The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. 131
this is the opinion of Alcuine also (de divin. offic., cap. 40), that wrote about the year 750.
2. The fathers used this unction in the beginning of sickness, and in the parts that were most affected. Unto the deaf and dumb, they poured oil into the mouth and crown of the head (Greg. Turon, history. Franc. lib. 6, c. 7). And in the pestilence, they anointed the arm with this holy oil (see Fortunat., in vita S. German.). But this unction was not instituted as then, whereby to give spiritual grace.
"The oil," says Victor of Antioch (ad Marci, c. 6), "which we use in this holy unction, signifies both the mercy of God, the cure of the sickness, and the illumination of the heart. But it may be said, that the prayer effects all these, and that the oil is but an outward sign only of all these effects." "This oil," says Theophylact (in 6 Marc.),
"being of great use in labor, and nutriment of light, and an increaser of mirth, signifies the mercy of God, and the grace of the Spirit, by which we are freed from labor, and obtain light, joy, and spiritual gladness. But the case is altered nowadays; for now it is not given as a cure to the sick, but as a necessary purveyance for the dying."
The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome 1. The primacy of dominion, or (as Turrecremata calls it, Summa de
Eccles., lib. 3, c. 23) of authority, was not acknowledged to be in the Romish bishop, but was unheard of, and unknown until the year of Christ 600, and began to be public and manifest in Boniface, about the year 607, for he obtained of Phocas the emperor, that the apostolic see of Rome should be the head of the church, whereas the see of Constantinople would needs write itself the first or chief of all.
So says the chronicler Sigebert. In the year 607, "Boniface," says he, "obtained of Phocas the emperor, that the Romish Church should be
the head of all churches." These be his words, and the very same in effect are to be found in Marianus Scotus, Martinus Polonus, Otto
Frisingensis, and Hermannus Contractus. And Phocas decreed this, not as affirming, declaring, or pronouncing anything that was before, but as founding and establishing a new thing, which before was not.
For this primacy thus by him established was but seven years before reproved, yes even condemned by Gregory I, then bishop of Rome. "I confidently affirm," says he (lib. 6, epist. ex Registro, c. 194), "that whosoever calls himself, or is willing to be called universal priest or bishop, in this loftiness and pride of his, he is the forerunner of Antichrist." And the bishops of Constantinople took in very ill part this ordinance of Phocas, as Sabellicus affirms (lib. 6, Ennead. 8).
And to the same purpose Aeneas Sylvius (Epist. lib. 1, epist. 188), who himself was afterward pope, says thus: "Otherwise," says he,
"diversity of opinions would divide the church, and loose the knot of unity, as we may see was done before the Council of Nicea, while everyone depended on themselves, and but a little regard was had to the Church of Rome."
But the papists here object that John of Constantinople was therefore reproved by Gregory of Rome because he would be accounted the only bishop, so that no other were to be so called or esteemed, but only as his suffragans or vicars. And this they would fain prove out of the words of Gregory in the fourth book of his epistles, ep. 38, to John of Constantinople, where thus he says: "You that once confessed yourself unworthy the name of a bishop, are now
(in time) come to this pass, that despising the rest of your brethren, you desire to be called the only bishop, or you alone seek after the name of a bishop." The like words to these are in the same book, the 34th epistle unto Constantia the empress. Hereunto I answer in two points.
1. Gregory in that very same 38th epistle, and in the 36th, and elsewhere, affirms that that very name or title which John of Constantinople did thus arrogate to himself, was offered to his own predecessors in the see of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon. But is it either possible, or likely, that that reverend general council, especially those 150 bishops therein assembled, should yield that honor to the Roman bishop, that he should be deemed the only bishop of the world, and themselves to be no more but his vicars or substitutes? Hardly can any man persuade this, especially seeing it is certain that those same bishops in that council did yield unto the see of Constantinople, that it should be equal in privileges unto the see of Rome.
2. I say, it was not the title of only bishop, but of ecumenical bishop which he sought after. He desired not to be bishop alone, or the only bishop in the world, but universal bishop, or the bishop of all other bishops. And this appears to be true out of Gregory's own words, in divers places, viz., Epistol., libr. 4, epistol. 39 and libr. 7, epistol. 69.
But then (you will say) how that stands with those other words of Gregory, out of which the papists ground their objection. I answer,
Gregory, being as he was, had indeed more cause than any to be moved at this arrogancy of John, and therefore in aggravation and detestation of his so great pride and ambition, fell into these hyperbolical terms, and yet not much improperly; for he who among equals seeks a superiority, and will usurp power over those that be as good as himself, after a sort takes away all place and power from the rest, inasmuch as he will needs be alone that which they are as well as himself. And even so says Gregory, explaining himself, epist. lib. 4, cap. 36: "If one be called universal patriarch, the name and honor of patriarch is taken from all the rest. But far be this, far be it from a Christian mind, that any man should be willing to arrogate that to
himself, by which the honor of his brethren should seem in the least measure to be diminished." And somewhat after he reproves John for that he endeavors to ascribe all things to himself, and to subdue all the members of Christ unto his own yoke, who are knit only to one head, namely, to Christ. And in the 38th epistle of the same book, he thus speaks to John, Patriarch of Constantinople: "What will you answer to Christ, the head of the universal church, you that go about to put under your feet by the title of universality, all the members of His body?" And it is very considerable that he says, "John desired to be deemed and named the only bishop, by despising, not by deposing, his brethren bishops, by putting them under, not by putting them down."
