niteris quod ante nescivimus Hier. Epist ad Pammach Ocean to teach us that which was not known before Pope Celestin I. Exhorting the Gallican Church to repress a sort of People that would have established new Doctrines concludes with these very pithy words Corripiantur hujusmodi non sit illis liberum habere pro voluntate sermonem Desinat incessere novitas vetustatem Coelest Ep. ad Episc Gall. Let such men be corrected let them not have the liberty to say what they please let not Novelty insult over Antiquity And Sixtus III. Animated by the same Spirit that his Predecessour was and following his steps speaks to John of Antioch with the same force writing to him in these terms Let no more be allowed to Novelty Nihil ultra liceat Novitati quia nihil addi convenit vetustati Six III. Ep. ad Joan. Antioch because nothing ought to be added to Antiquity Not but that the Church which makes no new Articles of Faith may declare after many Ages being instructed by the Holy Ghost which successively teaches her all truth that certain matters that have not been before examined whether or not they be Articles of Faith are really such as she hath done upon many occasions obliging us to believe distinctly what was not as yet known to be matter of Faith But that we ought so to stick to that which hath been believed in Antiquity in matter of Doctrine and especially in the four or five first Ages when according to our Protestants themselves there was as yet no corruption in Doctrine that new Doctours may add nothing of their own invention nor establish any Novelty contrary to it This solid Principle being equally received by Catholicks and Protestants I hope to satisfie both in declaring calmly and without dispute by the bare relation of evident matters of Fact what the ancient Church hath believed concerning the establishment of the Church of Rome and the Prerogatives and rights of her Bishops This then is the Method which I shall trace in this Treatise CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome ALL Catholicks who know that the Popes are the Successours of St. Peter agree amongst themselves as to that point but not with all Hereticks For there are some Modern who confidently deny that that Divine Apostle ever was at Rome or that he fixed his Chair either there or in the City of Antioch Calvin l. 4. Inst c. 6. They ground so extraordinary and new an Opinion upon the silence of St. Luke and St. Paul who having been at Rome would not have failed to have spoken of St. Peter and to have found Christians if he had already Preached the Gospel there besides they ground it upon a certain Chronology which they have made as they thought fit of the Acts of the Apostles and which can no way agree with that History of St. Peter and in fine upon the very Epistles of that Apostle who gives us to know that his Mission was into Asia and that he died at Babylon There is nothing that gives a clearer proof of the weakness and delusion of the wit of man than when by that Pride which is so natural to him he shakes off that Authority to which he is obliged to submit and for that end opposes it by his false reasonings that serve for no other purpose but to discover his blindness and vanity Though we had elsewhere no Intelligence of the Voyage to and Chair of St. Peter at Rome yet no man of sense would suffer himself to be persuaded by such inconclusive arguments so easie to be refuted St. Luke says nothing of it in the Acts of the Apostles Hath he mentioned there any thing of St. Paul's Journey into Arabia of his return to Damascus and then three years after to Jerusalem of his Travels into Galatia his being ravished up into Heaven his three Shipwrecks his eight Scourgings and of a thousand things else that he suffered shall one conclude from that silence that all is false And though St. Paul had not written of these things himself or if his Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians Galat. 1. 2 Cor. 2. had never come to our hands would that silence of St. Luke have been of any greater force to prove that that is not true seeing it is really so and was true before St. Paul wrote any thing of it That Evangelist saith St. Jerome hath past over a great many things which St. Paul suffered as likewise that St. Peter established his Chair first at Antioch In Ep. ad Galat. c. 2. and then at Rome And as to the Chronology calculated to refute the two Foundations of Antioch and Rome we maintain that it is false and it is easie to give another fixed by the ablest writers of Ecclesiastical History and Chronologers which perfectly agrees with the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Paul Take it thus then in a few words The year of our Lord thirty five that Apostle was sent with St. John to Samaria Anno 35. to lay hands upon those whom the Deacon St. Philip had newly converted there Act. 8. v. 20. And having Preached the Gospel to the People of that Province he returned to Jerusalem where St. Paul three years after his Conversion went to visit him in the year thirty nine Now seeing the Church at that time lived in a profound peace St. Peter took so favourable a time to go visit Anno 39. as St. Luke saith in express terms Galat. 