Of the Power of Kings. 147
Of the Power of Kings 1. The pope of Rome was subject to the emperor, or to the imperial laws in all matters or causes (as they say) concerning persons and things ecclesiastical, for at least 850 years after Christ. Tertullian (ad
Scapulam) says, "We honor the emperor, etc., as a man next to God, and inferior only to God." Optatus (contra Parme., lib. tertio): "There is none above the emperor, but only God, who made the emperor."
Leo (in his epistle to the emperor, epistol. 59): "Because we are by all means to obey your godly authority, and your religious will, I have therefore willingly yielded my opinion and consent to the synodal constitutions concerning the confirmations of the catholic faith, and damnation of heretics, which did very much like me." Gregory (in an epistle to the emperor, Epistol. lib. 2, cap. 100): "I," says he, "being subject to your command, have caused that your law or edict be sent and published in divers parts of the world." And afterwards: "I have yielded obedience to the emperor, and yet have I not holden my tongue in the cause of God but have spoken what I thought." (l. 4, c.
76) "I for my part do perform obedience to the princely commandment of his highness." Nauclerus, generat. 23, in his
Chronography, speaking of the year 605 or thereabouts, says, "Constantine the emperor, conceiving a great opinion of the holiness of Benedict, made a decree and sent it to him, granting thereby, that hereafter whosoever the Roman clergy, people, and soldiers should choose for their pope, all men should forthwith esteem and take him for Christ's true vicar, without waiting for any further authority or allowance, either from the Emperor of Constant. or the Prince of Italy. For till that time, it was usual and approved, that when a new bishop of Rome was to be created, either the prince himself, or else his lieutenant of Italy, did confirm him." Sigonius, in his 4th book of the kingdom of Italy, says, "Charles the Great challenged to himself
the kingdom of Italy, as being his own by victory and conquest. The exarchy of Ravenna, Pentapolis, the dukedoms of Perusia, Romania,
Tuscia, and Campania, he permitted to the pope, yet reserving to himself the right principality, and dominion, the rest he retained to himself in name of the kingdom." And afterward in the 7th book, about the year 973: "The bishop of Rome held Rome, Ravenna, and some other provinces, rather by authority, than dominion. For the cities respected the pope as a prince of the country, but the king or emperor as their sovereign lord, and unto him they did their homage, and paid their tributes." Leo IV, writing to Lotharius the emperor, as is yet to be seen in the canon law (apud Grat., distict. 10, cap. 9), says, "Concerning those the royal commandments, and imperial decrees of your highness, and your bishops our predecessors, we promise and profess, that by the help of Christ, as far as we were, and are able, we have and will inviolably keep and observe them, and so will do for ever hereafter." Again, the same Leo submits himself to be censured by the judgment of the emperor, and his commissioners, or delegates sent from him to that purpose (causa 2, quest. 7, cap. Nos si). To conclude, Bellarmine himself (de Pontif., lib. secundo, cap.
29) yields that as long as the princes of the world were heathen, the pope was not their judge, but contrariwise was subject to them in all civil causes, as well as other men: "Well said, then upon this I affirm thus: but they lost nothing either of their power, or honor by becoming Christians, therefore they ought still to have that sovereignty over bishops in civil causes."
2. The pope deposed not princes, especially the Roman, till a thousand years and more after Christ. Hildebrand was the first that did offer to depose the emperor. So testifies Otto Frinsingensis (lib.
6, cap. 35): "I read," says he, "over and over again, the stories of the Roman kings and emperors, and I never find any one of them to be excommunicated or deprived of his kingdom by the bishop of Rome,
before this Henry IV, unless peradventure some would judge it an excommunication, that Philip the emperor was for a little time placed among the penitents by the Roman bishop, and Theodosius for that cruel massacre and slaughter of Christians, was by Ambrose forbidden for a time to enter the church." Likewise, Sigebertus
(about the year 1088): "Let me say thus much with the leave of all good men, this novelty, not to call it a heresy, was not known in the world, as yet (that is, before Hildebrand, Victor, and Urban, as he says, in the year 1111), that the clergy should teach the people that they owe no subjection unto evil kings; and though they have made them an oath of fealty, yet that they owe no fealty unto them, and that they are not perjured, who in this case do hold against the king; yea, that he who shall obey the king, or stand with him, is to be held for excommunicate, and he that shall take against the king, is to be absolved from all crime of injustice, disobedience, and perjury." And Onuphrius himself confesses in his book of the dignities of the Roman Church, that in the time of Alexander III, the Roman Church was lifted up to the height of worldly honor, Frederick the emperor being trodden under foot. Aventinus, in his Chronicles, lib. 7, page
684, reports that one Eberhardus, the Archbishop of Inva (now called Saltzburgh) spoke thus: "Hildebrand," says he, "about 170 years ago, first of all under the pretense of religion, laid the foundation of Antichrist's empire. He first of all began that ungodly war, which by his successors is hitherto continued. These popes first of all thrust out the emperors from their assemblies and translated them unto the people and the priests; afterward they scorned, and, as it were, hissed out them also. And now what intend they but even to restrain us also, and to bring us into slavery, that so they may reign alone?" Thus says Eberhardus. And again: "He that is the servant of servants, covets to be the king of kings, and Lord of Lords, as though he were God Himself. He speaks huge things, and high matters, as though he were God. He imagines new devices continually and is
every day hammering new things in his head, and that he may erect to himself an empire, and bring all power into his own hands, he changes laws at his pleasure, abrogates the old, and establishes his own. All this that man of perdition does, whom men used to call
Antichrist, in whose forehead is written the name of blasphemy, and in whose mouth are these words of presumption, 'I am God, I cannot err.' He sits in the temple of God and domineers over all far and near." And Aventinus himself again, lib. 7, page 675, reports that "The pope sent his bulls and breves to all the bishops of Germany, but none of them obey him; therefore he writes to the abbots, and commands them to curse the bishops, but neither will they yield unto him. What does he then? He sends to the priests and commands them to choose new bishops, and to the monks to choose new abbots, such as they themselves pleased, unless these would yield and obey.
Everyone was amazed at the strangeness of this course, being without all former examples. Nay, the like was never heard to have been attempted. No marvel therefore, though this commandment and embassage of his displeased all that heard it, for in no place had it any acceptance." Conrade, the bishop of Friesingen, appealed to the emperor, and taught openly that the great priest of Rome had no power in Germany without the consent of the bishops of Germany.
"Let the Romish priest," says he, "keep him at home, and feed his own Italians. As for us, though he holds us dogs, yet we are such dogs, as seeing God has constituted us over our flocks, we will bark at the wolves, and will especially keep such wolves from our flocks, as shroud themselves under sheep's clothing." "But what will this fellow," says he, "this usurping vicar, do to others and ordinary men, judge by this, when he dares to take up, and so evil entreat us that are his brethren and his companions?" And again, the same author elsewhere relates that Gerochius, who was Gregory's advocate, said thus: "The Roman bishops usurp to themselves divine honor, refuse to give account or yield a reason of their doings, and think it
unreasonable that any man should say unto them, why do you so? In a word, they have always both in their words and practice that of the poet, Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas." Thus far
Aventinus.