2. Second, the power of making laws and of dispensing with them, the bishop of Rome had not, nor exercised out of his own province, for 600 years after Christ. Gregory indeed, Epistol. libr. 12, cap. 31, dispensed with the English men, touching degrees of marriage forbidden, but he did this as a patriarch. Also, he did it as directing, not as commanding, out of a directive, not a coactive power. For they, doubting, and asking of him, being both a patriarch, and a learned man, he gave counsel what were to be done in that difficult point, namely, of two evils put together, what were best to be chosen.
In lib. 7, epist. 30, he says, "This word of commanding, or command, I pray you take it away, let me hear no more of it; for I know who I am, and who you are. For by your places you are my brethren, in virtues and good examples, my fathers. I have therefore commanded nothing, but I have labored to show what in my opinion is most profitable or convenient." Furthermore, Gregory used no other canons for laws, but the imperial ecclesiastic, namely, such laws of the emperors, as concerned ecclesiastical matters and persons.
3. During the foresaid time of 600 years, such of the fathers as be of undoubted credit, speak nothing of any primacy of power, dominion, jurisdiction, or authority. See Chrysostom, in his third homily on the Acts, and Cyprian, de Sympl. Praelat., whose words are these: "The rest of the apostles were even the very same that Peter was, partakers of the same fellowship with him, both of honor and power." Jerome, against Jovinian, lib. 1, c. 14, says that the church was built upon all the apostles, and every one of them received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church was founded on them all equally, yet that among the twelve one was chosen, that a head or chief being appointed, the occasion of schism might be taken away.
Cyril on John, lib. 3, cap. 20, says, "God gave the apostles and their successors full and plenary power in the church. Therefore, it is apparent, that the fathers speak of the primacy of order, dignity, vocation, majesty, or respect, for they acknowledge a certain excellency or preeminence, both of Peter, and of the bishop of Rome: but that was in respect of the glory and authority of the city, which being the chief of all, therefore purchased that honor to her bishops."
For this point, see the Council of Chalcedon, cap. 28, act. 15. And thence was it that many sought to him for aid and assistance in some wrongs, but not expecting any commandment or edict from him.
Covarruvias, a doctor of both laws, one of great account among them, 1 tom., 2 part., Relect., Sect. 9, pag. 421, col. 4, edit. Frankofurt, says,
"By the authorities and testimonies of catholic fathers, and the traditions generally received of all, it is concluded, that the apostles received from the Lord Jesus equal power with Peter, of order or jurisdiction, insomuch as everyone of the apostles had from God equal power with Peter, over the whole world, and that to all ends and purposes, and for all acts whatsoever that Peter could do; whereby it is clear that he afterwards fights with himself, when he says that this power of theirs was subordinate and subject to Peter's."
The same also in effect is to be found in Gratian, in the decrees, in
the pope's old canon law, dist. 21, cap. In novo, ex Anacleto. And if ever the fathers speak of a primacy of power or dominion, it is plain enough, they meant not any universal power over the world, but of that absolute power, which he might exercise in his own limited province; and so are they to be understood. Likewise, subjection is either in regard of power, or of order; and in this second sense it is, namely, in respect of order, that some fathers write, that bishops and all things are subject to the Roman seat. See Gregory in his epistles, lib. 7, cap. 63.
4. Sometimes even bishops, for their painfulness, faithfulness, and needful care of the churches, were preferred before others. Thus,
Basil was accounted the doctor of the world, as Theodoret calls him (l. 4, c. 19), and Polycarpus the apostolical and prophetical teacher of those times, as Eusebius reports (l. 4, c. 15). And Cyprian is said to have been, as it were, a bishop, and to have had authority in every church. For so says Nazianzene in his sermon of him: "For," says he,
"he was not set over the Church of Carthage only, no, nor only over the churches of Africa, all which have received much honor and renown by him and from him, but he was, as it were, a bishop, even over all the western churches, yea almost over all the eastern also, and over the southern and northern churches, even as far as his name and admiration could spread itself." Basil also says of Meletius
(epist. 50), that he was set over, or governed the whole body of the church. And of Ambrose, the said Basil (epist. 55) says that the mastership or government of the great ship, meaning the church, was committed unto him. Nicephorus (l. 14, c. 34) says that the bishops of Alexandria, after the Ephesine Council, were wont to be called popes and judges of the whole world. And in respect of their care it was that bishops of Rome had their vicars or legates in foreign provinces of other bishops, but no vicars of power until these later ages.
