses which the Church immediately after condemned in the Council of the Apostles held at Jerusalem For it is to be observed which a great many have not minded that as that Pope whose words I have cited does expresly say it was before that Council of the Apostles that St. Peter did that action which rendred him blame-worthy And who does not see that he had been incomparably more worthy of blame and reproof if as Cardinal Baronius will have it he had done it immediately after the Decree of the Council which had just then defined he himself having subscribed to the Decree that Christians were no more obliged to observe those legal Rites excepting in one small point and that for a certain time and that after he had spoken so well on that subject to free Christians from that Yoke he should have again endeavoured to subject them to it by obliging them to Judaize That would have been so strange a thing and so unbeseeming an Apostle and the Prince of Apostles that I make no doubt but that for the honour that is due to him it is far better to follow in that the judgment of that ancient Pope than the Opinion of this Cardinal who lived but in the last age It follows then from these matters of Fact which I have now most faithfully related that a great Pope and those Holy Fathers the most venerable and learned of Antiquity have not believed even according to St. Paul that St. Peter was infallible nor by consequent that the Popes who have no greater privilege and prerogative than St. Peter had have received that gift of Infallibility Inter omnes Apostolos hujus Ecclesiae Catholicae personam sustinet Petrus huic enim Ecclesiae claves regni coelorum datae sunt cum ei dicitur ad omnes dicitur amas me pasce oves meas August de Agon Christ lib. 30. Ita Ambrose l. de dign Sacerd. c. 2. Chrys hom 79. in Matth. 24. Cypr. de unit Eccles Hier. contra Jovin lib. 1. Vt Petrus quando ei dictum est tibi dabo claves in figura personam gestabat Ecclesiae quando dictum est pasce oves meas Ecclesiae quoque personam in figura gestabat August in Psal 108. Tract 1.118.129 in Joan. Ser. de 4. quaest apud poss c. 5. 6. Serm. 13. sup Matth. c. 2. As to the objections that are drawn from the words of Jesus Christ spoken to St. Peter Vpon that Rock will I build my Church I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not feed my sheep It is easie to answer them by saying that according to the common interpretation of the Fathers and especially of St. Austine they were spoken to St. Peter as representing the Church by the union of its Pastours with him as with their Head and who by virtue of that union make with him but one universal Episcopacy And the better to express that unity he applies himself and speaks to one onely that is to the head to whom he gave the Primacy over the rest So that when in that union or rather that unity he pronounces and defines jointly with them in a Council or with consent of the Church by her Bishops he cannot err the foundation stands always sure and the sheep are always well governed and well fed But because Cardinal Bellarmine and those who follow him will have these words I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not to be applied absolutely to the Person of St. Peter and without relation to the Church which he represents by virtue of his Primacy we must grant them what they pretend For the truth is they may be understood also in that sense but then they have a very natural and literal meaning which is that of almost all the ancient Fathers and Interpreters of Holy Scripture who say that in this place our Saviour onely spake of the time of his Passion when the Apostles were to be terribly tempted as he himself foretold them Then addressing himself to St. Peter told him that he had prayed for him not that he might not commit any sin of Infidelity for he committed a fearfull one against the confession of Faith by denying his Master thrice but that being recovered from his fall he might not lose the Faith for ever that by the example of his Repentance he might confirm therein his Brethren who were much startled and shaken and that afterwards he might persevere unto the end Non dixit non negabis sed ut non deficiat fides tua curâ enim illias factum est ne omnino Petri fides evanesceret Ne deficiaet fides tua hoc est ne in fine pereas humanam arguens naturam cum ex se nihil sit Chrys hom 63. Quid enim rogavit nisi perseverantiam usque in finem Aug. de Cor. Ge. c. 6. Vt non periret finaliter Hug. in c. 22. Luc. Non ut Petrus non caderet sed ut non deficeret quia quamvis reciderit resurrexerit Bonav in Luc. Ne penitus extirpetur aut finaliter deficiat Dion Carth. in Luc. Vt non finaliter deficiat fides tua Albert. Mag. in hunc locum This is the common interpretation of the Holy Fathers and particularly of St. Chrysostome and Saint Austine who often make use of
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.