1. v. 18. Act. 9. v. 31. 32. all the Believers that the Disciples dispersed through the Provinces during the Persecution of the Jews after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen Act. 11. v. 19. Euseb in Chron. Chrysost Hieron Greg. M. alii had gained to Christ And then it was that being informed that many of these dispersed Disciples had by their Preaching wrought much fruit at Antioch he went and setled his Patriarchal Chair in that great City the Capital of the East as the Ancients assure us From thence seeing he had the care of all the Churches having given necessary orders for the government of that of Antioch Anno 40 41. Anno 42. he returned into Judaea visits Lidda Joppa Caesarea opens a door to the calling of the Gentiles by the Conversion of Cornelius the Centurion and returns to Jerusalem Act. 11. v. 4. where having declared what God had revealed to him upon that Subject he was informed by the relation of those that came from Antioch that the number of Believers increased there dayly And therefore St. Barnabas was sent thither V. 22. who finding that there was a great Harvest there went to fetch St. Paul from Tarsus to assist him in the work V. 25. and both of them laboured in that holy employment for the space of a whole year with so great success Anno 43. that there the Believers who
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
little longer to live and who according to my Profession can contribute nothing to your Conquests but by my ardent Prayers I shall reckon my self most happy and shall die content if I can but joyn a little by my Pen to those which you daily Atchieve for enlarging the Empire of the Church by the Conversion of Hereticks which by most soft and efficacious ways you procure And if by my Writings and particularly by this I can make it known to all the World as I hope I may that I am as true a Catholick as a good French Man and that I will die as I have lived SIR Your Majesties Most Humble most Obedient and Faithful Subject and Servant LOUIS MAIMBOURG A TABLE OF The Chapters and of their Contents CHAP. I. The design and draught of this Treatise and the Principle upon which it moves THE true Church is the Kingdom of Jesus Christ The definition thereof It s unity in the multitude of particular Churches which make but one Episcopacy and one Chair by the communion they have with a chief Church which is the center of their Vnity Antiquity is to be followed against Novelty in Doctrin that is contrary to it Vpon this Principle it is proved in this Treatise against the new Opinions what Antiquity hath believed of the first Foundation and Prerogatives of that chief Church which is the Church of Rome Page 1. CHAP. II. Of the Foundation and Establishment of the Church of Rome That St. Peter hath been at Rome A Refutation of the Erroneous reasons that some Protestants alledge for overthrowing that Truth St. Luke hath omitted a great many other things which notwithstanding are true The true Chronology which agrees with the progress and coming of St. Peter to Antioch and Rome against the wrong Chronology contrived to subvert it There were Christians at Rome when St. Paul arrived there All Antiquity hath believed that St. Peter was at Rome The Extravagance of those who have said that the Fathers were mistaken in taking the Country of Rome or Romania for the City of Rome Page 15 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 Successors in that Bishoprick THAT truth acknowledged by all Antiquity In what sense Bishops sit in St. Peter's Chair and are his Successors and how Popes are in another manner Page 31 CHAP. IV. Of the Primacy of St. Peter and that he hath been established by Jesus Christ Head of the Universal Church THE true interpretation of these words Thou art Peter and upon that Rock will I build my Church How the Church is built upon Jesus Christ upon the confession of his Divinity and on the person of St. Peter His Primacy of Jurisdicton over all Believers proceeds from the confession of Faith which he made for all the rest All Antiquity hath acknowledged that Primacy of St. Peter and of all his Successors in the Bishoprick of Rome Page 37 CHAP. V. Of the Rights and advantages that the Primacy gives to the Bishop of Rome over other Bishops WHAT the Council of Florence decided as to that The superintendence of the Pope over all that concerns the Government and good of the Church in General The right he hath of calling Councils for the Spiritual and presiding in them That appeals may be made to his Tribunal and that he ought to judge of greater causes An illustrious instance of that Supreme Authority of the Pope in the History of Pope Agapetus of the Patriarch Anthimius and the Emperor Justinian The prodigious Ignorance of Calvin in Ecclesiastical History The System of his Heresie quite contrary to the Doctrin