5. The speeches of the fathers concerning Peter are to be understood inclusively of the other apostles; and their speeches of the pope of Rome are also to be taken of other bishops. Cyprian (epist. 27, ad lapsos) says the church was constituted upon bishops, and not upon Peter only. Nicephorus (l. 14, c. 34) reports that Cyril was called a pope and judge of the whole world. Augustine on the 36th Psalm calls all the apostles and prophets foundations. Jerome against Jovinian (l. 1, c. 14) says, "You will say, the church is founded upon Peter, although the same in another place is done upon all the apostles, and equally on them all is the strength of the church established."
6. Peter is called by some of the fathers a rock and the foundation of the church, not properly, but by a metonymy, because by his doctrine he labored greatly in founding the church, and for that he first of all, in the name of all the apostles, confessed the church's faith.
Nazianzene in his oration De moderandis disputationibus says, "Peter is called a rock, and has the foundations of the church committed to his trust." If he seems harsh, let Ambrose (serm. 47) explain him: "Peter," says he, "is called a rock, for that he first laid the foundation of faith in the nations." And in the same manner and meaning in the fathers is Peter's seat also called a rock. So says
Augustine (in Psal. contra partem Donati): "Number the priests, even from the very seat of Peter, that is, the rock which the gates of hell cannot overcome." So likewise, the confession of Peter or his faith is often by the same fathers called a rock, namely by Augustine
(on Saint John's first epistle, tract. 10); by Hilary (in his 6th book of the Trinity); by Chrysostom (in his hom. 55 on Matthew); Ambrose
(l. 6, c. 9 on Luke) says, "Your faith is the rock." And with Origen, "He is a rock, whosoever is an imitator of Christ." And that Peter himself was the rock seemed to Augustine after good delib.ation so harsh a speech that he recanted it in his retractions (lib. 1, c. 21). It is
also to be noted that the fathers do oftentimes speak too hyperbolically of the bishop of Rome, as when they call him the head and spouse of the church. And so Bernard, de consid. ad Eugeni., lib.
2, cap. 8, saying he is Christ by his anointing, and Leo, saying that, "Peter was assumed into the fellowship of the undivided Trinity," in his 89th epistle. See also his third sermon of the assumption to the same purpose.
7. By the rock in that speech of Christ, Matthew 16, "Upon this rock I will build my church," all the ancient fathers do not understand
Peter, but many of them Christ, as Tertullian against Marci., lib. 4, cap. 13; Gregory Nyssen., in testim. de Vet. Testam. de Trinitate contra Judaeos; Hilary in his second book of the Trinity; Chrysostom in his homily of the cross of Christ; Ambrose, sermon 84; Jerome, in Matt., lib. 1, c. 7; Augustine in three places, viz., sermon 13, De verb.
Dom., and tract 120, in Joan., and lib. 2, de Trinitate, cap. 17; Theodoret in 2, viz., in Psal. 47 and in 1 Cor. 3. And to these ancients add some of the chief later: Bede, Anselm, Lyra, the Interlinear
Glosse in Matth. 16. Further, many understand by the rock the faith and profession of Peter, whereby he said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." So says Saint James's liturgy; Ambrose in Ephes. 2 and de Incarnat. Domin. Sacram. ca. 5; Hilary, lib. 6, de
Trinit.; Epiphanius, haer. 59; Chrysostom, hom. 55, in Matth., and hom. de Pentecost., tom. 3; Cyril, dialog. 4, de Trinit.; Bede, in Job
21; and Theophylact, in Matth. 16.
8. The fathers urge a communion or fellowship with the bishop of Rome as far forth as he sat in Peter's chair, that is, as far as he taught the true doctrine of Christ, which nowadays he does not at all. For Peter's chair is the church, where not so much the person of Peter, or his personal successor, as his doctrine is resident. So says Cyprian, lib. 1, epist. 3. The ancient emperors ascribed to the bishop of Rome
a power to discern and judge of matters ecclesiastical, because then they followed the written Word of God, and judged out of it.
9. That Peter was ever at Rome at all is uncertain. Indeed, most of the fathers say so, and some of them say more too, namely that of an apostle he was made bishop of Rome. But all this is affirmed, but not proved, and it is affirmed only by such as lived not till the age after Peter.
10. The bishop of Rome exercised honorable authority and power, but it was not properly belonging to him and his own by perpetual right. In this manner he was oftentimes in some civil causes made an honorable arbitrator. Thus, he visited churches; thus he confirmed and deposed bishops; thus he made canons and dispensed with them again within his own province. And if at any time he did any of these out of his province, he did it not by office or authority, but either at the entreaty and request of others, or in the name and authority of the emperor; or if otherwise, it was tyrannical usurpation. And the place and power of judging which some of the fathers sometimes give him was only directive as of discretion, not coactive as of authority.
11. Appeals were sometimes made to the bishop of Rome, but not as to the judge to whom it belonged to give the determining and concluding judgment, but as to an able and honorable helper, who by his place and power was able to procure their wrongs redressed. And so oftentimes men upon wrongful sentences appealed to other bishops of the west, that so by procuring their consent, they might make their cause the stronger. Neither did they of old take any more upon them, for Marcion, being excommunicated in Pontus, came to Rome to be absolved, but they returned him this answer: "We cannot; we may not do this without the permission or sufferance of your reverend father," meaning his own bishop. So reports
Epiphanius (Haer. 42). And Chrysostom (Epist. ad Innocent. I, tom.