the whole General Council whence it follows that the most pernicious and dangerous Error to the Church of some men ought to be condemned who to flatter the Pope so rob the Council of its Authrity that they have the Boldness to say that the Pope is not of necessity obliged to follow the Decisions of the Council and that on the contrary we should test upon the Judgment of the Pope if he oppose that of the Church or of a General Council Thus that great Cardinal from the chair of Truth before the whole Council of Constance conform to its Decrees and in presence of the Pope himself who found no fault with it and seemed not at all displeased that that Opinion was called an Error most pernicious and most dangerous invented by the Flatterers of Popes Decr. Facult Ann. 1429. Kal. April So also the sacred Faculty following so good an Example about twelve years after made F. John Sarasin retract that Proposition which he had put into one of his Theses All the Authority that gives force to the Decrees of a Council Tota authoritas dans vigorem statutis residet in solo summo pontisice resides in the Pope alone He was obliged to make a publick recantation and to change his Proposition into this All the Authority that gives force to the Decrees of a Council Toâ—â— authoritas dans vigorem statutis residet non in solo summo pontifice sed principaliter in spiritu Sancto in Catholica Ecclesia resides not in the Pope alone but chiefly in the Holy Ghost and Catholick Church And certainly it is very rational that the Pope should depend upon the Will of the Holy Ghost who teaches as it pleases him all Truth to the Church and to the Council which represents it and not that the Holy Ghost should depend upon on the Will of the Popes as it must needs do if after that divine Spirit hath by the Council defined the Consubstantiality of the Word the Divinity of the Holy Ghost the Unity of Person and the Plurality of Natures Wills and Operations â—n Jesus Christ and such other Truths concerning the Faith his Decisions had no Authority if it pleased not the Pope to consent to â—hem And this I think is sufficient in relation to the Approbation of the Decrees of Constance one word more as to what M. Schelstrate pretends that they were only made for the time of a Schism CHAP. XXV A Refutation of the other Chapter of M. Schelstrate THis Objection that is made against us is of an old ruinous Engine ready to fall of it self tho we set no strong hand to it to push it down The truth is the Council of Constance which foresaw that it might be made use of to weaken the supreme Authority of Oecumenical Councils did anticipate and overthrow it even before it was made and for that end in the fifth Session wherein it declared that all men of what Dignity soever are obliged to obey the Decrees and Ordinances of that sacred Council of Constance these words are added And of any other General Council lawfully assembled Et cujuscunque alterius Concilii Generalis legitimè congregati He that speaks of any other Council without Restriction comprehends all times both out of Schism and during a Schism So the Council of Basil which was a long time lawful when there was no Schismâ— declared that the Pope was obliged to obey it and every other Council and the Reasons given for it in that long Synodal Answer approved by Pope Eugenius necessarily comprehend all times as may be seen in the two Reasons which only I shall alledge The first is That an Oecumenical Council is a whole and a Body whereof the Pope or he that presides in it in his place is the Head For there is no Acephalous Council as M. Schelstrate speaks that is to say without a Head calling that of Constance so in the Absence of the Pope Nay if he refuse to preside when he might or withdraw himself from it there is always some body that presides therein in his place and represents him in that quality of Head as the whole Council represents the Universal Church and it will be acknowledged without difficulty that the Head is no more but the chief Member and principal Part of that great Body Certè Petrus Apostolus primum membrum universalis Ecclesiae est Gregor l. 4. Ep. 8. as Saint Gregory speaking of Saint Peter positively affirms Not as Jesus Christ who is not only the Head but also the Master of the Universal Church which he hath purchased with his own Blood and by consequent it is his Church it properly belongs unto him and he can dispose thereof as he thinks fit as an Owner can do with his Estate Dominus est Hence it is that he cannot be said to be but a part of the Church Domious Vniverss noâ— est pars universiâ—â—â— Arist 12 Meâ—aph he is over all as God who is the absolute Master of the World is not a part of that whole of that Universe whereof he is the Master as Aristotle himself hath acknowledged It is not so with the Pope who is indeed Head of the Church Universal but not Master Jesus Christ having said to St. Peter as well as to all the other Apostles Matth. 