A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 26
CHAP. XXVI.
Detect. 17.
ANother of the Papiſts Deceits, and one of the Principal that they ſupport their cauſe with, is, A falſe interpretation and application of all the ſayings of the Fathers, which they can but force to a ſhew of countenancing their ſupremacy. That you may find out their jugling in this, I ſhall ſhew you ſome of of their Footſteps more particularly.
1. Any claim that their own ambitious Biſhops have made to a further power then was due to them, they uſe as an Argument for their univerſal ſoveraignty: when as we deny not but that there was too much pride and Ambition in their Prelates (which is all that this will prove;) even in ſome that otherwiſe might be good men. We deny not but that Zoſimus would fain have extorted a confeſſion of his uſurped power, and a ſubmiſſion to it from Aurelius, Auguſtine, and the reſt of the Africane Council. But yet he could not do it. We confeſs that Leo the firſt, and Gregory the firſt, and others, were very buſie for the extending of their power: And that the Romane Biſhops were long endeavouring to have put the halter on the Africanes heads, yea and long about the French before they got them under. And ſhall theſe partial ambitious men be the witneſſes? And becauſe they would have had more power, doth it follow that it was their due?
2. Again, if they find that any diſtreſſed Churches or Biſhops have but ſent to Rome for help, they preſently gather thence that they took the Pope to be Chriſts Vicar General. As when Chryſoſtome ſent to Innocent, and Baſil and the reſt in the Eaſt did ſend ſo oft for help into the Weſt, when as the reaſons were but ſuch as theſe; 1. Becauſe Rome during the Emperors reſidence there, was the place where life or death was laſt pronounced on every mans cauſe by the ſecular power: and therefore the Biſhop of Rome had the greater opportunity to befriend other Churches. 2. And afterward Rome had a great ſecular influence on the Empire. 3. And becauſe in the diviſions of the Eaſt about Arrianiſme, they thought the countenance of the Orthodox in the Weſt might have done ſomewhat to turn the ſcales. 4. Becauſe the Biſhop of Rome being taken for the Patriarch of the firſt place, his voice might do much againſt an adverſary.
I will delay you now which no more inſtances, then thoſe of Baſils time from the Eaſt. Euſebius, Meletius, Baſil, and the reſt of the Orthodox, being both peſtered with the Arrians, and all to pieces alſo among themſelves, do ſend for help to the Weſt. (Baſil. Epiſt. 69.) But to whom? and for what? Not to the Biſhop of Rome only, nor by name, but equally to the Biſhops of Italy and France, without any mention of the Romane power. And it was not that the Pope might decide all by his ſoveraign power, which certainly was ſo neer a way to their relief, that no wiſe man can imagine them ſo mad as to forget it, if it had been a thing then known and approved of. But only they deſire that ſome may be ſent to help them to be the ſtronger party in a Synod, or at leaſt ſome one to comfort them, and put ſome countenance on their cauſe. And Epiſt. 70. Baſil writeth himſelf (in the name of the reſt:) but to whom [To the Biſhops of France and Italy.] and France before Italy, without taking notice of an univerſal Head of the Church at Rome. And what doth he ſo importune them for? not that the Pope would decide the controverſie: but that they would acquaint the Emperour with their ſtate (becauſe the Weſt had an Orthodox Emperor, and the Eaſt an Arrian) or ſend ſome to them to ſee how it ſtood with them: ſo that it was but either help from the Emperor, or countenance from the number of Biſhops (becauſe they were over voted quite at home) that they deſired. So Epiſt. 74. Baſil again writes, [to the Biſhops of the Weſt;] (and ſo no more to the Romane Biſhop then the reſt,) and he giveth theſe as his Reaſons [For, (ſaith he) what we here ſpeak is ſuſpected, as if we ſpoke through private contention.—But for you, the further you are remote from them by habitation, ſo much credit you have with the people, whereto is added that the grace of God helpeth you to relieve the oppreſſed: And if Many of you unanimouſly decree the ſame things, it is manifeſt that the multitude, will produce a certain reception of your opinion.] Wonderfull! if there were then a Vicar General of Chriſt at Rome, that it never came into their mind to crave his deciſion or help, as ſuch?
