A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 18
CHAP. XVIII.
Detect. 9. THE moſt common and prevalent Deceit of the Papiſts is, by ambiguous terms to deceive thoſe that cannot force them to diſtinguiſh, and to make you believe they mean one thing, when they mean another, and to mock you with cloudy words. I ſhall here warn you to look to them therefore eſpecially in three terms, on which much of their controverſies lies, that is, the words Church, Pope, and Council. For there's but few underſtand what they mean by any one of theſe words.
1. When you come to diſpute of the Church with them, ſee that you agree firſt under your hands of the Definition of that Church of which you diſpute. And when you call them to Define it, you will find them in a wood, you will little think how many ſeverall things it is that they call [the Church:] For example, ſometime they mean the whole Body, Paſtors and People: but more commonly they mean only the Paſtors, which are the far ſmalleſt part. And ſometime they mean the Church Reall: and ſometimes only the Church Repreſentative, as they call it in a Generall Councill. But whether they mean the Paſtors or People, they exclude all ſaving the Pope of his ſubjects, and ſo by the [Church] mean but a part or ſect. Sometime in the Queſtion about Tradition, ſome of the French take the [Church] for the community, (as fathers deliver the doctrine of Chriſt to their children, &c.) And ſometime they take it in its Politicall ſence, for a holy ſociety, conſiſting of a viſible Head and members: But then they agree not of that Head, ſome ſetting the Pope higheſt, and ſome the Councill. But frequently they take the word [Church] for the ſuppoſed Head alone, as in moſt queſtions about Infallibility, Judging of Controverſies, expounding Scripture, keeping of Traditions, defining points of faith, &c. They ſay, The Church muſt do theſe: but commonly they mean the ſuppoſed Head: And one part mean a Generall Councill: and the Jeſuites and Italians, and predominant part do mean only the Pope: ſo that when they talk of the whole Catholick Church, and call you to its Judgement, and boaſt of its Infallibility (you would little think it) they mean all this while but one poor ſinfull man: and ſuch a man as ſometime hath been more unlearned then many of your ſchool boys of twelve or fourteen years of age; and ſometime hath been a Murderer, Adulterer, and (if General Councils, or the common vote may be believed) an Heretick, an Infidel, an Incarnate Devil. This man is their Church, as Gretſer, Bellarmine, and the reſt of that ſtrain profeſs.
So that if you do but force them to define and explain what they mean by the Church, you will either cauſe them to open their nakedneſs, or find them all to pieces about the very ſubject of the Diſpute.
2. So alſo when they uſe the name of [a Pope] in diſputation, make them explain themſelves, and tell you (in a Definition) what they mean by [a Pope.] For, though you would think this term were ſufficiently underſtood, yet you ſhall find them utterly at a loſs, and all to pieces about it. Let us conſider diſtinctly of the Efficient, Matter, and Form. 1 As to the efficient cauſe of their Pope, there muſt concur a Divine Inſtitution (which they can no where ſhew) and a call from man (& Nemo dat quod non habet, what man or men have power to make a Head to the Catholick Church.) But whether they will call it an Efficient Cauſe, or only a Cauſa ſine qua nen, Election and Ordination muſt go to make a Pope. Now either they will put theſe into their Definition, or not. If not, know of them whether a man without Election and Ordination may be Pope: If ſo, what makes him one? If Poſſeſſion, then he that can conquer Rome, and ſit down in the chair is Pope: If not poſſeſſion, what then? and why may not any man ſay, I am Pope? well: but doubtleſs they will tell you that Election, or Ordination, or both, is Neceſſary. If ſo, then firſt for Election, is it Neceſſary to the being of a Pope, that ſome certain perſons Elect who have the Power, or will any Electors ſerve whoſoever? If any will ſerve, then every Monaſtery or every Pariſh may chooſe a Pope: If there muſt be certain Authorized Electors, ſee that thoſe be named in the Definition: or at leaſt declared. And then firſt know whether theſe Electors are impowered to that work by Divine Law, or by Humane: If by Divine, let them ſhew it if they can. In Scripture they can never find who muſt chooſe the Pope. And their Tradition (if that were a Divine law) hath no ſuch precept, as appeareth by the alterations and divers wayes. And if it be but by a Humane Eccleſiaſticall Canon, then it ſeems the Papacy is ſo too: for the Power received can have no higher a cauſe then the Power giving or authorizing.