20. Mark 12. Luke 22. The Princes of the Gentiles exercise Dominion over them but it shall not be so among you And that entirely ruines that odious Comparison that some would make between our Kings who are over the States of their Kingdom and the Popes whom they would place over the whole Church There is a great deal of Difference Our Kings are the Masters in their States exercise Dominion over them but not the Popes in the Church but it shall not be so with you The Pope then is but a part of the Church and of a General Council that represents it and not the Master Now it is evident by the light of Nature that the whole is more noble than every part and carries it over them according to that sentence of St. Austin L. de Bapt. c. 4. Vniversum partibus semper optimo Jure praeponitur And upon that Maxim received of all Men without contradiction St. Jerome in one word derides that question when he saith Ep. ad Evagr. Major est Authoritas orbis quam urbis Thus the Pope as the chief part and Head of the universal Church is above every part and his power regulated according to the Canons extends over all the Churches taken particularly and none are exempt from his Jurisdiction but no ways over all the Churches assembled in a General Council unless it be for calling of them and presiding therein And in this manner is to be understood what is to be found in the Bulls of Eugenius IV. and Leo X. in the Councils of Florence and the Lateran besides that this last is not agreed upon to be
History of Monothelism Pope Honorius willing to agree both parties writes Letters to Patriarch Sergius which the Monothelites made use of for Authorising their Heresie The Popes John IV. Theodore and St. Martin follow a contrary conduct to his The Emperor Constantine Pogonatus with consent of Pope Agatho calls the sixth Council The History of that Council The Letters of Sergius and Honorius are examined there They are condemned of Heresie and that Pope is Anathematised He is also condemned in the Emperors Edict in the Letter of Leo II. to the Emperor In the Ancient diurnal Book of Rome in the Ancient Breviaries and in the VII and VIII Councils Convincing Arguments that the Acts of the sixth Council have not been falsified and that it cannot be said that the Fathers of that Council understood not well the meaning of Honorius All Antiquity which hath received that Council as we have it hath believed that the Pope is not infallible p. 143 CHAP. XIII Of the Popes Clement III. Innocent III. Boniface VIII and Sixtus V. THE Error of Clement in his Decretal Laudabilem recalled by Innocent III. The Error of Innocent concerning the secret of Confession He condemns that Error in the Council of Lateran That of Boniface in his Bull unam Sanctam recalled at the Council of Vienna That of Sixtus V. in the Edition of his Bible A ridiculous Answer of some Moderns p. 165 CHAP. XIV The instance of John XXII WHAT he did for Establishing his Error concerning the beatifick vision The sacred Faculty of Paris declares the Doctrin of that Pope heretical It had been condemned by Clement IV and was since in the Council of Florence King Philip of Valois obliges that Pope to recant p. 173 CHAP. XV. The tradition of the Church of Rome as to that THE Popes themselves have acknowledged that for ending difference in Religion by a Sovereign and infallible sentence there was a necessity of a Council The Heresies which Popes have condemned without a General Council have been so condemned by the consent of the Church Popes who have confessed that they had not the gift of Infallibility p. 179 CHAP. XVI The state of the question concerning the Superiority of the Council over the Pope or of the Pope over a Council WHether after a Council is lawfully Assembled the Pope being present in it or not that Council has or has not Supreme Authority over the Head as well as over the other Members of the Church or whether or not all its Authority depends on the Pope p. 187 CHAP. XVII That it is the Holy Ghost which in the definitions of Faith pronounces by the mouth of the Council WHAT is to be concluded from that Principle What it is according to the Doctrin of Antiquity to approve and confirm a Council p. 190 CHAP. XVIII That the Ancient Councils have examined the Judgments of Popes to give a last and definitive sentence upon them THE History of the Patriarch Flavian and the Pope St. Leo who submits his Judgment to that of a General Council An instance of the