3. The empire was translated from the Grecians to the Germans, not by the pope's power, but by the counsel, voice, and decree of the senate and people of Rome, and the bishop of Rome was only a counselor or assistant of this change, or, as it were, the interpreter.
For Sigebert, in his chronicle, anno 801, thus writes: "The Romans, having long ago fallen from the Emperor of Constantinople in their thought and resolutions, did now with one consent choose king
Charles for their emperor, giving him the salutation, applause, and acclamation of an emperor, and did crown him by the hand of Leo their pope, calling him Caesar and Augustus." Aventine also, in his history, lib. 4, fol. 344, says that, the bishop of Rome, what alone?
No, but "The bishop, the senate, and the people of Rome, decreed to transfer the empire from the Greeks unto the Germans, and that by their own right, or as being a thing in their power to do, and by a free and quiet choice, gave it to Charles, with the voices both of the senate and the people." Yea, Aeneas Sylvius himself, c. 9 (afterwards a pope), speaking of the authority of the Roman Empire, says that,
"The people of Rome, who with their lives and much blood, had won to themselves such an empire, did also with their blood make Charles the Great (king of France) the emperor, together with the consent of the Roman bishop." Nay, this point is so clear to all that are not too partial, that Onuphrius, a late and learned papist, says, "Charles being crowned and consecrated King of France, in a town of France, called Carifiaco, by Pope Stephen II, about the year of Christ 752, was also chosen and saluted Emperor of Rome, in the Church of Saint Peter in the Vatican, by the consent of the clergy, senate, and people of Rome, and was there crowned by Leo III, in the year of our
Lord 801." Therefore, from these it is apparent that where the histories or chronicles say that Charles was crowned, or anointed, made, called, ordained, or designed emperor by the pope of Rome, they are to be understood not of the power of conferring the authority and jurisdiction imperial, but of the ceremony of coronation or inauguration, and of the public renunciation, and solemn signification of the emperor's place, power, and dignity. That also which a man shall often meet in histories, namely, that Leo gave or conferred the empire to Charles is to be understood that he consented to them that gave it. For besides all before alleged, even
Adrian the Pope confesses it in his epistle to Frederick, to whom he wrote thus: "I do not believe," says he, "that you have forgotten how great honor I gave you, and how carefully and willingly I bestowed on you the royal crown of the empire; and I am nothing sorry for that I have done, but would much rejoice if I had given you far greater favors." But after perceiving the emperor to be offended at these phrases, and that he would by no means acknowledge his empire to be the pope's benefit or gift, he therefore expounds himself and says, by benefit he means bonnum factum, a good deed, and by conferred or bestowed, nothing else but I put upon you, or put you into possession. For thus he writes: "I said I conferred or bestowed on you the imperial crown, because in this word bestowed or conferred,
I meant nothing else, but I set it upon your head, or I crowned you with it." Sigenius, speaking of the Kingdom of Italy, lib. 12, writes that Charles obtained the empire by right of war, by his own prowess, and at last by plain bargain and covenant with Irene and Nicephorus.
Otto Frisingensis, lib. 2, cap. 21, reporting the deeds of Frederick I, writes that Frederick thus (among other things) spoke to the Roman ambassadors: "You boast," says he, "that I was called by you, that you first made me a citizen, and then Emperor of Rome; that the honor I have was first of you, and that I received it from you. But the novelty of these unusual terms, how far from reason, and how void of truth
they be, I leave it to the venture of your credit, and the judgment of the wise. Let us overlook the deeds of the late emperors, and we shall soon find that those heroical princes of ours, Charles and Ottho, took possession of Rome and Italy, and annexed them to the crown of France, receiving them of no man's gift, but even recovering them by force and valor out of the usurping hand of the Greeks and Lombards. If you doubt of this, you may soon see it by Desiderius and Berengarius (those tyrants of yours) in whom you did boast, and to whom you did trust as unto great princes. For we have it from undoubted relation, that they were not only conquered and captivated by our French nation, but that they even grew old, and at last ended their days in that captivity. And their very ashes which are laid up with us, and which we keep to this day, do yield unto us a most evident argument of this truth. But you will say unto me, you came hither being called by me? I confess I was called, but tell you the reason why, and the manner how I was called: you were assaulted, and even beaten by the enemies, and neither by your own power, nor much less by the effeminate Grecians could you be delivered; therefore the French power and prowess was your refuge, unto them you fled, and earnestly invited him to your help, thus was
I called. But is not this rather an imploring, than a calling? Surely, I should so esteem it. For you did not call or invite me, as not needing me, or being in good case to do me honor, but you, being in misery, implored help of me being in happiness, you weak of me being then strong, you doubtful of me being then secure. On this manner being called, if this may be termed a calling, I came unto you." Thus far
Frederick in that place.
As for the deposing of Childeric, the King of France, it was done by the peers and people of the land, but the pope only devised the way and gave counsel how to do it; to which end Sabellicus in his Ennead
8, lib. 8, thus writes: "The peers and people of the kingdom
perceiving and honoring the prowess of Pipin, asking advice first of all of Zachary, the bishop of Rome, took away the name and title of king from Childeric, and bestowing it on Pipin, created him their king." Blondus, in his Decads 1, lib. 10: "I find," says he, "in Alcuinus,
Paulus, and very many other writers, that the nobles and communalty of the French nation, weighing with wisdom the valor and virtue of Pipin, and contrariwise the childishness and unworthiness of Childeric, consulted with Zachary, then the bishop of Rome, whether they had reason any longer to tolerate so foolish a king, and whether he held it reason that Pipin should be any longer defrauded, and kept from the possession of the royal crown, which he so well deserved. And the pope answering, that he was to be accounted the king, who knew better, and was better able to discharge the duty of a king, they forthwith by the general consent of the whole nation, declared Pipin for their king, and took Childeric, and shaving his crown, they put him into a cloister. Nauclerus also reports, almost to the very same purpose, generat. 26.
4. The power of deposing kings and princes was first established by Innocentius III, in the Council of Laterane, about 1215 years after Christ, and yet, as I have showed, it was often reproved and spoken against. To this end see Nauclerus in the chronicle of those times, generat. 42, anno 1242, who reports these words of Frederick to the King of France, touching the sentence of deposition, given out against him: "Although," says he, "the Roman bishop has plenary power in matters spiritual, in as much as he can bind and loose any sinners at his pleasure, yet it is nowhere to be read, that either by God's or man's law, he may translate kingdoms as it pleases him, or judge and dispose of kings and princes temporally, or deprive them of their kingdoms."
5. The ancients would have temporal princes debarred from meddling in matters ecclesiastical, not simply and every way, but in regard first of absolute judging and determining of holy things; second, in regard of ministerial actions, in respect whereof, even kings themselves are sheep of the flock. But not in regard of the ordering or governing of the church and ministry ecclesiastical. In which respects they are above all persons and causes, even ecclesiastical, within their own dominions.