of Antiquity What are the Prerogatives of Popes that are disputed amongst Catholicks Page 51 CHAP. VI. The state of the Question concerning the Infallibility of the Pope WHether or not when he defines without a Council and without the consent of the Church he may err p. 72 CHAP. VII What Antiquity hath concluded from that that St. Peter was reproved by St. Paul WHether St. Peter was blame-worthy His action is called an error by St. Austin The opinion of St. Jerome refuted by that holy Doctor He compares the Error of St. Cyprian with that of St. Peter The History of the Error of Vigilius in regard of the three Chapters and his change compared by Pelagius II. with the Error and change of St. Peter The Schism of the Occidentals founded upon the constitution of Vigilius According to Pope Pelagius for quenching that Schism the Holy See is to be followed in its change as believers were obliged to imitate St. Peter in that which he made from evil to good St. Paul believed not St. Peter to be infallible It was before the Council of Jerusalem that St. Peter was reproved by St. Paul The true interpretation of that passage I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith fail not p. 77 CHAP. VIII What follows naturally from the great contest of Pope Victor with the Bishops of Asia DIfferent customs in the Church concerning the celebration of Easter and of the Fast before that Feast The good intelligence betwixt Pope St. Anicetus and St. Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna notwithstanding the diversity of their customs The Decree of Pope Victor rejected by Polycrates Bishop of Ephesus and by the other Asiaticks St. Ireneus in name of the Gallican Church opposes Pope Victor None of these Bishops of the East and West believed the Pope to be infallible p. 103 CHAP. IX What ought to be inferred from the famous debate that was betwixt the Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks WHAT was the Judgment of St. Cyprian in that question and what was that of St. Stephen Councils held thereupon on both sides The Decrees of the one and other quite contrary St. Stephen cuts off from his Communion the Bishops that would not submit to his Decree Neither these Bishops nor St. Cyprian did for all that change their opinion and practice It was also permitted long after the death of St. Cyprian to maintain the same opinion and to follow the same conduct The Holy Fathers who held a Doctrin contrary to the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen What the great Council of Arles Nice and Constantinople have decided as to that question All then except the Donatists submitted to the Decrees of these Councils because they were believed to be Infallible which was not thought of Popes p. 111 CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius HIS Letters published in all places wherein he condemns St. Athanasius suppresses the term Consubstantial receives the Arians to his Communion and subscribes the Formulary of Sirmium He is for that deposed by the Church of Rome p. 135 CHAP. XI The instance of Pope Vigilius THE constitution of that Pope for the three Chapters The fifth Council which is Infallible condemns them p. 140 CHAP. XII The condemnation of Honcrius in the sixth Council THE
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
Optatus St. Cyril of Jerusalem Saint Basil St. Austine and most Catholick Bishops of Aegypt Asia and Africa not to mention those who in the interval of almost Threescore years that was betwixt Pope Stephen and the Council had liberty to follow the party of St. Cyprian believed not in the Third Fourth and Fifth Ages of the Church that the Pope was Infallible What can be answered to that Let us now consult the Council in Question or rather the Councils which have pronounced Sovereignly concerning that point of the Baptism of Hereticks You have three of them First the full Council which is the first Council of Arles to which the Pope St. Sylvester sent four Legats in the year 314. makes this Decree in the Eighth Canon upon occasion of the Africans De Afris quod propriâ lege utantur ut Re-baptisent placuit ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de Haeresi venerit interrogent eum symbolum si perviderint eum in patre filio Spiritu Sancto Baptizatum manus ei tantum imponatur sic accipiat Spiritum Sanctum Quod si interrogatus non responderit hanc Trinitatem Rebaptisetur who Rebaptized all Hereticks If any Heretick return to the Church let him be asked the Question and if it appear that he hath been Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost that hands be onely laid upon him to the end he may receive the Holy Ghost but if he answer not according to the Mystery of the Trinity let him be Re-baptized Moreover the great Council of Nice Twelve years after ordains in the Canon 19. that the Paulanists who return to the Church should be Re-baptized De Paulanistis ad Ecclesiam Catholicam confugientibus definitio prolata est ut iterum Baptisentur omnimodis Aug. de haer ad quod