5), in his wrongful persecution, craves help not only of Innocentius I, then bishop of Rome, but of the other bishops of the west. "And therefore," as Socrates in his story (lib. 6, cap. 14) says, "He appealed to a council." But Chrysostom received this answer from the pope, that (alas) it lay not in his power to help him, neither might he call a council for his help. Basil writing to Athanasius thus counsels him in his troubles (ep. 52): "It seems to me the best course," says he, "that letters be written to the bishop of Rome, desiring him to consider how these matters be here carried, and to give his advice what were best to be done." To this purpose see also his epistles to the bishops of Italy and France (epist. 70). Joan. de Terra-rubea, a doctor of the law, in a treatise of his touching the government of the kingdom of France, says, "If the pope have at any time intermeddled in the premises, he did not thrust in himself as with authority, but came in as being thereto requested, or called in for assistance. And this conferred not any power of jurisdiction unto him, even as when a judge requires the advice and assistance of another judge in matter of law or judgment, he does not hereby confer unto him any jurisdiction which afore he had not, but only makes use of, or entreats the use of that he has."
12. Furthermore, even those appeals that were made to Rome were oftentimes disallowed and rejected by the ancient fathers. Thus writes Cyprian (lib. 1, ep. 3), to Cornelius, then pope: "It altogether behooves that those who be under our jurisdiction keep themselves at home, and gad not abroad unto foreign jurisdiction. But here to let their cause be tried, where both the accusers and the witnesses are ready at hand, and where the crime being committed may be judged." And in his 4th epistle he says that those who do communicate with Basilides do neglect that discipline and government which God has established in His church. The African
Council (cap. 92) thus concludes: "If any think they have cause to appeal from their own bishops, or the judgment they receive at home, they shall not appeal but unto the Councils of Africa; and if any do appeal to any authority foreign, beyond the seas, or if any hold that man should so appeal, let none of the churches of Africa hold him fit for their communion." The Milevitane Council (Can. 22), almost in the same words, inhibits all bishops and clerks from appealing to any authority beyond the seas. Sozomene (lib. 3, ca. 8) reports that the bishops of the east wrote to the bishop of Rome, that it was not lawful for him by any cunning device, nor under pretence of any appeal, to frustrate or annihilate that which they had acted and concluded. Damasus, as we may see in Ambrose (ep. 79), being himself pope, says that after a provincial council has concluded anything, he has nothing to do to meddle with the judgment. These be his words: "Seeing the council assembled at Capua has thus pronounced that Bonosus and his accusers shall have such judges appointed them as be near unto them, especially the Macedonians, who, together with the bishop of Thessalonica, should examine his doings and consider of the whole matter. We advertise you therefore that it cannot belong to us to deal with the judgment of this matter; neither is anything to be attempted against your sentence, who have decreed that which you thought most agreeable to justice, and to whom the synod had given authority for that they did. Therefore, the first thing to be done is that they give judgment to whom the power of judging (in this case) is committed, for your determination is in the place and room of the whole synod. And it is no reason that we should take upon us to judge (as it were) of the authority of this synod." Thus far Damasus. To conclude, Justinian in the imperial laws, col. 9, tit. 6, c. 22, appoints that the last appeal be made to the patriarch of the diocese.
13. In England, appeals were prohibited till Henry II, of whom, and whose times, Matthew Paris in his Chronicle or history, in Henrico 2, anno 1164, says thus: "Concerning appeals, if they fall out, they must be made from the archdeacon to the bishop, etc., and lastly, they must come to the king himself, from and beyond whom no man may proceed further, without the assent of their lord the king." The same was done in France by Louis IX (who was called Louis the Godly) about the year 1278 in that edict (called the pragmatical sanction) of Saint Louis. The words are these: "We will not by any means that those heavy actions, and huge sums of money be levied or collected, which the court of Rome has imposed, or which hereafter it may impose upon the church of our kingdom, it being a means whereby our kingdom is miserably impoverished. Nor will we that any such sums be levied at all, but only upon a most reasonable, godly, and urgent cause, or else upon some inevitable necessity, and that also to be upon our willing assent and express commandment, together also with the voluntary consent of our church in this kingdom." The same was also afterward done by Philip the Fair about the year 1296, and afterward by Charles V, surnamed the Wise, and after by Charles VI, as Aimonius reports, de gestis Francorum, lib. 5, cap. 25.
Further, Hildebertus thus writes to Honorius: "It has not been heard on this side the Alps that all manner of appeals should thus be received and maintained in the court of Rome, neither do we find it delivered as a tradition from the holy and ancient ordinances. But if such novelty as this has sprung up, that you will accept indifferently of every appeal, surely the pontifical authority and censure will come to naught, and all force of ecclesiastical discipline will utterly be dashed and broken in pieces. What priest or clergyman, if he be wickedly disposed, will not do any mischief, in hope to have relief by these defrauding appeals, and so will they lie, as it were, buried in the filth of their sins? And what bishop shall have in readiness any
power at all to punish (not all as indeed he should) but any disobedience at all, if this may be admitted?"