6. The anointing or anointings of kings and the chrism or oil with which they were anointed by priests, were not in use in the churches of Greece for 1200 years and more, as appears in the Decretals, lib. 1, decret. 15, tit. De sacra Unctione, cap. 1. In the western church, the first that used this ceremony, was the emperor Justin II. In France,
Pipin, father of Charles the great, was the first that was anointed, and it was done by Boniface, Archbishop of Mentz.
Cardinals 1. The office of cardinals was common with priests, bishops, and deacons, from the time of the apostles downwards for many hundred years, and there was not any office properly belonging to them till long time after the apostles. The first that makes mention of them is
Gregory the Great, for (as Bellarmine himself confesses, de Cler. lib.
1, cap. 16) in the first 800 years, the bishop of Rome for determining the great and weightiest affairs of the church, used to call his council of the bishops of Italy, and for these 6 or 700 years past, they began
(by little and little) to lay down those episcopal councils, and reduced all business to the consistory of cardinals; and that the rather, because in the times of Pipin and Charles the great, there was an access of much temporal principality unto that see. Further, Nicholas
Clemangis, in his book of the not paying of annats (154), says that, "The cardinals have of old a double duty or charge: the first, to hear confessions, preach and baptize. But the second," says he, "they took upon themselves when the Roman Church got wealth, authority, and worldly preeminence."
2. The cardinals that now are, are foully degenerated from their original state and first condition. Gregory, in his time (600 years after Christ), speaks of them as though they were parish priests of Rome, or curates of churches. And in old time, all bishops whatsoever took the place of any cardinals, if they were not bishops.
In the sixth Council of Carthage, the priests of Rome sat after the bishops. And in elder ages a cardinalship was but a step to a bishopric. See Onuphrius's book of cardinals, and Joan. Diaconus, lib. primo, cap. septimo, in the life of Gregory. Therefore, the office or place of cardinals is not most ancient, nor begun in the times of the apostles, and since then continued.
Monks 1. The fathers are very uncertain of the original of monastical life.
Sometimes they refer it to Elijah and Elisha. "Elijah is our prince," says Jerome, Epistol. 13, ad Panlinum, "and Elisha ours, the sons of the prophets that live in the forests and wilderness, are our captains." Sometimes unto John the Baptist: "John the Baptist the prince of the monks," says Chrysostom, homil. prim., in Marc.
"Otherwhile unto one Paul, a Thebane, Amathas and Macarius," says Jerome, in prolog. ad vitam Pauli Heremita, "the disciples of Antony, do affirm even now, that one Paul, a Thebane, was the first author thereof, which we also allow of, not so much in name, as in opinion."
Otherwhile unto the apostles: "The discipline of the cloisterers," says
Cassianus, Collation 18, cap. quinto, "had the beginning from the time of the apostles' preaching." But Chrysostom, hom. 25, in Hebraeos, counts this for a plain untruth, saying that in Paul's time there was no sign nor step of any monk. And Jerome says, in vita
Hilarionis, that there was no monk in Syria, before Hilarion, who was the founder of that profession in that province.
2. Monastical profession began in the church about 260 years after the redemption, by Paul, a Thebane, or rather about the 300th year by Anthony. For the first was the first pattern of hermitical life, and the second was the first master or teacher thereof. "In those days," says Frisingensis, lib. quarto, ca. quinto, "lived the two most famous princes of the kingdom of Christ, Paul and Antony, the two first hermits." Nazianzene, in Monodia, says that Basil first invented monasteries, and was the head of the monks. And Basil himself,
Epistol. 63, says that the neo-Caesarians objected the novelty of monastical life against him.
3. But as for cowls, copes, and other monkish habits, as also choirsinging, vowed fasts, choice of meats, and other superstitions now used, these were in those days far to seek.
4. That which Eusebius, lib. secundo, capi. decimo septimo, and after him Epiphanius, haeres. 29, and Jerome, De vir. illustr. in Marco, do say, namely, that Philo Judaeus, De vita contemplativa, speaks of Christian monks which Saint Mark ordained in Egypt, is to be thus taken, that they meant that those monks (whom they call Christians) were by birth Hebrews, that as yet lived like Jews, and followed the orders of the Essenes. For thus Jerome, in Epistola ad Enstochium, speaks of the monks of Egypt. Such Philo (Plato's imitator), Joseph
(that Grecian Livy), in his second book of the Jews' captivity, reports the Essenes to have been. Cassiodorus, in Histor. Tripartit., lib.
primo, cap. undecimo, says that the conversation which Philo writes the Egyptian monks to be of, is not to be found in any profession elsewhere. And that which Eusebius, lib. tertio, cap. 17, says in his history of the monks, the very same almost he in another place, viz.,
De praeparatione Evangel. lib. octavo, cap. quarto, ascribes to the Essenes. Sozomene, libr. primo, cap. 12, says that they were
Christians living like Jews. But it is very likely that Eusebius herein erred first, and misled others also that followed him. For Philo writes professedly of the old sect of the Essenes, not of any other newer one, and I can hardly believe that he, being a Jew, would write in the commendations of Christians.
5. Necessity was first parent unto hermetical life, for shunning of persecution. "Some record," says Sozomene, lib. primo, cap. 13, "that the storms of persecution, by which Christian religion was diversely tossed, did compel men at the first to undertake this kind of life.
"And so it is said of Paul the hermit, that he, flying from the persecution of Decius, and desiring to keep himself secret in the deserts, turned necessity into willingness," Otto Frising., lib. 4, cap.
2. This made Basil so earnest in the praise of this monastical life.
6. The ancient monks differ from our popish monks in the very fundamental points of their profession. For first, they lived solitary of necessity, to be the safer from persecution. Second, they were not constrained to give all they had unto the poor. Third, they were not bound by any solemn and perpetual vow to a certain rule or to monastical life, but might alter their manner of living when they thought good. "In that writing (which was brought from heaven by an angel unto Pachomius) there were laws," says Nicephorus, lib. 9, cap. 14, "set down, that every man should be permitted to eat, drink, and work as much as he could, or would, and in like manner to fast and not fast according to every man's liking. And that those that fed
the more strongly, should use greater labors, and those that were of but sparing diet or more ready to exercises of piety, those should have less labor enjoined them." "And among these," says Augustine, de morib. eccl., cap. 33, "no man is urged with more severe impositions than he can bear, none burdened with that he refuses to do, nor despised of the rest, for confessing his insufficiency in such performances. For they remember how greatly the Scriptures do commend charity, they remember that to the pure all is pure, and nothing that enters in at the mouth defiles the man, but that which comes forth, so that their industry is not employed in rejecting sorts of meat, as unclean, but in taming concupiscence, and preserving brotherly love." "Others of these," says Sozomene, lib. 3, ca. 15,
"living in the frequented cities, do show themselves abjects in men's conceit, and nothing different from the vulgar." And Athanasius, epist. ad Dracontium, says that he knew many both monks and bishops that were married, and had children. Fourth, the monks at the first were laymen, not of the clergy, much less priests or deacons.
