A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 19
CHAP. XIX.
Detect. 10. VVHen they go about from Councils or other Hiſtory to prove the Soveraignty of the Pope, let them not cheat you by confounding, 1. An humane Ordinance with a Divine:. 2. And an alterable point of Order with an unalterable eſſential part of the Church: 3. Or a meer Primacy in the ſame Order or office with a Governing Soveraignty, or a different Order or office.
Firſt therefore we would learn of them, whether the preheminence and order of the five Patriarchal Sees, began not about the firſt General Council to be lookt after, but was ſetled ſome while after: For till there were General Councils (ſuch as were ſo called) there was no great occaſion of determining which ſhould have the firſt, ſecond, or third ſeat.
2. Or when ever the time was, yet we enquire, whether theſe other Sees as of Jeruſalem, Antioch, Alexandria, or ſome of them were not Patriarchal as ſoon as Rome? and whether Councils that ſpeak of priority or poſteriority, do not in the ſame manner, and on the ſame grounds, and to the ſame ends give Alexandria, and Antioch, their places, as they give to Rome the firſt place? Surely we find them ſpeaking of them as matters of the ſame Order and nature, ſaying, Rome ſhall have the firſt place or ſeat, Conſtantinople the ſecond, Alexandria the third, Antioch the fourth, and Jeruſalem the fifth. 4. And therefore we enquire whether all theſe have not the ſame kind of right to their preheminence, whether it be Divine or Humane. And that the very foundation of this Patriarchall order, yea of Romes Patriarchall Primacy, (which was the preparative to its univerſal Soveraignty) was not a meer humane invention, given on occaſion of the Imperiall ſeat at Rome, and not any inſtitution of Chriſt to Peter and his Succeſſors, I deſire you not to take from my word; but all that will not be fool'd out of all Hiſtoricall verity by Popiſh audacity, let them take it from the expreſs words of the fourth great approved General Council, viz. of Calcedon, which the poor Jacobites and other Churches of the Eaſt and South are ſo reproached for rejecting. In Act. 16. Binnii pag. 134. theſe are their words [Definitiones Sanctorum Patrum ſequentes ubi que & Regulam, & quae nunc relecta ſunt 150. Deo amantiſſimorum Epiſcoporum, qui congregati ſunt ſub piae memoriae Imperatore majore Theodoſio in Regia civitate Conſtantinop. Nova Roma, cognoſcentes & nos eadem definivimus de privilegiis ejuſdem Sanctiſſimae Conſtantinop. Eccleſiae novae Romae. Etenim ſedi Senioris Romae, propter Imperium civitatis illius (N. B.) patres conſequenter privilegia reddiderunt. Et eadem intentione permoti 150. Deo amantiſſimi Epiſcopi aequa ſanctiſſimae ſedi novae Romae privilegia tribuerunt, rationabiliter judicantes Imperio & Senatu Urbem ornatam aequis Senioris Regiae Romae privilegiis frui.] i. e. [We following alway the Definitions of the holy fathers, and the Canon, and knowing thoſe that now have been read of the hundred and fifty Biſhops, moſt beloved of God, that were Congregated under the Emperour of pious memory Theodoſius the Greater, in the Royall City Conſtantinople (new Rome,) have our ſelves alſo defined the ſame things, concerning the Priviledges of the ſame moſt holy Church of Conſtantinople, new Rome. For to the ſeat of old Rome, becauſe of the Empire of that City, the Fathers conſequently gave the Priviledges. And the hundred and fifty Biſhops moſt beloved of God, being moved with the ſame intention, have given equall Priviledges to the moſt holy Seat of New Rome: reaſonably judging, than the City adorned with the Empire and Senate, ſhall enjoy equal Priviledges with old Regal Rome.]
I do not ſtand to note that this Council was called by Martian: that his Lay Officers were called the Judges, or how light the Council made of Rome when they ſaid [Qui contradicunt Neſtoriani ſunt: qui contradicunt Romam ambulent] Bin. p. 98. Nor do I ſtand ſo much on it, that they gave Conſtantinople equal priviledges. But it may confound all the Papal Juglers on earth to find an approved General Council affirming, 1. That Romes Priviledges (even its meer primacy) were given by the Fathers. 2. And that becauſe it was the Imperial City. 3. And therefore on the ſame reaſon they do the like by Conſtantinople. 4. And that the General Council of Conſtant. had gone before them on theſe grounds: ſo that you have the vote of two of the firſt four great General Councils, that it was not ſo from the beginning, nor an Apoſtolical Tradition, but the act of the Fathers, becauſe of the Imperial City. If a General Council can err, Popery is a deceit. If it cannot err, then the very Primacy of order in the Pope was then but new, and humane, on a Carnal ground, done by man, that might do the like by others, and therefore undo this again.
But ſay they, Pope Leo confirmed not this. Anſw. 1. Still then the Church Repreſentative it ſeems may err, and the Pope only is infallible. 2. Leo and his Delegates were offended at Anatolius his riſing, and the equaling him with Rome: but they never excepted one word (that ever I found) againſt the ſaying, that it was becauſe of the Empire that Rome by the Fathers had the Primacy given it.