fifth Council that rescinds a sentence solemnly pronounced by the Pope and of the sixth which examines the sentences of Martin I. and Honorius I. approves the one and rejects the other The History of Constantine of the Donatists and of the first Council of Arles which examines the sentence given by Pope Melchiades in his first Council of Rome p. 199 CHAP. XIX That the Ancient Popes have always acknowledged and protested that they were subject to Councils THE History of Pope Sicicius and of the Council of Capona Of St. Leo in the case of St. Chrysostom against the Patriarch Theophilus Of Innocent III. in the case of the Marriage of Philip the August Instances of Pope St. Agapetus and Silvester II. p. 213. CHAP. XX. That the Ancient Popes have believed that they were subject to the Canons PRoofs of this from the conduct and protestations of the Popes Celestin I. St Leo St. Martin St. Gregory the Great John VIII Eugenius III. and Silvester II. What the Council of Florence hath defined as to that The true sense of these words against a false interpretation that hath been made of them Popes are obliged to govern the Church according to the Canons In what case they can dispense with them That they may abuse their Power Of an Appeal to a Council and of an Appeal as abusive to a Parliament p. 225 CHAP. XXI What General Councils have decided as to that Point THE History of the Council of Pisa where that question was first canvassed The debates that arose upon that Subject in the Council of Constance which is a continuation of that of Pisa The Decrees of that Council of Constance and of that of Basil upon the same Point The approbation of these Decrees by the Popes Martin V. and Eugenius IV. p. 241 CHAP. XXII Of the Writing of the Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate against the two Decrees of the Council of Constance THE Declaration which the Clergy of France met in the Year 1682. made of their Opinion touching these two Decrees which they hold to be of infallible Authority approved by Popes and for those times when there is no Schism as well as during a Schism The Sieur Emmanuel Schelstrate undertakes to refute these three Articles in the three Chapters of his Dissertation p. 256 CHAP. XXIII A Refutation of the first Chapter of the Dissertation of M. Schelstrate THE Decree of the fourth Session hath not been falsified by the Fathers of Basil The Manuscripts of M. Schelstrate are defective and ours are true A demonstration of this Truth by two Sermons of John Gerson who rehearses that Decree before the whole Council of Constance word for word as we have it The Manuscripts by which these two Sermons have been reviewed and the other places were Gerson relates the same Decree An other demonstration of that truth by Pope Eugenius IV. and even by the Manuscripts of M. Schelstrate That question was sufficiently examined The Council consisted of the greatest and soundest part of the three obediences and the absence of others hinders not the Council from being lawful p. 261 CHAP. XXIV A Refutation of one of the two other Chapters of M. Schelstrate PRoofs of the approbation of these two Decrees of Constance The true interpretation of that word Conciliariter The abuse that may be made of the Appeal to a Council is condemned but not the Appeal it self All the Authority of Councils proceeds not from the Pope but chiefly from the Catholick Church p. 297 CHAP. XXV A Refutation of the other Chapter of M. Schelstrate THese two Decrees of the Council of Constance are for all times whilst there was a Schism and when there is none An Ecumenical Council is a whole whereof the Pope is but a part The Pope is the Head but not the Master of the Church The difference betwixt the Power of Popes and of Kings An authentick act of the Superiority of a
name when he speaks of it at the time when it Persecuted the Christians and so cruelly shed the bloud of so many thousand Martyrs And what is most pleasant the Protestants are pleased to give to Christian Rome the name of Babylon and are not satisfied that Pagan Rome should be so called by St. Peter That being presupposed and all the weak batteries of our Adversaries so easily overthrown I had reason to say that if we knew not by other means that St. Peter had been at Rome yet all the reasons that are objected against it would never persuade a Man of sense of the contrary How must it be then at present when we have an invincible Argument to convince us of that truth which we ought never to abandon even though we could not disentangle our selves from the captious Arguments wherewith they assault us For that can never proceed but from the weakness of our mind and not the defect of the object which