Jerome, ad Heliodor., makes the monks of the most strict orders to be laymen: "The clergy are one sort," says he, "and the monks another. The clergy are pastors, but I am the sheep." And the Council of Chalcedon, cap. 4, decrees that no monks should put themselves any way in the affairs of the church. Leo, epist. 62, forbids the monks, and the laity (though men be proud of their learning) to be admitted either to teach or preach. (Vide Augustine, de moribus eccles., cap. 3; Gregory, lib. 3, epist. 11.) Fifth, there was no merit set down for monastical life until these later times.
7. There were no nuns until above 200 years after Christ, but some virgins, despising the world's wickedness, lived solitary, but without vow solemn, or perpetual, known by their veil, not when they went forth of their monasteries, but in going out of their fathers' houses, or their own. Many such there were before Jerome's time that lived
continent, out of monasteries, privately, and freely, yea, and some of them were noble women, living in their own houses, attended upon by many maid servants (Jerome, ad Demetriad). But in Rome,
Marcella was one of the first of all the nuns. "At that time," viz., circa ann. 400, says Jerome, in Epitaph. Marcellae, "none of all the noble women at Rome were privy unto the intent of the monks, nor did they adventure, because of the strangeness thereof to take so base and reproachful a name upon them, as the people then held it."
"About that time," says Nauclerus (generat. 41, ad ann. 1215), speaking of Helena and Constantine's time, "the holy virgins were chosen by Helen, Constantine's mother, who were nourished by the common stipend, for the celebration of the praises of God in purity of life, and frequency of prayer."
8. But as for the monastical life now professed, it is absolutely condemned by the fathers. Augustine does not like their idleness, but reprehends it in divers places of his work, de opera Monachorum, cap. 17. "The solitary life," says Ivo Carnotensis (ep. 258), "is inferior unto the common and ordinary life, because it is full of importunate cogitations, which rising like flies out of the mud, do buzz about the eyes of the heart, and interrupt the Sabbath of the mind…. Neither do we speak this out of bare conjecture but have learned it of those that have tried it to be true." In Basil's Ascetica (tom. 2, c. 7), it is taught that the solitary life contradicts the law of charity, and he cites that of the preacher: "Woe unto the man that is alone, for if he falls he has none to raise him again." "What do you command us to do," says Chrysostom (hom. 8, in Matth. 2), "to go into the desert mountains, and become monks? Alas, what is it that I grieve at, but only that you think that none do live a pure and honest life, but only those men?"
9. The monasteries of antiquity generally were the schools of learning, and communities, colleges of teachers and learners. "What?
Shall we call our children," says Chrysostom (Contra vituperat. vita Monast., lib. 3), "from the habitations of the desert? No, but let us suffer them to have the discipline of heaven soundly founded, and deeply rooted in them, and although they stay ten, yea, twenty years in the monasteries, let us not be any whit molested thereat."
10. But concerning the vow of regular obedience, it was not admitted, nor exacted in the church until four ages after Christ.
11. Voluntary poverty, that is, either without necessity, calling, or limit, made necessary by vow, joined to the opinion of supererogation, and annexed unto monastical profession, was not received into the church until many ages after Christ. Let any man give an instance to the contrary. Origen seems to require the forsaking of earthly possessions of his auditors (Eusebius, hist. eccles., lib. 6, cap. 3), and prescribes the same unto all priests. "Let us hasten from the priests of Pharaoh," says he (homily 15, in Gen.),
"who have earthly possessions, unto the priests of the Lord who have no portion of livings upon earth." Now Chrysostom (homil. 9, in Mat.) prescribes it unto all men in general. "Shall not we cast all things away," says he, "and leave all things that we may go unto heaven with a clear and free countenance?" "He that possesses the Lord," says Jerome (Ad Nepotian & habetur, c. 12, qu. 1, apud
Gratianum, c. Clericus), "can possess nothing but the Lord; but if he have anything besides the Lord, he has no part in the Lord."
Eusebius (lib. 3, cap. 31) writes that some apostolic persons did distribute their goods to the poor, but they did it to the end that they might be more free to exercise their evangelical function throughout the world. Paul, the first hermit, did undergo this poverty, because he lost all his goods for confession of his faith. And Paulinus of Nola
sold all his goods to nourish the poor in time of persecution, war, and hunger.
Mary 1. It was the common opinion of the fathers and writers until Lombard's time (which was in the year 1150), that the virgin Mary was conceived in Original sin.
Witness: Augustine, ser. 2, in Ps. 35, and de Bapt. parv., lib. 2, cap.
24, and de Genes. ad liter., libr. 10, cap. 18; Ambrose, Conc. 6, in Psal. 118; Chrysostom, in Mat., hom. 45; Eusebius Emissenus, de nat. Dom., ser. 2; Maximus, ser. de Assumpt; Bede, sup. hom, Missus est; Remigius, in Ps. 21; Anselm, in li. cur Deus homo, cap. 16;
Ruportus, in Cant., lib. 1 ad fin.; and Lombard himself, 3 sent., d. 3.
Bernard, Ad Lugdun canonicos, epist. 174, says that Mary were equal unto Christ if that she was conceived without original sin. And that this was the more common opinion, Bonaventure, in 3 Sent., dist. 3, q. 1, art. 2; Thom., 3 part., q. 27, art. 2; Antonine, par. 1, tit. 8, c. 2; and Lyra, sup. Luc. 1, do confess. Turrecremata, De consecrat., dist.
4, cap. Formissimo, quest. 3, num. 11, avouches that he had gathered a hundred authors for this opinion, in his book of the truth of the conception of Mary. And very many are alleged by Melchior Canus in his common places, lib. 7, cap. 1.
2. Again, some of the fathers say that Mary was guilty of actual sin.
For example, Chrysostom, hom. 20, in Joan., ca. 2, touches her with ambition and rashness. So does Theophylact and Euthymius, ibid.;
Athanasius, contra Arianos, serm. 4; and Irenaeus contra haereses, li. 3, cap. 18. Origen, in Luc., hom. 17; Tertullian, lib. de carne
Christi, cap. 7; and the author of the book of the questions of the Old and New Testament, quest. 73, in August., accuse her of infidelity.
3. Later, an opinion emerged that Mary was preserved from original sin by a singular and extraordinary privilege. Scotus was the first schoolman to propose this, though he spoke of it only tentatively in 3 dist. 4, q. 1, saying it was probable that such an excellence should be ascribed to Mary, provided it did not conflict with the authority of Scripture or the Church. Francis Mayro later adopted this view in 3 distinct. 3, q. 1, art. 4. Nevertheless, it was explicitly contradicted by Bonaventure (3 sent., dist. 3, art. 1, q. 2), Thomas (par. 3, q. 27, art.
2), Cajetan (ibid.; tract. de concept. virginis), Antony (par. 1, tit. 8, c.
2), Ales (3 part., q. 9), Hugo of St. Victor (De Sacra, lib. 2, part. 1, c.
5), Richard (3 dist. 3), Capreolus (ibid.), Albertus (ibid.), Ariminensis (2 dist. 30–31, q. 2, art. 1), and Durandus (3 dist. 3, q. 1), as well as by many Dominicans and B. Medina (3 part., Thoma, q. 27). So that it is no such catholic doctrine to hold that Mary was conceived and born without original sin.