And the Reaſon given by themſelves Concil. Conſtant. Can. 5. is, [becauſe Conſtantinople is new Rome] But Binnius ſaith that Rome receiveth not the Canons of this Council neither, but only their condemnation of Macedonius. And he ſaith [that every Council hath juſt ſo much ſtrength and authority as the Apoſtolick ſeat beſtoweth on it. For (ſaith he) unleſs this be admitted, no reaſon can be given why ſome Councils of greater numbers of Biſhops were reprobated; and others of a ſmaller number confirmed] Bin. Vol. 2. p. 515.
What would you have more Sirs? Do you not ſee yet what the Popiſh Catholick Church is; and what they mean when they mouth it out to you, and ask you whether your private Judgement be ſafer or wiſer then that of the whole Church, or of all the Chriſtian world? You ſee they mean all this while but one man, whom Gretſer and others plainly confeſs they call the Church. So that indeed it is General Councils, and all the Chriſtian world or Church that are the ignorant, fallible, and oft erring part; and it is one man, (that ſometime is reputed an incarnate Devil by a General Council too) that is the unerring Pillar of the Church, and wiſer then all they. Do you not ſee that they make a meer nothing or mockery of General Councils, any further then they pleaſe the Pope? And can you expect that any thing ſhould pleaſe them that is againſt his Greatneſs, or, as Julius the ſecond calls it, [his holding the place of the great God, the Maker of all things, and all Laws?] What a vile abuſe is it then of the Pope to trouble the world by the meetings and Conſultations of General Councils, when he can ſit at Rome and contradict them infallibly, and, Good man, is fain to ſave the Catholick Church from the Errors that General Councils (the Repreſentative Catholick Church) would elſe lead them into: and therefore could he not with leſs ado infallibly make us Laws, Canons, and Scriptures without them? For ſure that which the Pope can do againſt a General Council, he can do without them. If he can Infallibly contradict a General Council, and Infallibly Rule us contrary to their Judgement, he may no doubt Infallibly Rule us without them. And therefore of late times they have learnt ſo much wit, that you may look long enough before you ſee a General Council. And I think the Council of Conſtance were no better Prognoſticators then William Lilly, nor no more effectuall Lawgivers then Wat Tyler, when they Prognoſticated or Ordained Decennial Councils: And I will be judged by all the world.
And here alſo you may ſee what account the Papiſts make even of the firſt General Councils. Its all one with them to judge others Hereticks for contradicting eſpecially the four firſt General Councils (compared to the four Evangeliſts) as the Scripture it ſelf: and yet (who would have thought it) they profeſs themſelves to reject the Canons or Decrees of both theſe, the firſt of Conſtantinople, and that of Calcedon in part.
And, now I think on it, by this priviledge I cannot ſee but the Pope is priviledged from all poſſibility of being an Heretick perſonally. But theſe things are on the by, I return to the point in hand, which is to prove to you, that not only the Romiſh Univerſal Monarchy and Vice-godhead, but even its Patriarchal Primacy was no Apoſtolical Tradition, but an Humane Inſtitution, founded on this Conſideration, that Rome was the Imperial Seat and City.
5. And Humane it muſt needs be. 1. For we find that Councils did not declare it as any part of the Law of God, but Ordain it as an act of their own. 2. We find them adding the Patriarchate of Conſtantinople, which was a new ſeat, neither Patriarch nor Biſhop reſiding there in the Apoſtles dayes, or long after. 3. Yea we find them giving this new Patriarch the ſecond place, and once making him equal with old Rome, which they would never have preſumed to do, if they had thought that the Patriarchſhip of Alexandria, Antioch, or Rome had been of Divine Inſtitution: for what horrible arrogancy would that have been, when the Holy Ghoſt by the Apoſtles had made Alexandria ſecond, and Antioch third, and Rome firſt, for a Council to ſet Conſtantinople before two of them, and equal with the firſt?
6. And therefore we have reaſon to think that if Patriarchs be deſirable creatures, there may more and more new ones now be made, as lawfully as Conſtantinople was.
7. And we do not think that a General Council or Pope can make a man of one Nation to be Patriarch of the Church in another Nation, that perhaps may be in wars with the Prince of the firſt Nation: but that each Prince with the Church under their Power, hath more to do in it then either Pope or Council. And if Portugal and France ſet up Patriarchs at home, they do as lawfully as the Patriarch of Conſtantinople was ſet up.
8. And therefore we muſt needs judge, that to diſobey the Pope, or withdraw from his ſubjection (if he had never forfeited his Patriarchſhip by the claim of an Univerſal Headſhip) were no greater a ſin, then to diſobey or withdraw from the Patriarch of Alexandria, Antioch, or Conſtantinople: either the Government by Patriarchs and Arch-biſhops is of Gods ordaining and approving, or not: if not (as moſt of the Proteſtants hold) then it is no ſin to reject any of them. If it be of God, then to reject any of them (though in ſimple error) is a ſin of diſobedience through ignorance, but is far from proving a man to be no member of the Catholick Church: for ſure Patriarchs are far from being Eſſential parts of the Catholick Church.
For, 9. We conclude, as in the Papiſts own Judgement, the Catholick Church may be without the Patriarch of Conſtantinople, Alexandria, or Antioch; ſo may it therefore without the Pope of Rome.