when it is once certainly known to be true is necessarily so always What is that invincible Argument then which ought to convince us of this truth It is that which as I have said I shall employ throughout this whole Histarical Treatise I mean Antiquity according to that great Principle which at first I laid down To wit that that which is newly broached if it be contrary to what hath been believed in the Primitive Church is false because ancient belief and that descends to us by Tradition especially when we trace it back to the age of the Apostles is always truth it self Now all Antiquity hath believed Blondel de la prim en l'Eglise Chap. 32. p. 823. that St. Peter was at Rome That is so true that Mr. David Blundel the most knowing of all our Protestant Ministers frankly confesses it And he must needs doe so for being a Man of such parts and so well read in the Ancients as appears in his Works he cannot deny but that almost all the Latin and Greek Fathers have asserted it Apud Prudent in peris toph Amongst the Latins Prosper Orosius St. Augustine Saint Jerome Prudentius Optatus Saint Ambrose Lactantius Arnobius St. Cyprian Hippolytus Tertullian and St. Irenoeus and amongst the Greeks Theodoret St. Cyril of Alexandria Apud Euseb l. 2. c. 24. Ibid. Ibid. c. 13. St. Chrysostom St. Epiphanius St. Cyril of Jerusalem St. Athanasius Peter of Alexandria Eusebius Origene Clemens Alexandrinus Denis of Corinth Cajus contemporary with Tertullian and Papias a disciple and hearer of St. John Nor shall we mention all the other Writers who in all succeeding ages have constantly asserted the same thing insomuch that no Heretick nor Schismatick ever dreamt of calling it in question before our Protestants who are the Authours of that impudent and unjustifiable novelty which can never pass with a Man of sense in opposition to all venerable Antiquity and to the authority of so many great men who have constantly in all ages given testimony to that truth from our present times up to the age of the Apostles For to say as some have done That all the Fathers and these Learned men have been deceived by an equivocal word taking that part of the lesser Asia Quas omnes provincias aetas nostra Anatoliam vocat Vnde apud Barbaros pars illa in qua Asia Bithynia Galatia Cappadocia prima Rom. id est Romania sive Romaea appellatur Pars vero quae ad austrum est in qua Lycia Pamphylia Cilicia sunt Otto-Manidia id est Familiae Ottomani quibus illa successit quondam dicebantur Dominic Marius Niger Venet. Asiae Pomment 1. de Asia Minore where St. Peter Preached for the City of Rome and which as the Geographer Marius Niger writes was called Rom. or Romania it is a ridiculous extravagance and no less shamefull ignorance It is onely the Turks who since they became Masters of the Eastern Empire have called the neighbouring Countrey to Constantinople especially beyond the Bosphorus Romania or Rom. or Romelia as that Geographer says for others give that name of Romania or Romelia onely to Thrace This being so Can it be affirmed without disgrace that these holy Fathers who flourished many Ages not onely before the Conquest of the Turks but even before the founding of Constantinople have been deceived in imagining that St. Peter was at Rome because it hath been said that he Preached in the Countrey of Rom. See what extravagance they are capable of who to satisfie their passion dare confront their ridiculous novelty with Antiquity of which we may say with Pope Celestine I. Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem CHAP. III. That the Church of Rome hath been founded by St. Peter that he was the first Bishop of it and that the Popes are his Successours therein IT will not be difficult to confirm the truth of this by the same principle of Antiquity to which I confine my self in this Treatise For all the same Fathers almost Cyprian ad Corn. Ep. 55. lib. de unit Optat. Cont. Parm. l. 2. Ambros de Sacr. l. 3. c. 1. Hierom. de Script in Petr. alibi Hegesip apud Hier. de Script Ruffin invect Sulp. Sever. Hist Sacr. l. 3. August contra Petil. l. 2. c. 51. and ancient Authours who assure us that Saint Peter was at Rome say also that he founded that particular Church It is true that many of them joyn St. Paul with him in that function as it is done at present and there is reason for so doing because both of them Preached the Gospel there in different times and both at the same time Consecrated that illustrious Church by their Martyrdom But when they speak as they very often do of the Episcopacy and Chair of Rome they call it solely the Chair of St. Peter without joining St. Paul with him So that it is not to be doubted but that all Antiquity hath acknowledged St. Peter of