2. When you come to know who theſe Electors muſt be, you open their nakedneſs. For firſt if they ſay, It muſt be the Cardinals, ask them, where then was the Pope when there were no Cardinals in the world? And whether that were a Pope or not that was choſen by the whole Romane Clergie? or whether thoſe were Popes or not that were choſen by the People? Or thoſe that were choſen by the Emperours? or thoſe that were choſen by Councills? If they tell you that it muſt be the Romane Clergie; Know whether the Cardinals be the whole Romane Clergie, who are Biſhops of other Churches, or whether they are not meerly Titular, at leaſt many of them? And whether the People, the Council, or the Emperours were the Romane Clergy? If they would perſwade you, that either the people, or the Emperour, or Council did not elect the Pope, but only ſhew whom the Romane Clergy ſhould elect, interpoſing exorbitantly ſome unjuſt force, with the Due Election, then all currant Hiſtory cryeth ſhame againſt them, and we will lay the Diſpute on that with them readily, though it were with Baronius himſelf. Nothing almoſt is more evident in the Papal Hiſtory, then that there have been at leaſt theſe five ways of election among them. Let them put it upon this iſſue with us when they will.
If they allow of any of theſe as valid, which ever it be (as they muſt, or give up their ſucceſſion) then 1. We would know by what Law of God the Emperour of Germany may chooſe a Head for the Catholick Church, any more then the Emperour of Habaſſia, or the King of France or Spain? 2. And we would know when the Emperour hath choſen one, and the Clergy another (if not ſome others a third) whether both were not true Popes, if both parties were authorized Electors? And if yet the People chooſe one, and the Romane Clergy another, and the Cardinals alone a third, and the Emperour a fourth, and the Councill a fifth, muſt all theſe ſtand, or which of them, and why? Or if they tell you that it muſt be the particular Roman Church; then 1. If the people of that Church chooſe one, and the Clergy by major vote another, and the Cardinals a third, which is the true Pope? 2. And then the ſucceſſion is gone however: For they were no Popes that Emperors or Councils choſe.
2. If they ſhall tell you that it is not Election but Conſecration that makes a Pope, yea or that Conſceration is of Neceſſity with Election; then 1. Demand of them whether it be any one whoſoever that may Conſecrate, or whether this high power be confined to certain hands? If any may ſerve, or any Biſhops, then he that can get three drunken Biſhops to conſecrate him may be Pope. And then there may be an hundred Popes at once. But if it be confined to certain hands, 2. Let it be put down in the Definition, or at leaſt declared who thoſe are that muſt ordain or conſecrate him. 3. And if they ſay, that It muſt be only the Italian Biſhops that muſt conſecrate, then 1. Know of them by what Law of God they have power to conſecrate a Head to the univerſal Church, when all nations are agreed that quod pertinet ad omnes, ab omnibus tractari debet. 2. And by what Law they can create or Generate a creature of a more noble ſpecies then themſelves, as if a beaſt ſhould beget a man? Or whether this prove not, that as a Biſhop at firſt was but Presbyter primae ſedis, (like the fore man of a Jury) and thence ſprung an Archbiſhop, who was Epiſocopus primae ſedis, and thence a Patriarck, who was Archiepiſcopus primae ſedis; ſo in proceſs of time, when Pride grew riper, the Pope grew to be Patriarcha primae ſedis; but not till long after, the Head or Governour of the univerſall Church, nor Patriarcha Patriarcharum; no more then the Archbiſhops or Biſhops were at firſt Epiſcopi Epiſcoporum.
But if they can ſhew us no law of God empowring theſe ſpeciall conſecrators, any more then others, then where is the Papacy that dependeth on it? There is nothing in Scripture to empower the Italian Biſhops any more then the Gallicane, Germane, or Aſian, to Conſecrate a Head for the Catholick Church.
3. But ſuppoſe there were, yet we muſt be reſolved whether it be ſome or all the Italian Biſhops that muſt do it? If but ſome, which be they? and how is their power proved? If all or any, then 1. What ſhall we do when ſome of them conſecrate one Pope, and ſome another, and ſome a third, which hath fallen out: which of theſe is the Pope? If Conſecration give the Power, then all are Popes. 2. And ſtill the Papal ſucceſſion is overthrown while many Popes had no Conſecration by Italian Biſhops.