4. Now whereas Irenaeus calls her Eve's advocate (lib. quento, cap. decimo sexton), this is a hyperbolical speech, and if you take it simply, altogether untrue. For it is in the conception and birth of Christ that she is mediatrix unto Eve (for in bringing forth her redeemer), not in praying for her. And in that respect there were some who called her their only help, lady, queen of heaven, and hope, as Fulgentius, Cyril, and Damascene do.
5. In the year of our Lord 1096, Urban II decreed in a Council at Claremount that the hours of the blessed virgin should be said every day, and that her office should be solemnly sung upon the Sabbath
(Rad. Tungrens., Proposit. 20).
6. As for the Roman office of these times dedicated unto her, it is most impious, for the honor of their Savior is transferred unto her.
But Bonaventure (in tertia dist., quest. 2) gives other counsel when
he says that we must beware lest we do not diminish the Son's glory in amplifying of the mother's, and therein provoke the mother to wrath, who had rather have her Son honored than herself, as the Creator ought to be before the creature. Urban II did first appoint the office of the Virgin Mary to be sung, anno 1077 (Vide Durand. enchir. lib. 5, cap. 1, num. 9, and lib. 6, cap. 2).
Feast Days 1. Abbot Panormitane, in ca. 3, deserijs, Angelus, in verbo feria, sec.
43, and Sylvester, verbo, Dominica, q. 1, verse 77, do hold that the Lord's Day, or Sunday, was instituted by the divine law, and do affirm that this was the common opinion in their days, which is most true, for it has been observed from the apostles' time (1 Corinthians
16).
2. The first day of the Sabbath (which is our Sunday) is accounted for the Lord's Day, by Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Remigius, as also by Primasius, in 1 Corinth., and so thinks Augustine also, epistol. 119, cap. 13. "The Lord's Day," quotes he, "was declared by the resurrection of the Lord, and has the festival institution from Him."
And ep. 86 ad Casulan. Look Isidore also, lib. 1, de officijs, c. 2, and Waldensis, de sacramental., tit. 16, cap. 140.
3. Whereas Constantine decreed by a law that the Lord's Day should be observed and kept (as Eusebius, de vita Constant., lib. 4, cap. 18, and Sozomene, lib. 1, c. 8, affirms), therein he gave but a general law unto the whole empire of the Romans, imitating the apostles. And this was no beginning of the keeping of this day, but a renewing of an apostolic tradition for the more diligent and heedful observation thereof. For before him, Origen against Celsus, and Tertullian, de coro. mili., and lib. 2, ad uxo., make mention of this day, and
Jerome, cont. Vigilan. Justin, quest. 115, says that it was observed from the apostles' ages. See also his second apology. Basil, de Spiri.
Sanct., cap. 27, says that it is an apostolic tradition.
4. Theophilus, in edict. cum Theophan., is one of the first that mentions the feasts of the birth, and epiphany of Christ; and Chrysostom another, orat. in Sanct. Philogon. And Nazianzene, orat. in S. Lumin, puts them both for one. And that use the Greek church did follow and practice, though the western church made two divers feasts. The feast of the circumcision was unknown in the church for at least 1000 years after Christ. The feast of the Trinity was known before indeed, but not allowed of publicly, but reproved. Alexander
III, c. Quoniam, de ferijs, Decretal, libr. 2, cap. 9, says that in his time it was not used at Rome. Micrologus, De eccles. observ., c. 60, and Pothon priest De stat. dom. dei, lib. 3, do both reprehend the keepers of this feast. Corpus Christi feast was of Urban IV's creation after the 1200th year of our Lord. And Potho Prumiensis finds fault with the feast of the transfiguration, anno 1160, ibid.
5. In the purest times of the primitive church there were no vigils in honor of the saints. Basil, in Psal. 114, is the first that mentions them, and now they are laid aside.
6. The feast days of the saints were first instituted for the worshipping of God observed diversely and freely without bond or punishment for breach thereof. For in the most ancient fathers was never read of any feast but of Easter, nor were they counted holy in themselves, but because of the mysteries of God ministered at such times; not a feast can be proved for 200 years after Christ (Socrat., libr. 5, cap. 21). As for Easter and other feasts, men did keep them of custom at their own pleasures.
7. "The martyrs' suffering days were called their birthdays and their yearly Easter" (Durand., Rational., libr. 7, cap. primo, num. 38).
"Because then they were truly born again and passed from this miserable life to immortality." "We call the martyrs' passions their birthdays," says Emissenus, ser. de S. Genesio, and so does Polydore
Virgil, lib. 6, cap. 8.
8. Justinian instituted the feast of Simeon's meeting of Christ on the second of February, to the honor of Christ for the ceasing of the plague, about the year 540 (Paulus Diacon., lib. 15; Niceph., lib. 17. c.
28). But afterward the popes changed it into the feast of Mary's purification.
9. The feast of the annunciation was first ordained for the honor of God, not of Mary, as it appears in a sermon said to be Athanasius's,
De Sancta Deipara. "This feast," says he, "is one, and the first of the Lord's." And hereupon the ancient writers called it the annunciation of the Lord (vide Durand., Ratio., lib. 7, cap. 2, num. 2).
10. Urban VI instituted the feast of Mary's visitation (Bellarmine).
And the feast of her nativity was not kept in the church of old (Durand., lib. 7, cap. 28, num. 2), but had its origin by a night revelation. Gregory is the first that names it.
11. The feast of Pentecost was no Christian feast in the apostles' time, for they followed the Jews' manner in keeping of theirs (Francolinus, de horis canon, cap. 84).
12. The fathers took not Pentecost for the last day of the Quinquagesima, but for the whole time between Easter and the fiftieth day. "Take all the heathens' solemnities," says Tertullian,
"and place them in a rank, they will not make up one Pentecost." And again, De coro. milit., "We hold it a sin to fast, or to pray kneeling
upon the Lord's Day. And the like privilege we have from Easter day through the whole Pentecost." "Our fathers taught us," says
Ambrose, in Luc. 17, "that all the 50 days of Pentecost are to be celebrated as Easter is, because the beginning of the eighth week makes the Pentecost." The same saying he has (sermon 60). But now the fiftieth day is the feast only.
13. The feast of the assumption of Mary was never universally received, by place and person. Nay, in Charlemagne's time it was doubted whether this feast should be kept: "We have left the feast of the assumption of Saint Mary to be inquired of," says he in his constitutions, lib. 1, c. 158. And Ludovicus Pius's son adds it unto the other feasts (anno 818, witness Aventine, lib. 4).