all the Apostles to have been the first Bishop of Rome De la Primanté en l'Eglise p. 44. as Mr. Blondel confesses So also when Optatus Melevitanus St. Jerome St. Austin and the rest give a Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome they place always St. Peter first and bring them down to him that possessed the See in their time to shew the uninterrupted Succession of Popes from St. Peter whose lawfull Successours they are and whose Chair they fill as the holy Fathers and Councils frequently say I know there are some who have said Hilar. in Frag. p. 23. Cypr. Ep. 43. Optat. contra Parm. l. 1. That Bishops being the Successours of the Apostles are in that quality all of them in St. Peter's Chair We say the same also and it must needs be granted for the reason that I shall alledge according to one of the Principles which I laid down at first in the first Chapter of this Treatise As the Universal Church is one and a body constituted of all particular Churches in
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
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
the Pope was infallible The same may be said of the Bull of Sixtus V. which he caused to be printed with his Bible and whereby he declares to the whole Church That that Bible is corrected according to the Primitive Purity of the Vulgar Translation And nevertheless because it was afterwards clearly seen that it was not Clement VIII suppressed that Bull and caused another to be printed wherein all the Faults of the former are very well corrected and so it may very well be concluded that Clement VIII was persuaded that his Predecessor instructing all Believers in a point that regards even the Principle of Faith might be deceived However I will not say so because I will not at all enter into Dispute with some Modern Doctors who to slip the Collar have bethought themselves to say That it is true the Bull was printed with the Bible Tannerus disp 1. de Fide q. 4. dub 6. n. 263. Thom. Comptonus in 2.2 dis 22. de sum pontif sect 5. which is still to be seen in many Libraries but that it was not affixed upon the Gates of St. Peter's Church and on the Field of Flora so long as it ought to have been according to the Laws of the Chancery of Rome As if the Truth or Falshood of the Contents of a Bull depended on the time that is to be taken in publishing it and as if the Pope who makes it became not Infallible but at the precise Minute of the Accomplishment of the time that it should have been affixed Let us leave that Instance then of Sixtus V. that we may not engage into that Sophistry of Disputation which to me seems not altogether so serious in a matter of that Importance CHAP. XIV The Instance of Pope John XXII I Shall produce no more Instances but that of Pope John XXII That Pope in his extream old Age of near fourscore and ten Years took a Conceit that as a certain and constant Truth the Opinion of some ought to be established in the Church Contin Hangii who had heretofore taught that the Souls of those who died in Grace and had been entirely purged from all the remaining dreggs of their Sins did not see the Face of God till after the Resurrection He did all that lay in his Power to have it pass He taught it publickly in Conferences and Congregations which he held upon that Subject he preached it himself he obliged by his Example the Cardinals and Prelates of his Court and other Doctors openly to maintain it He caused a learned Jacobin named Father Thomas de Valas Ibid. Gobel persona in Cosmodr aet 6. c. 71. Paul Langius in Chron. Citizen to be put in Prison who not doubting but that Opinion was an Error contrary to the express Word of the Son of God who said to the good Thief This day thou shalt be with me in Paradise preached the contrary even in Avignon where the Pope held his Court. In fine I find a Doctor of very great Authority Hadrian 6. in 4. sentent art 3. de Minist Confirm 22. whose eminent Virtue and singular Learning with a consummated Prudence in the management of Affairs raised him afterwards to the highest Dignity of the Church that says very plainly Publicè docuit declaravit ab omnibus teneri voluit quod animae c. That he obliged all men to hold that Doctrine for the future Be as it will it is certain that he did what lay in his Power to bring into his Opinion the Sacred Faculty of Theology and University of Paris which was by all men reverenced as the Mother of Sciences that for that end he sent thither two Doctors with the General of the Cordeliers who publickly maintained that Doctrine and preached the same which stirred up all Paris against them Whereupon King Philip de Valois caused all the Bishops and Abbots that then were at Paris Continu