Thus you may ſee what a caſe the poor Jeſuits or Fryars will be in, if you put them but to inſert the neceſſary Electors and Conſecrators in their Definition of a Pope.
2. But thats not the worſt, you muſt require them to put his neceſſary Qualification in the Deſcription. For if no Diſpoſition of the Matter be neceſſary, but ex quolibet ligno fit mercurius Romanus, then a Jew or other Infidel may be Pope: which they will deny. And if any Diſpoſition of the ſubject be of neceſſity to the Reception of the form, then cauſe them to put it down. And then 1. It is either true Godlineſs: and then farewell Papacy. 2. Or it is common honeſty and ſobriety: and then ſtill farewell Papacy. 3. Or it is learning and knowledge: and then Alphonſus à Caſtro, and others of their own will bear witneſs that ſome Popes underſtood not their Grammar, and one good man being (ſaith Wernerus) rudis literarum, was fain to get another Compope to ſay his offices, (though it happened that they could not agree, and ſo a third was choſen, and his choice diſliked, and a fourth choſen, till there was ſix choſen Popes alive at once.) 4. If age be neceſſary, then the Children Popes (one at leaſt) have interrupted the ſucceſſion. 5. Yea, if the Maſculine Gender be but Neceſſary, Pope Joan hath interrupted the ſucceſſion, unleſs between forty or fifty of their own Hiſtorians deceive us. 6. but all this is the ſmalleſt part, the Queſtion is whether faith in Chriſt be of Neceſſity to a Pope? If ſo, then what will you ſay to John the twenty third, that denyed the life to come, and to thoſe that have been guilty of Hereſie? So that by that time they have put the neceſſary Qualification of a Pope into their Definition, you ſhall find them hard put to it.
3. But yet the worſt is behind. They be not agreed about the very form of the Papacy: For ſome ſay, He is the Head of all the Catholick Church But others with the General Councils of Conſtance and Baſil ſay, that he is the Head only of the ſingular members, but a ſubject to the Catholick Church repreſented in a Council, which receiveth its power immediately from Chriſt, ſo that you may ſee what a caſe they will be in, if they be but forced to tell you what they mean by a Pope, and to Define him too.
3. And if they uſe the name of a General Council, call them to Define what they mean by a General Council: ſome of them will ſay, It muſt be a true Repreſentative of the whole Catholick, Church: ſo that Morally they are all Conſenting to what is there done. But then the doubt remaineth whether there be a Neceſſity of any certain Number of Biſhops? If not; it ſeems the whole Church may agree that twenty, or ten, or two, or one ſhall repreſent them, and be a general Council. But if this muſt not hold, then Muſt All the Biſhops of the world be there, or only ſome, and how many? Binnius ſaith, Vol. 1. pag. 313. that [a General Council is that where all the Biſhops of the whole world may and ought to be preſent, unleſs they be lawfully hindred, and in which none but the Pope of Rome by himſelf or his Legates, is wont to preſide.] And vol. 3. pag. 229. It is when all the Church is morally Repreſented, the Pope preſiding.] But what a loſs are we here at? 1. How prove they that only Biſhops ſhould be members of a Council, and not Presbyters?
2. But if that were granted them (without proof and contrary to practiſe) yet we are at a far greater loſs to know what a Biſhop is that muſt here be a member? Is he only the Primus Presbyterorum in a presbyterie? Or is he the Ruler of a Presbyterie, (they Ruling the people?) Or is he the ſole Ruler of Presbyters and people? And is he to be in every Pariſh where are divers presbyters? or only in every Claſſ…s or leſſer Synod? or only in every County, or Province? Or ſhall the old Rule ſtand, that every City muſt have one? If ſo, then are not all our Corporations true Cities? And ſo by any of theſe Rules, there have been few General Councils in the world. And what word of God is there why London, Worceſter, Canterbury ſhould have Biſhops; and Shrewsbury, Ipſwich, Plimouth and hundreds ſuch ſhould have none? ſo that if the very matter of your Councils be ſo humane and diſordered, what is the Council compoſed of ſuch? As moſt of them uſe the term Biſhop, you would put them as hard to it to Define a Biſhop almoſt, as to define a Pope.