vult Haeres 44. because as St. Austine says these Hereticks the Disciples of Paulus Samosatanus who believed not the Trinity nor the Incarnation of the Word Can. 1. observed not the form of Baptism in Baptizing in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity But as to the Novatians who Baptized in the Name of the Trinity as Catholicks did the Council declares that it is sufficient to lay hands upon them In fine Can. 7. the first Council of Constantinople which is the second General ordains also the Montanists Sabellians and such other Hereticks who Baptized not in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity against which they blasphemed should be Re-baptized but not the Novatians the Quartodecimans nor yet the Arians and Macedonians because although these had not the true belief which ought to be had of that great Mystery yet they Baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost which St. Austine who hath Written after that Council of Constantinople assures to be sufficient for the validity of the Sacrament though the Faith of him who Baptizes be not pure So that saith he Manifestum est fieri posse ut fide non integraÌ„ integrum in quoquam maneat Baptismi Sacramentum ....... Quamoâ—rem nisi Evangelicis verbis in nomine Patris Filii Spiritus Sancti Marcion Baptismum consecrabat integrum erat Sacramentum quamvis ejus fides sub iisdem verbis aliud opinantis quam Catholica veritas docet non esset integra Aug. l. 2. de Bapt. cont Donatist c. 14 15. if Marcion Baptized using the words of the Gospel in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost his Baptism was good though that Heretick under these words believed a thing quite different from what the Catholick Church teaches That being so there is no more to be done but to compare these Decrees of Councils with those of the Pope St. Stephen and of Saint Cyprian Si quis à quacunque Haeres c. manus ei tantum imponatur This Pope Decrees that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever he shall have onely hands laid upon him without being Re-baptized Si quis à quacunque Haeresi Qui ex quacunque Haeresi c. Baptisentur c. St. Cyprian says on the contrary that if any one return from any Heresie whatsoever he ought to be Re-baptized These are two extreams directly opposite one to another The Three Councils take the middle course explaining the one and condemning the other They are not for Re-baptizing the Novatians and other Hereticks who Baptize in the Name of the Three Persons of the Trinity and they hold their Baptism to be lawfull and good according to the true Apostolical Tradition but they are also absolutely for Re-baptizing the Paulanists and all such who Baptize not in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost thereby clearly defining that their Baptism is null And therein they explain and rectifie the Decree of the Pope St. Stephen adding but in formal terms an exception which is onely understood therein They plainly then declare on the one hand how the Decree of St. Stephen is to be understood and on the other that St. Cyprian Nondum veritas eliquata declarata per plenarium concilium who expressed himself clearly enough in his was deceived but very innocently because as St. Austine says L. 1. de Baptis Contra Donatis c. 7 8 9 17. the truth was not then discovered and declared by the Council Now seeing before that Declaration one might according to that holy Father freely follow the opinion of St. Cyprian notwithstanding the Decree of the Pope and that after that of the Council one had not the same liberty it is altogether evident that it must once more be concluded that it is because the ancient Church believed that a Council is Infallible and that the Pope is not CHAP. X. The fall of Liberius THESE two holy Popes Victor and Stephen whom so many Catholick Bishops of the Ancient Church have not believed to be Infallible had notwithstanding the truth on their side and in their favours the Councils decided But there are others who according to the unquestionable testimonies of the Ancients have fallen into errour whence it may be irrefragably concluded upon better reason that Antiquity reckoned them not Infallible I shall onely alledge seven or eight of the most evident instances which will be sufficient to prove that the Ancients acknowledged no other Infallibility amongst Men but what God hath given to his Church The first is Liberius who to get himself recalled from the Exile to which the Arian Emperour had Banished him and to remount the Pontifical Throne which Felix had usurped Ann. 357. solemnly approved Arianism This he did by condemning jointly with the Arians St. Athanasius the great defender of the Faith and scourge of Arianism besides by suppressing the Term Consubstantial which distinguished a Catholick from an Arian and which was in a manner the