Hangii to assemble with the Doctors of the Faculty who in his Presence confounded those of Avignon and proved to them that what they had preached by order of the Pope was heretical That Prince who would suffer in his Kingdom no Novelty of Doctrine wrote to his Holiness with a great deal of Force and Respect beseeching him to retract that wicked Opinion Quatènus sententiam Magistrorum de Parisiis qui melius sciunt quid debet teneri credi in fide quam Jurista alii Clerici qui parum aut nihil sciunt de Theolâ—gia approbaret Ibid. which caused so much Scandal in the Church Nay he prayed him to send a Legate into France who in his Name might approve and confirm the Decree of the Doctors of Paris who knew far better what was to be believed as a matter of Faith than his Canonists and other Clergy of Avignon that were no great Divines The Pope who would neither wholly retract nor yet on the other hand provoke the King whose Protection he stood in need of took a middle Course which he thought would not be disagreeable unto him and prayed him to be satisfied Epist Joan. ad Philip 14. Calend. Decemb Pontif. 12. that every one might continue in their Opinion and Say Teach and Preach what they thought good upon that Subject As to that Proposition the King would again have the Advice of the Faculty Joan. Gerson Serm. in die Paschat coram Rege Petr. de Alliac prop. de toll sc coram Rege An. 1406. Gob. Perso Langius Odor Rayn ad An. 1334. whom he there assembled and the Faculty by a Decree of the Second of January One thousand three hundred and three at the Mathurins declared of new That the Opinion in question was Heretical and that by consequent it could neither be Preached nor Taught After that Philip proscribed it by Sound of Trumpet prohibiting all his Subjects to teach or maintain it and then that he might oblige the Pope to condemn it he wrote to him a second time in so forcible and extraordinary Terms that at length the Pope retracted it a little before his Death which hapned the Year following I have said all that I could in my History of the Fall of the Empire to excuse him even so far as to affirm with some that that Doctrine which he would have established by his own Authority was not as yet condemned as it was afterwards by Benet XII his Successor There are some notwithstanding who say that it had been long before rejected by the Roman Church as appears by the Confession of Faith that Clement IV. sent in the Year Two hundred threescore and seven to the Emperour Michael Paleologue whereof I have spoken in my History of the Schism of the Greeks However it be it is certain that it is an Error condemned not only by Pope Benet but much more solemnly above an hundred Years after in the third Article of the Definition of Faith which the Council of Florence made for reuniting the two
followed in this Treatise what the Doctrin of Antiquity is as to that and that the Ancients have always believed that neither the Pope nay nor the Church have received any Power from Jesus Christ but only over things meerly Spiritual and wholly distinct from Temporals that therefore Kings and Sovereign Princes according to the appointment of God are not Subject as to Temporals either directly or indirectly to any Ecclesiastical Power as depending upon God alone who hath established them And that they cannot be Deposed upon any Pretext whatsoever by the Authority of the Church nor their Subjects absolved from the Oath of Allegiance and Obedience that they owe them This I shall briefly and solidly prove by matters of fact which cannot be denied CHAP. XXVII What Jesus Christ and his Apostles have Taught us as to that THERE is nothing in the Church of God more Ancient than Jesus Christ and his Apostles Now they are the first that have Taught us that the Church and the Popes have nothing at all to do with Temporal affairs I shall make no long Discourses here for proving of that truth which is so conspicuous at first glance that we need no more but Eyes to read the words that express it without any necessity of a Commentary to explain them Don't we read in the Gospel that the Kingdom of Jesus Christ John 17. and by consequent of his Church and his Vicar upon Earth is not of this World Matth. 22. That we must render to Cesar the things that are Cesars and to God the things that are Gods That afterward Jesus Christ submits himself and his Vicar also to the Emperor by commanding St. Peter to pay the Tribute that was due to him for them both That he takes not the Crown from Herod Matth. 