14. In the Council of Nicea the custom and fashion of the Church of Rome was made equal to others, and no way superior; namely, that as the bishop of Rome has a power over all his bishops (that is, all in his province), so by the same custom the bishop of Alexandria shall have over the bishops of Egypt. For in the authority of patriarchs the ancient custom must be observed (9 q. 3, Conquestus). To this purpose are the words of the Council, as Cusanus (himself a papist) takes them, 1. 2, de concor. cath., c. 12. And even so Ruffinus, an ancient writer, expounds the council's meaning in his history, lib. 10, cap. 6; and so Theodorus Balsamon does, in his explication of these canons, and also Nilus, in his book of the primacy.
15. The pope's temporal jurisdiction and dominion was partly snatched by violence, partly stolen by fraud, and partly grew by other men's lib.alities and donations. And by these means it grew up to that intolerable height it was of late. Urspergensis, himself a popish chronicler, reports that in the year 753 Pope Stephen besought King
Pipin of help against the king of Lumbardy, and King Pipin came with his army into Italy, and besieged him in Papia, and compelled him by the straitness of his siege to perform what afore he had promised; and so having received of him Ravenna and Pentapolis, with the whole exarchy belonging to Ravena, he gave them to St.
Peter, and having thus dispatched these matters he returned into France.
And again, speaking of the year 1228, he says, "In the same year and the year following, there was a treaty of peace betwixt the emperor and the sultan, and their countries. But the pope, taking the opportunity of the emperor's absence, had sent a strong army into
Apuleia, and took by plain force (a most horrible thing to report) the lands of the emperor being then in the war and service of Christ, and the church, and having subdued them to himself, and signed them with the cross, he prohibited by all means, both them in Apuleia and in Lumbardy, that they should pass over the sea." Who is it that rightly considering such facts as this, does not deplore and detest them as being tokens portending and forerunning the ruin of the church?
And a little after: "While these things were thus a doing, in the parts beyond the seas, the pope with his accomplices, as men reported, made a rumor to be raised and divulged over all Apuleia, that the emperor was dead, whereupon such strong cities as had yet reserved themselves for the emperor (which for their strength the pope could not so easily subdue) did now prepare to dispose and yield themselves to the pope's dominion, and most cruelly and wickedly to kill all the Almaines returning from the holy land, and abiding in Apuleia."
Otto Frisingensis, lib. 7, in praefatione, tells us that no man doubts but the church was exalted and enriched by the strength of kingdoms, and beneficence of kings, and that it is apparent that the church could not so far bring under the state and strength of kingdoms or the civil state, until the civil state, for the love and honor it bare to priesthood, had, as it were, unbowelled itself, and exhausted all its own strength: "And so the civil state of the kingdom," says he, "ruined and fell, smitten not only with the spiritual sword of the church, but especially by its own, namely, with the material sword." Thus far Otto.
Augustinus Steuchus, lib. 2, writing against Valla touching the donation of Constantine, has these words:
"Gregory III
excommunicated Leo the emperor, and so withdrew Rome and Italy from his empire, absolving all their subjects from their oath and fealty of obedience."
And that confession of Bellarmine is notable, in his 5th book of the bishop of Rome, c. 4, where he says, "Christ as he was man, while He lived on the earth, accepted not, nor would have any temporal lordship or dominion: now the bishop of Rome is Christ's vicar, and represents Christ unto us, as He was when He lived here among men on earth; therefore the bishop of Rome as being Christ's vicar, and consequently as bishop of Rome, or as highest bishop, has no temporal dominion nor authority." But Bellarmine, whether checked for this speech, or upon more consideration, thinking he had gone too near the truth, in his last edition seems to recant this, or at least to mitigate it. For thus he corrects it, "Therefore the chief bishop, as Christ's vicar, and consequently as chief bishop, has no authority or dominion merely temporal over any city or province."
16. The English nation, for 1000 years after Christ, was not subject to the pope's authority in causes ecclesiastical. Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was the first that did offer to cast off or refuse the king's authority in causes spiritual; he indeed denied his obedience to the king further than with this condition, Salvo ordine suo, saving always his own order, and by this means he infringed the lib.ties of the English Church. Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, long before Becket, in his epistle to Pope Paschal (ep. 36), says, "The king would not suffer the pope's nuntio, or apostolical legate, to be received into England, without his leave and express commandment, neither would suffer me to write or send any letters to him, nor to receive any sent from him, nor to obey any of his decrees." And a little after: "In all these, and in matters of literature, if I asked counsel of others what I might do, all the subjects of that kingdom,
yea even my own suffragan bishop denied to yield me any advice or assistance, but according to the will and pleasure of the king."