3. But ſuppoſe they help you over this rub, yet by their Definition they null many General Councils, becauſe the Pope preſided not there: even the firſt General Council it ſelf at Nice (whatſoever they boldly feign to the contrary.)
4. And by this Rule, either we never had a General Council, or but few: For inſtance, At the firſt Seſſion of the Council of Trent (the laſt and moſt famous Council) there were but four Archbiſhops, and twenty two Biſhops, taking in the Titular Biſhops of Upſal, Armach, and Worceſter. And at divers other Seſſions after, but eight, or nine, or very few more. In the fourth Seſſion which Decreed to receive Tradition with equal pious affection and reverence as the holy Scriptures, and which gave us a falſe Catalogue of the Canonical Books, there were but the Popes Legates, two Cardinals, nine Archbiſhops (titular and all) and forty one, or forty two Biſhops (titular and all.) Now we would fain know whether this was the whole Church morally repreſented? and whether theſe twenty two, or forty one were all the Biſhops of the world, or the hundreth part of them? Yea whether all the Biſhops of the African, Aſian, and other Churches could and ought to have been there?
If they ſay that moſt of the Biſhops of the world are Hereticks or Schiſmaticks, and had nothing to do to be there, we are ſure that this is but the impudent cenſure of a ſect, that unchurcheth moſt of Chriſts Church, for far leſs faults then it ſelf is guilty of: But how is this heavy cenſure proved?
5. Nay to make ſhort of it, its plain by this Definition, that a General Council is but a name (at leaſt ſince the daies when the Church lay in a narrow room) and that no ſuch thing is to be expected in the world. For 1. If all Biſhops, or half come thither, what ſhall their poor flocks do the while? 2. How many years muſt they be travailing from America, Ethiopia, and all the remote parts of the Chriſtian world? 3. So much ſhipping, and proviſion, and ſo many thouſand pound a man is neceſſary for the Convoy of many, that alas the poor Biſhops be not able to defray the hundreth part of the charge. 4. Abundance of them are ſo aged and weak, that they are unfit for the journey. 5. Their Princes are ſome of them Infidels, and ſome at wars, and will never give them leave to come. 6. They muſt paſs through many Kingdoms of the enemies, or that are in wars, that will never ſuffer them to paſs. 7. The tediouſneſs, and hazards of the journey, with change of air is like to be the death of moſt of them, and ſo its but a plot to put an end to the Church. 8. The length of General Councils is ſuch (ſome of them being ten years, and ſome (as that at Trent) eighteen years) that ſo many Biſhops to be ſo long abſent from home, is but to give up the Church to Infidelity or Impiety (unleſs the Biſhops be ſuch things as the Church can ſpare.) 9. When they come together, they cannot many of them underſtand one another, becauſe of the diverſity of their languages. 10. And the Number would be ſo great, that ten or twenty Council-houſes or rooms would not hold them: ſo that they could not Converſe in one Aſſembly: ſo that a true General Council now, is but a name to amuſe thoſe that think the world is no bigger then a man may ride over in a weeks journey.
6. And yet even this Definition of Binnius is ridiculous: For he makes it enough that all the Biſhops of the world may and ought to be there, whether they be there or not. But then what if lazineſs or danger deterr them or detain them? Is that a Council where Biſhops ought to be and are not? How many muſt de facto be preſent, any or none? Prove if you can that forty Biſhops are a General Council, becauſe the reſt ought to be there. And who ſhall be judge of each mans caſe, whether he could or ought to have been there? will you judge men before they are heard, or their cauſe known? Your ſaying that they ought to have been there, is no proof.
And yet Binnius hath one exception [unleſs lawfully hindred] Good ſtill! If all the Biſhops in the world be lawfully hindered, it ſeems it is a General Council when no body is there: You ſee now what you put the poor Papiſts too, if you put them to define a General Council, or tell you what they mean by that word.
And therefore I again adviſe you; let them not befool you with empty or ambiguous words. And when they are all to pieces among themſelves, let them not make you believe they are united by agreeing in One word, when they are ſeveral things that are meant by that one word.