17. who did what he could to rob him of life which hath given occasion to the Church in one of her Hymns to say Non eripit Mortalia quia Regna dat Coelestia He deprives not Kings of their Temporal Kingdoms since he came into the World to give us the Kingdom of Heaven John 6. Is it not clear that he fled into the Desart when they talked of making him a King Luke 12. Who would not so much as judg of a difference betwixt two Brothers concerning their Succession And that he positively told his Apostles oftner than once that he would by no means have them like the Kings of the Gentiles who bear rule over their Subjects Matth. 20. Mark 10. Luke 22. and far less have any Dominion or Jurisdicton over Kings May not we see in the Epistles of the Apostles an express command given to all sorts of Men without exception Every Soul Rom. 13. 1 Pet. 2. to be Subject to Sovereign Powers That the Powers that are are ordained of God That whosoever resists them resists the Ordinance of God and draweth upon himself Eternal damnation 1 Pet. 2. That all without exception must be subject to their King for so is the will of God and that we must needs be subject not only for Wrath but for Conscience sake Rom. 13. This shews the falsity of the distinction of Buchanan and of his impious followers Buch. I. De Jure Regni apud Scotos who to answer those that objected to them the express command of God made to us in Scripture of obeying our Princes whoever they be and the example of Primitive Christians who according to the Law of God were always Loyal to the Emperors tho Pagans Persecutors and Enemies of their Religion have had the boldness to say that that was only fit in the first Plantation of the Church when Christians were too weak to take up Arms against Princes and to shake off their yoke They are to know that it was for fear of offending God and of bringing upon themselves Eternal damnation that they were Subject and Loyal to the Emperors and not for fear of their wrath and of the punishments which with so much courage they slighted when it was put to them to go to Martyrdom or to deny the Faith Buchanan ought at least to have read the fourscore and seventh Chapter of the Apology of Tertullian that he might have learnt this truth from that great Man that it was only to obey the command of Jesus Christ and of his Apostles that the Christians of his time were Loyal to their Princes and not at all because of their weakness and inability of acting and of rising in Arms against them to deliver themselves from their cruel and tyrannical Government If we would saies he Si hostes exertos non tantum vindices occultos agere vellemus deesset nobis vis numerorum copiarum vestra omnia implevimus urbes insulas castella castra ipsa c. sola vobis relinquimus Templa cui Bello non idonei non prompti fuissemus etiam impares copiis qui tam libenter trucidamur si non apud istam disciplinam mâ—gis occidi liceret quam occidere revolt by openly declaring our selves your Enemies could we want Forces and a great number of good Troops we who fill your Towns your Isles your Forts your Camps your Armies in a word all but your Temples And though we were not equal in number yet what is it we might not undertake and with what courage and zeal could not we fight you we who suffer our selves to be inhumanly put to death with so much Joy if we had not learnt in the School of Christ that we had better suffer our selves to be Massacred than to kill Men in Rebellion and in waging War against our Princes who persecute us It was not then propter iram but propter conscientiam to satisfie their Conscience and obey the Law of God that these Primitive Christians inviolably kept their Allegiance which they owed to their Emperors though they were infidels and wicked This is it which we have plainly declared to us in the Gospel and in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul Whereupon the true Divines who in their Discourses are not conducted by the bare light of Human Philosophy which many times degenerates into Sophistry but by the Principles of Scripture that cannot deceive have in all times made this truly Theological Argument to which no Philosophical subtlety can be objected It is most evident by these clear and express passages of Scripture that Kings are ordained of God and that the Allegiance and Obedience that Subjects owe to them is of Divine Right Now neither Popes nor the Church can destroy and overthrow what God hath fixed nor dispence with that which is of Divine Right as manifestly appears in what concerns the essential parts of the Sacraments as for instance of Marriage of which it is said Quod Deus conjunxit homo non separet Therefore neither Popes nor Councils can ever depose Kings nor acquit their Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance And this is the more convincing
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