Matthew Paris, in his story of Henry I, reports that William, the King of England's proctor or agent at Rome, confidently alleged among other things before the pope, that the "King his master, Henry of England, would not (no not for the loss of his kingdom), lose the right of presenting to his churches." And this he boldly affirmed and urged it with great and threatening words. The same author in his story of Henry II, about the year 1164, among many other customs and lib.ties of the former kings of England, recounts this for one:
"Concerning the advowsons or patronages of churches, or presentations to benefices, if there arise any question either among laymen, or betwixt laymen and clerks, or betwixt clerks themselves, it shall be heard, debated, and determined, in the court of our lord the king." And in the same place in the king's letters to his justices, he says, "Let no man appeal either to the pope, or to Thomas the archbishop, neither let any plea be holden at their commandment, neither let any mandate or commandment of theirs be received within England. And if any man either receive, or retain, or have anything to do with any such commandment, let him be apprehended and safely kept." Indeed, King John did homage to Pope Innocent, resigning up his crown and kingdom to the Church of Rome, but for his so doing all the barons of his kingdom opposed themselves against him, and chose for their king, Louis, the King of France, as Matthew Paris reports in his story of King John. And Jeffery of Monmouth reports in his history (l. 11, c. 12), that the English churches, being well constituted and excellently ordered, would not be subject to Augustine, the pope's legate, in the year 600.
Indeed, England made itself tributary to the pope by taxing every house at a piece of silver to be paid to the pope; and this was first begun about the year 847. But the investitures of bishops, and authority to receive appeals, the pope obtained not till Henry II, who
much against his will was brought to subject himself and his kingdom to the court of Rome, which was done 300 years after, namely about the year 1172. Therefore, the decretal epistle of Adrian
IV to Thomas, the Archbishop of Canterbury (which is to be found in the pope's decretals), lib. 3, tit. 30, cap. Commissum, is but a bastard. For the pope had no dominion nor power at all in matters spiritual over the English Church but after Thomas was dead. And of no better stuff is that other decretal of Alexander III unto the Archbishop of York (which is also there extant in the decretal), lib. 2, tit. 16. c. à memoria, for there he says that Honorius his predecessor by his apostolical authority granted a certain privilege to the Archbishop of York, over whom as yet he had no power nor authority.
17. The pope has not a determining judgment infallible; more plainly, he has no power to judge or determine, so as he cannot err. So taught all that ever wrote of it for 1400 years, yea, even papists themselves.
The ancient fathers, as well Greek as Latin, did hold and censure Honorius I to be a Monothelite heretic, that is, one who held that Christ had one will only. So does also the sixth general council, Act.
12, 13, 18, where he is condemned by the name of a heretic, and his epistles burnt. The second Council of Nicea, act. ult., curses or lays anathema on Honorius. So does also the eighth Synod of Constantinople, Act. 7; and Leo II, in his epistle to the emperor at the end of the council; and Tharasius, in his epistle to the patriarchs, which is to be seen in the 3rd Act of the seventh Synod; and Psellus in his poem of the seven synods; and Epiphanius the deacon in his disputation with Gregory the heretic, which also is extant in the 6th
Act of the seventh Synod; and Bede in his book of the six ages of the world, about the year 4639 (147); and the pontifical itself in the life of Leo II; and Anastasius, the keeper of the pope's library in the life of the same Leo II.
And suppose that all these so many councils and fathers were deceived in these their reports and testimonies by taking it from the 6th general synod, whose decree in that point suppose also to be corrupted; notwithstanding, it follows that all the said fathers and councils affirming Honorius to be a heretic did therefore undoubtedly believe that the pope, even as he is pope, might err. But to put this matter out of all question that they thought so of him, look at the epistle of Leo II to Constantine, at the end of the council, wherein he execrates and curses Honorius, as not having illustrated the apostolical church with apostolical doctrine, but rather had defiled it with his heresy. And the 6th general council, Act. 13, curses the said Honorius by the name of pope of old Rome, for his decretal epistle which he had set forth: nay even Gratian himself, the compiler of the decrees, d. 40, c. Si Papa, takes it as a thing for granted, that the pope may err from the faith. And Robert Grosted, an ancient bishop of Lincoln, says that the pope may be a heretic and Antichrist, and he added further, that the decretal says that upon such a fault as heresy is, the pope may and ought to be accused. Thus reports Matthew Paris in his story of Henry III, about the year 1253.
Lyra on the 16th of St. Matthew says that many principal and chief bishops have been found to have been apostates from the faith.
Gershon (in his treatise on whether it be lawful to appeal from the pope in matters of faith) says that as well the pope as a bishop may err from the faith, and is therefore inferior to a council. Antoninus, in his sum, part. 3, tit. 22, c. 4, sec. 3, says that it is lawful and reasonable that the pope should ipso facto be deposed for heresy.