Having found the Epistle of Sergius to Honorius and that of Honorius to Sergius wholly contrary to the Doctrine of the Apostles the Definitions of Councils and the Judgment of the Holy Fathers and that they were conform to the false doctrine of Hereticks we absolutely reject and abhor them as pernicious to Souls We have moreover Judged that the names of Theodore Sergius Cyrus Pyrrhus c. ought to be blotted out of the Church and that with them Honorius heretofore Pope of ancient Rome ought to be Excommunicated because we have found by his Letters to Sergius that in all things he hath followed the mind of that Heretick and that he hath confirmed his impious Doctrines The holy Council repeats that Condemnation in the definition of Faith that was made in the Eighteenth Session and again Anathematises him as also the Heretical Patriarchs Sergius Pyrrhus Paul and Peter of Constantinople Cyrus of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch Ad haec Honorius Antiquae Romae Papa hujusmodi haereseos confirmator Sext. Syn. p. 1084. Edit Paris in the thanks that were given the Emperour at the end of the Council And that Emperour in his Edict whereby he Banishes the Heresie of the Monothelites out of his Empire declares the same against the Heretical Bishops and against Honorius whom he calls the confirmer of that Heresie The Council being ended the Legats brought an Authentick Copy of it to the Pope St. Leo II. who succeeded Agatho that died during that Council And this Pope Leo who understood Greek very well took the pains himself to Translate it into Latin such as we have it Afterwards Writing to the Emperour to whom he sent his Approbation of all the Acts of the Council he Anathematises Honorius Necnon Honorium qui hanc sedem Apostolicam non Apostolicae Traditionis Doctrinâ lustravit sed immaculatam fidem subvertere conatus est T. 6. Concil Edit Paris p. 1027. who enlightned not says he the Apostolick Church by the Doctrine of Apostolical Tradition but who on the contrary endeavoured to destroy the Faith And in the Letters which he Wrote to the Bishops of Spain and to the King Ervigius to whom he sent the Definition of the Council to be signed he expresses himself as to that point in words at least as significant and weighty Qui immaculatam Apostolicae traditionis regulam quam à praedecessoribus suis accepit maculari consensit Ibid. p. 1252. saying That that Pope hath been smitten with an Anathema with Theodore Cyrus and Sergius for having consented that the Immaculate Rule of Apostolical Tradition which he had received from his Predecessours should be corrupted What this Pope who had Read Examined Translated and Approved that Council said of Honorius other Popes his Successours have also said in the following Ages For in the ancient Diurnal-book which is a kind of Ceremonial of the Church of Rome the Confession of Faith which all the new Elected Popes did make is to be seen and wherein they declare That they receive the Sixth General Council where Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus c. Vnà cum Honorio qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit inventers of the Heresie of the Monothelites are say they condemned with Honorius who favoured and countenanced their wicked Doctrines Adrian II. in his Epistle that was read and received with applause in the seventh Action of the Eight Ecumenical Council confesses That the Orientals pronounced Sentence of Anathema against Honorius accused of the Heresie of the Monothelites And that great Eighth Council which so strongly maintained the Primacy of the Pope against Photius yet for all that with consent of the Popes three Legats who presided in that Council in the definition of Faith they Anathematised Theodore of Pharan Sergius Pyrrhus c. and with them Honorius Bishop of Rome Cyrus of Alexandria and Macarius of Antioch These are matters of fact to be read in the Councils and in the Books which I cite and they are so strong and decisive against the Infallibility of the Pope that Baronius Bellarmine Pighius and the other modern Authours who will absolutely have the Pope to be Infallible have been forced to deliver themselves from the persecution of those troublesome matters of fact to alledge forgery in them and boldly to say that the Acts of the Sixth Council have been corrupted by Theodore of Constantinople who in hatred to the Popes foisted in immediately after the Council all that concerns Honorius and that the Epistles of St. Leo are false and have been forged by some Impostour an enemy of the Holy See For say they what likelihood that after the Letter of Pope Agatho had been read in the fourth Action wherein he sayth That the Apostolical Church hath never swerved from the truth they would have condemned one of his Predecessours and that Leo his Successour should doe the same But they who yield not to that reason nor to some other conjectures which they find to be weaker object reasons against them which they think can never be answer'd For say they if that wicked Patriarch had corrupted the Acts would not the Popes Legats who presided in the Council and brought a Copy of them to Rome have clearly seen the Imposture and that what was