14. That Mary was assumed body and soul, it is not certain in the fathers. "How, or at what time, or by what persons, her sacred body was taken thence, or whether it was translated," says the author, serm. de Assump. ad Paul & Eustoch, "or whether it be risen again, it is unknown." "But although some seem to have erred," says
Epiphanius, Haeres. 78, "let them search the Scriptures, and they shall neither find the death of Mary, nor whether she was buried or not buried." "I cannot confirm this of her," says the author of the book, de Assumpt. Maria, fathered upon Augustine, "by any special testimony. And, if I have spoken as I should, Christ and His saints approve it; if otherwise, Christ and His saints pardon it." Now all that he affirms is but this: that it is not ungodliness to say that her body saw no corruption. Augustine, Serm. de sanctis 35, dares not define whether she was assumed with her body or without it; no more dare others (as Breviar, Quignonij, pag. 231). Ado, in Martyrologio, says that the church celebrates her sleeping, but not her assumption. And again, "What is become of her holy body, the church's sobriety has chosen rather to be ignorant with godly zeal, than to teach any
frivolous or apocryphal doctrine thereupon." So says Usuard also.
Durandus, Rational., lib. 7, cap. 24, num. 1, affirms that her bodily assumption into heaven is uncertain, and those that hold it have but their opinion from common report (Orat. Apud Damasc. de dorm. deiparae).
15. The feast of the Exaltation of the Cross was not ordained before the year 630 (Otto Frising., lib. quinto, cap. nono). But Nicephorus
(lib. octavo, cap. 29) says that Helene instituted it. Manuel Coromenus (Varior. Impp. miscell. constit. cap. septimo, de ferijs) makes mention of such a feast, and so Balsamon does (in Photij
Nomocan, titul. septimo).
16. The feast of Mary's conception was not ordained at first because of her immaculate conception. Petrus (de natalibus) says it began to be instituted because of her sanctification in the womb. But Bernard
(epist. 174) reproves this feast. And Pothon, a priest, says that it is an absurd thing to celebrate it (De statu. dom. Dei, lib. tertio, ad finem).
Nor was it generally received until the decree of Sixtus quartus in the year 1470, as appears (ex Extravag. Cum praexcelsa. De reliquijs).
17. The feast of her purification was instituted in Justinian's time (Nicephor. lib. 17, c. 28; P. Diacon., lib. 10, rerum Rom.).
The Church, Succession, Antiquity 1. By the catholic church, the fathers mean the company of the elect, by faith grafted into Jesus Christ. So Augustine (in Psal. 92 and 62, de catech. rud. c. 20, and Psalm 36); Cyprian (lib. 1, ep. 3 and de unit. eccles.); Jerome (in ep. ad Galat., cap. 4 and in Job, c. 26);
Epiphanius (Haeres., 35); Chrysostom (hom. de Turture and in Psal.
114); Ambrose (in Eph., cap. 1); and Bernard (sup. Cantic., ser. 76)
understands it. Now in acknowledging a visibility thereof, they speak of the outward estate, and parts thereof, or of the particular church.
And in saying that the wicked are of the church, they speak of the external state of the particular church of their times.
2. They used also to appeal unto the church, but no farther than they thought she did follow the canonical Scriptures; for thereby, and only thereby, is the church known, as Augustine says (contra lit. Petil. lib.
3, cap. 11).
3. They praised the Roman Church (some of them) by a supposition, because it had kept the faith in greatest purity unto the times wherein they wrote, not because the Holy Ghost was bound or tied to that seat. Note this supposition.
4. They hold that the church is not always visible upon the earth.
"The whole congregation of the saints shall be hidden," says abbot Joachim (in Revelat., page 2), "for so shall the elect of God (being wise) be wise unto themselves, so that they shall not presume to preach openly, because that the darkness shall prevail. Not that they shall leave to animate and exhort the faithful in secret, but because they dare not adventure to preach publicly."
5. In the fathers' writings some particular churches are called catholic, yea universal, because of their catholic faith. So that catholic and universal church is very often taken for the orthodoxal church, and hereby distinct from the conventicles of heretics.
"Theodosius made a law," says Sozomene (lib. 7, cap. 4), "that their church only should be called catholic, that did worship the Holy
Trinity with equal honor, that all others should be called heretics, noted with ignominy, and punished for their iniquity." And hence it is that the orthodoxal bishops were often called the bishops of the catholic or universal church.
6. The fathers do acknowledge a succession, and appeal thereunto, because they lived before any schism, when it stood without breach in the Roman Church, and because the truth of apostolic doctrine was withal reserved. "Eleutherius for his order and doctrine has the twelfth place from the apostles," says Nicephorus (l. 4, c. 15).
Tertullian (De praescript, ca. 32) speaks of some churches which cannot produce their original from the apostles or their scholars, because they were begun long after, and yet holding the same faith, are called apostolic also, because of the unity of their doctrine. And this succession they urge against the schismatics only.
For those that mangled the Scriptures, and invented others, as Valentinus, etc. "They have not Peter's inheritance," says Ambrose
(De paenit., lib. 1, cap. 6), "for they have not his faith." "The succession of faith," says Nazian (Orat. de laud. Athanasii), "is the true succession: for those that profess the same doctrine of faith, are partakers of the same throne." Augustine (De unit. eccl., c. 18, 19) will have the church proved by the Scriptures, not by succession of bishops, nor authorities of councils. And Bellarmine (De notis
Ecclesiae) grants that it is no necessary consequent that the church should be where there is succession.
7. The fathers noted the succession of the see of Rome because the bishops were then famous, and the place renowned, and more known to the doctors by reason of the nearness of it (Tertullian, De praescript. advers. haeretic.).
8. This succession of Roman bishops drawn from Peter is but uncertain, and of human institution. Jerome (De script. eccles.) puts
Linus the second and Clement the fourth. Irenaeus (lib. 3, c. 3) puts Linus the first. But Clemens succeeded Peter, as in the epistle to James under his name he affirms. Now the great Council of
Chalcedon (Action. 15) held that the Church of Rome had the primacy with the fathers because that city ruled all the world. "We decree," says Justinian (Novell. 131, cap. 2), "according to the ancient canons, that the holy bishop of Rome be esteemed the primate of all priests." "This is to be well noted," says Canus (Loc. comm., lib. 6, ca. 8), "that the bishops of Rome succeeding of Peter, is not revealed in Scriptures, but has the authority from most grave histories…. But if this be not sufficient to the learned, we have another, that is, that though we have no Scriptures for this succession of the Roman bishops from Peter, yet it is a tradition of the apostles unto the church, from hand to hand as it were." And thus also says
Covarruvias (tom. 1, 2 par., Relect. sec. 8, p. 242, col. 1) that it is plain by catholic doctrine that Peter's successors had their primacy given them by Christ. D. á Stoto (3 dist. 24, q. 2) says that the said succession is annexed to this see of Rome by an ecclesiastical law.
And like to this has Cajetane (Opusc. de Rom. Pontif. institut., cap.
13). And Bellarmine (De Pontif., lib. 2, cap. 12) says that, "The bishop of Rome, in that he is so, is Peter's successor, this he has from Peter's deed, not from Christ's first ordinance."
9. The fathers urge succession of other sees indifferently, as well as of the Roman Church. "We can reckon them," says Irenaeus (lib. 3, cap.
3, and lib. 4, ca. 63), "that were made bishops in the churches by the apostles." Look also at Eusebius (l. 4, c. 19) and Augustine (Contra lit. Petil., lib. 2, cap. 51).