Panormitan, a great canonist, de Elect, sec. significasti, says that the council may depose the pope for heresy, and alleges a chapter (148) out of the canon law for it, where it is said that the pope may be a heretic, and be judged for heresy. "Yea further," says Panormitan, "in matters concerning faith, the word or affirmation of the private man is to be preferred before the pope's, if he speak upon better grounds
out of the Old and New Testament than the pope does." The Council of Constance, sess. 37, calls Pope Benedict a schismatic, and a heretic, and such a one as has erred from the faith. And not much otherwise speak they of John XXIII in the 11th session of the same council. The Council of Basil, in the 3rd of their synodal epistles, has words to this effect: "The holy church is endowed of Christ our Savior with such privileges that we believe firmly she cannot err; and beside the church, we do not read that any other (ordinarily) and at any time the same or so great a gift given unto them, to no angels, to no men, to no popes or chief bishops, whereof many are reported (and so also we read), that they have fallen into errors and heresies." And Aeneas Sylvius, after he was pope himself, relating the acts of the Council of Basil, says that the opinion of such as hold that councils may not be called without the pope's consent, if it may stand, will bring with it the very ruin of the church. "For," says he, "if that may be so, what remedy or help will there be, if a scandalous pope, or one whose life is tainted with foul crimes do trouble the church, if he destroys souls, etc., if he set forth doctrines contrary to the faith, and instill heretical opinions into their minds that are under him."
Catharinus, a great papist, in his commentaries on the 2nd of the Galatians says, "There is nothing against it, but that the pope may err, yea even in faith, and fall from it, howsoever certain late writers and young upstarts have presumed to defend the contrary, contrary to the common and ancient opinion of the doctors." Alphonsus de
Castro, in his first book against heresies, chapter 2, says, "The pope, by himself, without the assembly and assistance of a council, may err even in such things as belong to faith, by the opinion of many divines of great authority, who have so affirmed and taught. Yes, it is found by experience, that divers popes have erred in the faith." And in the 4th chapter of the same book, "Every man may err in faith, although he be the pope himself, for Platina reports of Lib.ius the Pope, that he held with the Arians." And to conclude, this truth is so clear that
Bellarmine himself, de Ro. Pont., lib. 4, cap. 9, confesses that Lib.ius the Pope did after a sort, namely, in his mind and judgment, consent to the Arian heresy, inasmuch as he suffered Athanasius to be condemned, whom he knew to be persecuted for that cause of faith only, and because he communicated with Valens and Ursatius that were Arians, for which cause he was put from the popedom by the clergy of Rome.
18. Touching Antichrist, the eldest fathers held no certainty, because he was not as then revealed; therefore, they bring conjectures, yet sometimes they do as good as say that he is to be found in the Roman
Church. Chrysostom, upon the 2nd to the Thessalonians 2, homily 4, directly affirms that Antichrist is to succeed the Roman emperor, namely, after that the empire is taken out of the way. Hilary, in his epistle to Auxentius; Jerome, to Algasia, question 11; Oecumenius, on 2 Thessalonians 2; do all hold that Antichrist shall not sit in Jerusalem, but in the church of God. Abbot Joachim implies plain enough that the pope of Rome is the very Antichrist. "Many," says he in his Revelations, lib. 10, art. 5, "under the pretence of God's seat, that is, of the see of the universal church, are become indeed the seat of the beast, which is the kingdom of Antichrist, who reigns everywhere in his members from the beginning of the church, and namely in the clergy, monks, monasteries." And again, "We have plainly taught and delivered, that Rome in the spirit is Babylon." And a little after: "The merchants of the earth (spoken of in the Revelation) are the priests themselves, who sell prayers and masses for money, making the house of prayer a shop of merchandise." And again: "We see that not only many bishops and clergymen are ensnared in the businesses of Babylon, to make themselves rich thereby, but even many abbots, and monks, and religious persons.
And yet why do I call them religious? For they are not so but seem to be." Otto Frisingensis, in his Chronicle, lib. 7, ca. 3, says, "There
shines a certain resemblance betwixt Babylon and Rome, inasmuch as that which here with us in the city of Rome, is given to the pope our chief bishop by the Christian emperors, the very father is there by the pagan kings of Persia (to whom for a long time Babylon has been subject) granted unto their high priest, and the kings of Persia themselves having the imperial city, as our emperors make their seat at Aquisgrave, etc. So they at Ecbatane, and so translating the seat of the kingdom, they held nothing of Babylon for themselves, but the bare name of an empire." And again, lib. 8, c. 2: "Some," says he, "do interpret this departure spoken of in the Thessalonians and that whereof the apostle says, 'that which withholds, will withhold until it be taken out of the way,' and do refer it to the kingdom or empire.
And thereupon they also say, that the apostle purposely delivered his meaning under this covering and obscurity of words, lest he might seem to slander by this presage, or weaken the state of the Roman
Empire, which to the statesmen and emperors of those days, was thought so sure, that it should never have an end. And to that purpose (say they) it was, that the apostle said, 'and what withholds, you know,' as describing it, and yet not naming it." To conclude,
Aventinus the Chronicler, lib. 5 and 7, affirms that the most both of the princes and bishops of Germany and of Italy held and proclaimed
Gregory VII and John XXII plain Antichrists and no better.