inserted concerning Pope Honorius was no Act of the Council which had not mentioned him Would they not have complained to the Emperour of that horrid Cheat Would they not have told Pope Leo that these Acts were falsified Would they have suffered without speaking one word that he should have Translated them in that manner to impose upon the whole Church And would the Emperour who was himself present at the Council put into his Edict that Honorius had been condemned there or at least would he have suffered that Edict to be falsified in his presence Now if any one to excuse the Legats and Pope Leo should think fit to say That these Acts were not corrupted till long after their death Might not his mouth be stopt with this Reply To what end then was that Imposture Was there not to be found in the Records of the Vatican the true Copy of that Council the Translation of it made by Pope Leo and besides a Thousand Copies of it elsewhere which might have been opposed to those Falsaries for discovering their Cheat Would not Pope Adrian very far from Writing to the Fathers of the Eighth Council that Honorius had been condemned in the Sixth have advertised them that their Copies were corrupted Durst the Fathers have renewed the Anathema against Honorius and Adrian's three Legats never have opposed it Yet they did no such thing and there was no complaint made at that time that the Acts of the Sixth Council were falsified because there have never been any other Copies of these Acts either in Writing or in Print except those which we have wherein Honorius is condemned with Sergius and Pyrrhus and the other heads of the Monothelites
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
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
l. 3. c. 6. told him with a great deal of holy liberty that he forbids not to dispense but to dissipate that he knows very well that the Popes are the Stewards of the house of God but for Edification and not for Destruction and that the Steward ought to be faithful when Necessity urges Dispensation is excusable and laudable when Advantage not of a private person but of the publick requires it and when neither appear in that which is defired then what is granted is no more a faithful Dispensation but a most cruel Dissipation And this as a learned Pope teacheth Hadrian V. de dispens Apostolic renders both him that obtains that Dispensation and him that grants it criminal in the sight of God unless he that granteth it hath been without his Fault imposed upon by a false Information as many times it happens The power then of dispensing exempts not Popes according to the Ancients from the Obedience which they owe to the Decrees of Councils and when they do otherwise and act in their Constitutions contrary to the Canons that is not a lawful practice but an abusing of their power and an abuse that draws many others after it Priâ—cipium maiorum inde fuisse quod nonnulli pontisices coacervaverant sibi magistros prurientes auribus ut eorum studio calliditate inveniretur ratio quâ liceret id quod liberet pontificem esse dominum beneficiorum onniâ—nâ— Ita quod voluntas pontificis qualiscunque ea faerit sit regâ—la quâ ejus operationes actiones dirigantur c. This that great Assembly of Cardinals and Prelates pick'd out of the best and ablest men of the Court of Rome which Paul III. called in the Year One thousand five hundred and thirty eight to search for means of remedying the Troubles of the Church represented to him with much Vigour and Respect when they told him that the source of so many Disorders was the Flattery of some new Doctors who strained their false Subtilties to make his Predecessors believe that they were the absolute Masters of all in the Church that they were above all Canons and that there was no other Law for them but their own Will and Pleasure So that when it happened that some Popes manifestly abusing their power transgressed the limits set them by the Canons Appeals were made to the next Oecumenical Council Ann. 1303. as was done upon account of the Bull of Boniface VIII who pretended to a Sovereign power over all the Crowns upon Earth as the University of Paris in the Year 1491 appealed to a Pope better informed and to the first general Council concerning certain exactions and gatherings of Tenths which were attempted against the Canons and Liberties of the Gallican Church and as hath been done oftner than once in Germany upon the like Occasions But seeing that Remedy is tedious and that it may be abused by Appeals very ill brought which seeing they could not be judged in an whole Age would render the pontifical Authority useless in the smallest matters which Pius II. and Julius II. have most justly condemned instead thereof we have in France an Appeal as of Abuse to theâ—â— arliament which representing the King sitting in his Chair of Justice to whom as protector of the Canons it belongs to hinder any thing from being acted contrary to them has Right to judge whether there be any matter in the Bulls Ordinances