10. The fathers urged antiquity against the heretics, not respecting it for itself, as it consists of years and ages, but in being joined with the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, and beginning at least at the apostles' time. "This good has the antiquity, which was adorned with divine knowledge and doctrine, done unto me," says Tertullian (in
his Apolog. in fine). "Custom without truth, is but an antiquity in error," says Cyprian (epist. 74, ad Pomp.).
Councils 1. The fathers' praising of councils mean only those that prove the doctrine of faith by the Scriptures.
2. The appeal from a council unto the bishop of Rome was not because he was a judge over the councils, but because of his credit and authority with the emperor. And oftentimes this was out of Africa by reason of the small distance of place.
3. Emperors and kings in the primitive church called councils by their own authority, not by the pope's, for above 800 years together.
"The emperor," says Theodoret (lib. 1, cap. 7), "called that noble Council of Nicea."
"Emperor," says Sozom., lib. 1, cap. 26, "called a council at Nicea in Bithynia, setting down a day for all the rulers of every church in all places, to be there present." And he reckons Pope Julius for one that was commanded thither. "The king," says Epiphan., Haeres. 69,
"having a care of the church, called a general council." And again:
"We bishops, assembled from divers provinces, as Selvica in Isauria, at the command of our high and mighty prince Constantine." "The emperor," says Socrates, lib. 5, cap. 8, speaking of Theodosius,
"without delay called a council of bishops that embraced his faith."
"By the emperor's command," says Zonaras, Annal., tom. 3, "the second council was called because of Macedonius." "Innocent, bishop of Rome," says Sozom., lib. 8, cap. 28, "sent five bishops and two priests unto Honorius and Arcadius, emperors, to entreat a council of them and the time and place thereof, who notwithstanding
obtained it not." "Tell me," says Jerome, in his Apology against Ruffin., lib. 2, ca. 5, "who were consuls that year? What emperor commanded this council to be called?" "We went unto his sacred majesty," says Chrysostom, epist. ad Innocent I, "and entreated him to call a council." "I cannot find," says Aeneas Sylvius, De actis Conc.
Basil., lib. primo, "neither in ancient history, nor in the Acts of the Apostles, that it was a use at any time for the popes alone to call councils." And if we so proceed through all times, we shall find nothing in the primitive church approving this authority of calling councils to belong only to the popes of Rome. Nor was the assent of that bishop ought esteemed in Constantine's time, and other emperors after that. And therefore, the Council of Chalcedon says thus of itself: "The holy, great, and general council, which by the grace of God, and the decree of the most holy and Christian emperors, Valentinian and Martian, was gathered at Chalcedon the metropolitan city of Bithynia," etc., but makes no mention of the pope, though it had his assent also. Leo I, ep. 9, desires of Theodosius to grant his entreaty and supplication, that there might be a council of the bishops called in Italy. "Although we know," says
Frederick the emperor in the council to the bishops, Apud Radevicum de Gestis Frederic I, Imperatoris, lib. 2, c. 64, "that by the place and dignity of the empire, the calling of councils is in our power, but especially in such great dangers of the church. For so it is recorded that Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, and of latter times, Charlemagne and Otto, all emperors have done before us, yet do we leave the authority of deciding this great and weighty business, unto your power, and prudence." "We read," says cardinal Cusanus,
"that the general councils were often called by the emperors, yea all of them (as we see by the records) until the eighth, called at Constantinople in Basil the emperor's time." And again: De concord. catholica, lib. 3, c. 2 and 25, "All the eight general councils…were called by the emperors," so that he confesses this power to be in the
emperor's hand and not in the pope's for above eight hundred years after Christ. Now Turrecremata, Summa de ecclesi., lib. 2, c. 23, makes a double presidency in councils, to wit, of honor or sitting, and of authority. And that of session and honor the pope sometimes had vouchsafed him, but this other of authorizing, never until later times, and namely about the year 1516, in the Lateran Council under Leo X, cap. 11, condemned before, in the Councils of Constance, sess.
4 and 5, and Basel, sess. 2 and 16, and by Gerson also in his treatise, whether it be lawful to appeal from the pope in matters of faith or no.
Benedictions, Hallowings 1. The benedictions or hallowing of water, ashes, salt, candles, oil, and palms are never spoken of in the Fathers, but only of the water of baptism. Augustine, De tempore, ser. 37, says that all the waters of Jordan were consecrated by Christ. Ambrose, de sacram, lib. 2, ca. 5:
"And the faithful were wont to take of the water of baptism home with them, and sprinkle it about their houses," Alcuin, de div. officiis, cap. de Sabbato Pasch. Bellarmine plainly confesses that holy water is but a human invention, De extrem. unctione, lib. 1, ca. 61, because, quotes he, "In baptism men were cured of their bodily infirmities," as Augustine witnesses, epist. 23 and de Civit. Dei, lib. 22, c. 8:
"Therefore some began to use holy water, besides baptism, for curing diseases."
2. Sometimes there were miracles done by this sanctified water, as Theodoret, Hist., lib. 5, cap. 22, and Bede, Hist. Anglor., lib. 1, ca. 17, do relate. But that proves not the ordinary use thereof in the church, nor that it was therefore hallowed that it might have power to work supernatural effects.
3. It is a profane novelty to say that it is a medicine for venial sin, and in itself powerful against devils. This Molanus, Practic. Theologiae, tract. 1, de paenit., cap. 17, prop. 24, 25, 26, perceived, when he said that, "The sprinkling of holy water, and such other like acts have their reference unto the public prayers (then made); for I dare not say as some do, that holy water has any effect against anything, by virtue of the work done."
4. They used to bless men with prayer, and the ceremonies of chrism and imposition of hands. "What else is the laying on of hands," says
Augustine, De Baptis. contra Donat., lib. 3, cap. 16 (Et habetur apud Gratian. Caus. 1, q. 1, cap. Manus), "but a praying over a man?"
5. It was called holy bread because it was given in sign of the divine blessing, which is to be received by the body and blood of Christ, of them that were not as yet permitted to receive those mysteries or received by them but seldom. "There are divers kinds of sanctification," says Augustine, De Pecc. merit. & remiss., lib. 2, cap.
26, "for I think the catechumeni have one kind of sanctification by the sign of Christ and the prayers made with putting of hands upon them, and that which they receive, though it be not the body of Christ, yet it is holy, and holier than our ordinary meat." Hence it appears that this hallowed bread was then given to the catechists to whom the Eucharist was denied, but nowadays it is given unto all that do not communicate. In the 3rd Council of Carthage it is recorded that they used to give salt instead of the Eucharist unto the catechumenists.
6. It was called the blessing, or benediction, because it was given as a token of commendation and unity from one to another. "The bread which we sent you," says Paulinus (Apud Aug., epist. 31), and ipse
Aug., ep. 34, "shall become a more fruitful blessing by the love of
your goodness that receives it." And again, in his epistle to Alipius (epist. 35), note that he says, "You shall make this bread a benediction by vouchsafing to receive it." For hence it seems that it was not sanctified before by the sender. And again, also in his epistle unto Romanianus (apud August., epist. 36 and epist. 31 ad August.), he says, "We pray you to sanctify this bread by receiving it, which we send unto your love to signify our unity and accord." And in like manner they used to send money, apparel, and keys to hang about their necks with their letters for a blessing, Greg., lib. 1, epist. 29 and 30, and lib. 8, epist. 31.