19. The monarchical or sovereign authority of the pope of Rome over the church and general councils, was of many men ever reproved and condemned, and was not allowed, nor admitted of the church till very lately, namely, after the year 1500. Krantzius, a German historiographer, in his Metropolis, lib. 7, c. 45, speaking of the year about 1240: "In those days," says he, "there needed not any apostolical confirmation from the pope; it was sufficient that the election was approved by the archbishop. But now the Church of Rome has drawn to herself all the rights, honors, and privileges of
other churches." Hear a Frenchman, Duarenus, in his 3rd book of ecclesiastical livings, c. 3, who says thus: "In the apostles' times, whensoever as any were to be ordained either bishop or deacon, or anything else of what nature soever was to be considered and determined which concerned the church, Saint Peter did never arrogate nor take it upon himself, but permitted and put the matter to the whole church. The most he did was this, that as being a principal apostle he used to assemble or call together the rest, and to them so assembled to make a speech, declaring the cause of their assembling, and the particular affairs that were to be handled, even as with us at this day (here in France) he that is the president of the court of parliament calls together the whole senate, and speaking first in the assembly, etc. Neither for all this is he greater or superior than the whole court, neither has he any jurisdiction or eminency of power over the whole parliament, neither may he judge or determine anything against their judgment and opinions, etc. Thus indeed stood the case in times past. But I know not how it is now come to pass, the supreme and sovereign power over all Christians is ascribed to one, and that he shall be (even like an emperor) free, exempted, and discharged from all laws, edicts, canons, and synodal constitutions. For Pope Paschal in a decretal epistle has expressly taken order or decreed that no councils may prescribe or command the Church of Rome, nor make any law to bind the Roman Church.
And they brought the matter to that pass, that in divers synodal decrees or canons of councils, the authority of the Roman bishop is accepted and provided for." (149) Glaber Rodulph, in his histories, lib. 2, c. 4, reports that, "One Fulco erected a goodly church in a village about Tours; and having finished the whole work, he sent to Hugh the Archbishop of Tours, that he would come and consecrate the church he had built. But the archbishop prolonged his coming, and made no great haste to do it, for that Fulco had taken from the church divers lands and lordships. Fulco therefore, seeing himself so
answered by the archbishop, furnished himself with a great mass of gold and silver, went straight to Rome to Pope John that then was, and with great complaint laid open the matter before him, who forthwith sent one of those whom they call cardinals, with the said
Fulco to consecrate the foresaid church, and gave the said cardinal in strait charge and commandment that he should there take upon him the authority of the bishop of Rome, and by him, and under that authority, without fear or delay, perform whatsoever the said Fulco thought expedient to be done touching the premises, which when the rest of the bishops and prelates of France did hear of, they knew well enough, that this sacrilegious presumption proceeded from blind and filthy covetousness, to wit, that while one would steal, and another receive, among them they brought it to pass, that a made schism and division was risen in the Romish Church. All of them therefore together disliked and detested this dealing of the Romish bishop, judging it a very unworthy and unseemly thing, that he who took upon him to govern the apostolical seat, should first of all himself transgress the tenor and rule of apostolical order, and of the ancient canons, especially it being a thing notorious, and confirmed with manifold authorities of antiquity, that no bishop presume to exercise any authority within another man's diocese, unless the bishop of that diocese do either urge him to it, or give him leave to do it, etc. For although the bishop of the Romish Church, in respect of the dignity of the apostolical seat, be esteemed of more reverently than the bishops of the others' seats, which are constituted in the world, yet may not he, for all that, transgress the order established by the canons, but in everything is to be ruled by them as others are. For as every bishop of the true and orthodoxal church, being as it were the husband of his proper and peculiar flock, bears the person of our
Savior in that charge, as well as any one does, so it cannot possibly belong to anyone, to intermeddle presumptuously in another bishop's diocese." Thus far Rodulphus. All which is so much the
more remarkable, seeing these things were said and done, not of late, but above 600 years ago, namely, about the year after Christ 1000.
Casanus, in his 2nd book of catholic concord, c. 13, says that, "The dioceses are distinct, and one bishop is set over many pastors for the conserving of unity. "That is," says he, "of a positive law, and human constitution." And again: "The pope is not the universal bishop, but the first above or among others." "And we do build and found," says he, "the vigor of holy councils, not in the pope, but in the consent of all." And again, in the 20th chapter: "It is clear," says he, "that Pope
Leo, in certain points, did never receive nor allow the constitutions of the Council of Chalcedon (as for one especially, that the church or see of Constantinople should have the precedence before that of Alexandria), but he always spoke against them, as also did some others after him, and yet for all that, the decree of the council ever took place. But if the pope had it in his power to be able to abrogate or nullify the decrees concluded by general councils, certainly Pope
Leo, or some of his successors, would have prevailed in this point, which it is apparent they did not, as I said before." And a little after:
"Though Pope Leo opposed himself mightily against three chapters or constitutions of the Chalcedon Council, etc., yet he made not this resistance out of his own authority only, but by and from the authority of the Nicene Council." And again, in the 34th chapter: "A universal council of the catholic church has the sovereign, most absolute, and highest power in all things, yea even over the bishop of Rome." And in the same book and 12th chapter: "We see," says he,
"how far the bishop of Rome is gone, or how much he has encroached beyond the holy and ancient observations, out of the custom and practice of subjectional obedience." "In the year 1337, all the prelates and princes of Almaign concluded and agreed on this, that a council is above the pope in matters of faith and state, and therefore that the appeal from the pope to the council was good."
Thus reports Nauclerus, generat. 45. And as for this absolute,