and Ecclesiastical Sentences which wound the Canons and our Liberties For in this chiefly consist the Liberties of the Kingdom and Gallican Church that no new thing can be commanded or enjoyned us contrary to the holy Decrees of the Councils received in France and against the ancient Law in the possession whereof we have always maintained our selves without submitting to any other Laws unless we our selves consent to them so that whatever derogates from these ancient Constitutions which are our inviolable Laws is by Decree rescinded And this seems to be grounded upon that excellent Sentiment of Innocent III. a great Pope great Canonist and great Lawyer who speaks like a Pope when he says Quae in derogationem sanctorum canonum attentantur tanto potius infringi volumus carere robore firmitatis quanto authoritas universalis Ecclesiae cui praesidemus ad id nos provocat inducit Innoc. III. l. 1. Ep. ad Episc Favent We will that all that is undertaken and attempted against the holy Canons be void and null and we will it so much the rather that the Authority of the holy Church wherein we preside moves and inclines us to it As if by that he would tell us that the Authority of the Church depends upon the Observation of her Canons and Laws and not on the Liberty that a Pope might take to violate them From all that I have said in this Chapter this truth of Fact results That all Antiquity hath believed that Popes being subject to the Decrees of Councils and obliged to act and govern according to the Laws that are prescribed to them by the Canons Councils by consequent are above the Popes CHAP. XXI What General Councils have decided as to that Point SEeing that Question was not moved in the Ancient Church when all were of the Opinion that I have now mentioned Councils that decide nothing but upon occasion of Differences and Disputes which arise amongst Christians about some certain point of Doctrine have given no definitive Sentence as to that particular till it was begun to be questioned and disputed about Concil Pisan t. 11. Edit Paris Act. conc ex codic Gemmetic t 6. Spirit Monach. Dionys 1.29 l. 1. sequen Niem l. 23. Platina Ciacconius And this I think happened upon occasion of the Council of Pisa which the Cardinals of both obediences that is of Gregory XII and Benet XIII with consent of almost all Kings and Sovereigns called for extinguishing that Schism which these two Competitors and pretended Popes entertained by their Collusion and Obstinacy contrary to the express Promise they had made of resigning up their Pretensions For seeing some who stood for Gregory Ann. 1409. protested against the Council which as they said had no Authority over the Popes such an unprecedented protestation in the Church being exploded the famous Doctor Peter Plaoust one of the Deputies from the University of Paris which at that time was in the Meridian of its Reputation made a long and learned Speech in full Council 29 May. wherein he proved by many Reasons that the Universal Church and by consequent a General Council which represents her is above the Pope adding that that was the Judgment of the University of Paris and of all the other Universities of France No sooner was he come down from the Pulpit but that the Bishop of Novare stept up and read aloud a Writing which declared that an hundred and three Doctors and Licentiates of Divinity deputed by the Universities to that Council being
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
M. Schelstrate then say now with his long discourse about the five Nations agreeing that the Reformation should not be made 'till after the Election of a Pope But once more What does he mean with the great mystery he makes of this that after much debate in the Assembly of these Nations concerning the manner how the Decree should be made whether by obliging the Pope with these Deputies to make the Reformation formation before his Coronation Postea fuerunt factae diversae formae decreti ad h. c Tandem dictum fuit quod Papa electus ligari non poterat or after it was at length said Papa electus ligari non poterat that when a Pope is chosen he cannot be bound Does he by that then pretend that we are obliged to believe that a Pope lawfully elected as St. Silvester was is not obliged to subscribe to the Decrees of an Ecumenical Council as that of Nice was And that when such a Council hath decided the consubstantiality of the word and forbidden Priests to marry the Pope is not bound by these Decrees as well as the rest of Christians are and that he is still at liberty to believe of the one what he thinks fit and to act in regard of the other as he pleases But does he not see that to have the true meaning of those words they are to be applied to the Subject in question to wit whether it should be put into the Decree that the Pope who was to be chosen Ante Coronationem Pape Administrationem aliquam should be obliged to make the Reformation before his Coronation nay and before he could have any part in the Government of the Church and to