7. The benediction of this bread for health of soul and body against all diseases and snares of the enemy began in the Council of Nantes
(cap. 9) and was never mentioned before Augustine's times.
8. There were many hundreds of years passed before that ever the Roman Church knew how to consecrate an Agnus Dei. Alcuine, ca. de
Sabbato Pasch., and Amalarius, de eccl. offic., lib. 1, cap. 17, are the first that mentioned it.
The Clergy, and Laity 1. The fathers distinguish the clergy from the laity because the one bears a public charge in the church, which specified them from the other which bear none. Again, in respect of the punishment inflicted upon either, the clergy had the greater imposed upon them, the laity the lesser. So that it is an abuse of this distinction to say that the people are profane, and that the clergy should be exempted from civil governance.
2. The exemption of the clergy from political judgment in civil causes began to be in common use about the year 536, for Justinian
ordained that in causes merely civil, the bishops alone should hear and determine of the cases of monks and nuns (Const. Novell. 79, cap. 1). And that the clergy should first be examined before their ordinaries; but if that the nature of the case, or some other difficulty arising, be such that the bishop cannot possibly decide the business, then let it be lawful for them to go unto the civil judges (Const.
Novel. 83, in praefat. and 123, cap. 21). "I say in causes merely civil, for in criminal causes, the civil judge is by him appointed to inquire and censure thereupon, and if he finds the clergy man worthy of punishment, then shall he be by the bishop despoiled of his priestly dignity, and so become punishable by the law" (Const. Novel. 83, cap. 1 and 123, cap. 21). Nor is it any wonder that the clergy had not this exemption before, because that the clergy besides that their function, are citizens and members of the political body, and in that respect ought to be in all things subject to the political power. I add: in common use, for before Justinian's time in some peculiar churches the exemption was practiced before. "Let no man presume," says the Council of Agatha, cap. 32 (Et habetur apud
Gratian, Caus. 11, quest. 1, ca. 17), "to summon a clergy man before a secular judge, without the license of the bishop. If any such be summoned, let him not appear or defend, or dare to propound a criminal cause unto a secular judgment." Now before Justinian's time, the bishop's ordinary jurisdiction was but a power of inquiry and restraint for violating and corrupting the ecclesiastical discipline
(see Conc. Chalced., cap. 9; Carthag. 3, cap. 9; Tolet. 3, c. 13; Matiscon, cap. 8).
3. About the 400th year after Christ, the clergy of some churches were free from paying tribute unto secular princes (Eusebius, lib. 10, cap. 7, and Jerome, in Matth. 17), and in othersome it was not so.
"The churches' livings do pay their tribute," says Ambrose (in orat. de traded. Basilicis, against Auxentius). "The emperors Valentinian,
Valens, and Gratian, do exhort the Asian bishops that were suspect of heresy, to return unto them that were of sound judgment, whom they commend in this among other things, that they refused not to pay the tax that was exacted of them" (Theodoret, hist. lib. quarto, cap. septimo). Neither is this meant only of the patrimonial tributes for every inheritance, but of the personal also, for every head. "If the Son of God paid his tax," says Ambrose (in 5 Luc, lib. 3 and citatur. ca.
Magnum, caus. 11, quest. 1), "who are you that thinks it should not be paid?" But some will say that this arose out of custom, and not out of law? Then let him know that there is no divine law that exempts the clergy from paying dues unto secular princes if their need so requires. Chrysostom (homil. 23, in Roman.) will have that subjection exacted even of the priests and monks, which Paul speaks of (Romans 13). And paying of tax is no little part thereof, as Covarruvias, in l. practic. quest., ca. 31, observed very well. Thomas, in Roman. 13, says that it was the prince's gift to exempt the clergy from these taxes, and therefore a human law. And so says
Covarruvias, in the place afore named; and John Median, tract. de Restitutione, quest. 15.
4. The right of assent and suffrage (in elections of the churchmen) was taken from the people about the year 870, Distinct. 63.
Additions 1. The modern papists hold these positions: 1. Lawfulness of equivocation in oath, or to swear equivocally that he did not that which he did, though he had done it. 2. That to pray for their enemies in special is no command, but a counsel. 3. That in a fast it is lawful to drink often, and to take medicines. 4. That many atheistical thoughts and filthy imaginations are no sins. 5. That to take away
any small thing whose loss brings no great damage to the owner is no mortal sin. But these are strangers to the fathers' ears, yea, until of late, unto all Christians.
2. Not a father of the first 400 years taught nine choirs of angels, but contrariwise some do overthrow this distinction. "I think," says
Theodoret, in 1. ad Coloss., "that he calls the cherubim the thrones (for the prophet Ezekiel saw the throne of the deity placed upon them), and by dominations, principalities, and powers, he means those that governed the nations." Augustine calls them all by the general name of angels, Enchir., cap. 58. "Whether the archangels be called virtues," says he, "or what the difference is between these four words, 'thrones, dominations, principalities, and powers,' let them tell that can, if they prove what they say. I confess plainly, that I am altogether ignorant." Hence may the antiquity of the books under Dionysius Areopagita's name be gathered, that teach nine orders of angels so undoubtedly.
3. The fathers hold generally that the first precept of the ten commandments concerns the having or choosing of God; the second is of idols; the tenth of concupiscence. So teaches Philo Judaeus, De decalog.; Josephus, Antiq. lib. 2, cap. 6 and 8; Origen, in Exod., hom.
8; Athanasius, in Synops.; Nazianzene, in vers. de Decal.; Ambrose and Jerome, in Eph., cap. 6; Procoplus and Rupertus, in Exod., cap.
20, with others, viz., author operis imperfect. in Matth., homil. 49.
Augustine is variable, one while affirming it, and another while denying it, vide Quest. vet. and nov. Test., q. 7, Quest. super Exod., lib. 2, cap. 71, Epist. 119, cap. undecimo.
4. The fathers generally either deny, or suppress in silence, that the souls of the dead can return unto the living. Chrysostom, De Lazaro, hom. ultimo; Tertullian, lib. de anima; Isidore, Etymolog., lib. 8,
cap. 9; Theophilact, in Matth. 8; and others, viz., Author quest. ad Antioch, quest. 11 and 13, apud Athanas., do all deny this. Augustine seems to be of another opinion in his book of the care for the dead, cap. 15 and 16.
The Consequent No apostle, no holy father, no sound catholic, for 1200 years after Christ, did ever hold or profess that doctrine of all the principles and grounds of religion, that is now taught by the Church of Rome, and authorized by the Council of Trent.
SOLI DEO GLORIA
[1] In the original, this is the third section; for the sake of practicality, we have chosen to omit the second section entitled: "A Catalogue of the counterfeit, doubtful, or corrupted works of the fathers; together with some errors which the grosser of them have sprinkled in their works."