give good security for it as the German Nation demanded Whereupon they had reason to say that a Pope could not be obliged to a thing so unbeseeming the Pontifical Majesty nor so tied up as to deprive him of the Power he hath by Divine Right to Govern the Church by virtue of his Primacy from the very instant that he is Canonically elected Successor of St. Peter Thus ought these words to be understood in relation to what goes before and not that the Pope is not obliged to any thing The truth is in the Decree that was made after that Conciliariter in the fourtieth Session The Pope was not obliged in that manner as the Germans had proposed nevertheless he was bound in another most reasonable manner if I may say so that is to say he was obliged to reform the Church in the Head and Members with consent of the Council or with the Deputies of the Nations before the end of the Council But if M. Schelstrate will still be opinionative and pretend that the Nations understood something else by these words Quod Papa electus ligari non poterat there need no other answer to be made unto him but that we must not stick to what hath been said in the Assembly of the Nations as he doth but to what hath been defined Conciliariter in the Session as we have just now mentioned I am apt to believe now that M. Schelstrate will be fully satisfied with me seeing I have exactly answered Point for Point all that he hath said upon his Manuscripts unknown to the whole World for near three hundred years and which at present he thinks fit to object to us as most Authentick Pieces in the dissertation he hath made against the Declaration of the Gallican Church and against the perpetual Edict of the King who as Protector of the Church and of her Canons makes it to be observed in all his Territories and in fine against the Council of Constance received by all Christendom and especially by France which looks upon and reverences it as its Palladium the prop support and defender of its liberties This being so there remains no more but in a few words to conclude what I have hitherto said of the superiority of a Council over the Pope I made it out in the beginning that all Antiquity believed it without the least dispute as to that Subject as there happened about the time of the Council of Pisa Then I clearly shew'd what that Council and the two following of Constance and Basil even approved by the Popes Alexander V. Martin V. and Eugenius IV. determined on that Subject in favours of Councils As to the times that have succeeded these three Councils it is certain that all those great Men those Bishops Cardinals Popes those Universities and Learned Doctors of all Nations who as I have said have taught that Popes are not Infallible have by consequent maintained that an Ecumenical Council which cannot be doubted but to be Infallible is above the Pope But in a particular manner it is a Doctrin which the more renowned Doctors of Paris have always taught I say of that learned University the ancientest and most famous of all others of whom if I should make a List with the quotations of their Opinions it would easily fill up a whole Book It is enough for me to mention here what the great Cardinal of Lorraine fearing that some term might be slipt in the Council of Trent that might be interpreted against that Doctrine of all France caused his Secretary to represent to Pope Pius IV. in the year 1563. These are the proper terms that he put into his instructions concerning that Point I cannot deny but that I am a French Man and have been bred in the Vniversity of Paris where it is held that the Pope is subject to a Council and they who teach the contrary there are looked upon and noted as Hereticks The French will sooner lose their lives than renounce that Doctrin It would be folly to think that there is one Bishop in France that ever would consent to the opinion contrary to that truth The truth is Edit Card. Borom 9. Jan. 1563. Pallabicin Hist conc Trid. l. 19. c. 12. n. 10. c. 13. n. 2. The Legates of the Council being instructed from Rome that they should endeavour so to bring it about that in the Canon concerning the Pope the terms of the Council of Florence should be used by putting into it that the Pope hath received the Power of Governing the Universal Church Ibid. n. 7. inesse summo Pontifici potestatem regendi Ecclesiam universalem the Bishops of France opposed it and were followed by most of the Fathers of the Council Not that these words regendi Ecclesiam universalem signifie any thing else but that general Jurisdiction of the Pope which reaches all the parts of the Church in what concerns the Publick good of all Christendom that he may see to it according to the Canons as the Council of Florence expresses it so as we have made it appear But they would not have these words Ecclesiam universalem so much as abused to insinuate thereby that the Pope is above the Church universal taken altogether assembled and represented by an Ecumenical
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