O but ſay the Papiſts, that was becauſe they had to do only with the Arrians, that cared for no authority that was againſt them. Anſw. 1. But would theſe Arrians have ſo much regarded the votes of the French and Italian Biſhops, yea or a few men ſent from them, and yet not regard the Head of the Church? The Arrians ſure had heard of this Headſhip, if any had. And would not the Orthodox deſire ſo much as a word from Rome for this advantage? 2. But it is falſe that they were only the Arrians that they called for help againſt. They expreſly ſay, that it was alſo becauſe they were divided among themſelves, (by perſonal quarrels.) How importunately doth Gregory Nyſſen afterward call for help from others, and telleth Flavianus in his Epiſt. to him, of their miſery as if all were loſt? And the only ſad inſtance was, that Helladius (counted a good Biſhop) had proudly neglected him, and made him ſtand at his door (when he went to viſit him) a great while before he was let in; and then did not bid him ſit down; and then did not ſpeak to him firſt but two or three ſtrange angry words. This was the great buſineſs. But to proceed with Baſil. Epiſt. 77. he falls to chiding the Weſtern Biſhops, for not ſending to them, nor regarding them and their communion: and to touch their pride, he addeth, [We have one Lord, one faith, one hope: Whether you think your ſelves the Head of the univerſal Church: the head cannot ſay to the feet, I have no need of you; or if you place your ſelves in the order of other Church-members, you cannot ſay to us, we need you not.] And would you here believe that the Papiſts have the faces to cite this paſſage of Baſil, for their Headſhip, becauſe here is the word Head! When as its plain, 1. That Baſil by the Head means but the chiefeſt part, and not the ſoveraign power. 2. That he ſpeaks to all the Biſhops of the Weſt, and not only to the Romane Biſhop. 3. That he doth it as a ſmart reproof of their arrogancy, and not in any approbation at all. But any thing will ſerve them. More from Baſil I ſhall have occaſion to mention anon.
3. Nore alſo, that when the Papiſts find but any Hereſie condemned by the Biſhop of Rome, they cite this as a teſtimony of their Soveraignty: As if other Patriarch and Biſhops condemned them not as well as they; Or as if we knew no that the Church deſired the moſt general vote againſt Hereticks, and therefore would be loth to leave ſo great a Biſhop out.
4. And when they find the Pope excommunicating forreign Biſhops, they cry up this as a Teſtimony of his Headſhip: As if we did not know, 1. That to refuſe Communion with another Church or Biſhop is no act of Juriſdiction over them. 2. That other Biſhops have made bold alſo to excommunicate the Pope: I'le now but recite thoſe words of Nicephorus lib. 17. cap. 26. which you uſe to glory in (as many do in their own ſhame) [Vigilius (ſaith he) proceeded to that inſolency, that he excommunicated Mennas for four moneths. And Mennas did the ſame by him: But Juſtinian being moved to anger with ſuch things, ſent ſome to lay hold on him. But Vigilius being afraid of himſelf, fled to the Altar of Sergius the Martyr, and laid hold on the Sacred Pipes, would not be drawn away till he had pul'd them down—] But by the Mediation of the Empreſs Theodora, the Pope was pardoned, and Menna and he abſolved one another. A fair proof of the Vicarſhip! 3. And ſo it was, that Pope Honorius was condemned for an Heretick by two or three General Councils.
5. Alſo when they meet with any big words of their own Popes (as I command this or that) they take it for a proof of the Vicarſhip: As if big words did prove Authority. Or as if we knew not how lowlily and poorly they ſpoke to thoſe that were above them. As Gregory the firſt for inſtance, was high enough towards thoſe that he thought he could maſter. but what low ſubmiſſive language doth he uſe to ſecular Governors that were capable of overtopping him? And what flattering language did his ſucceſſors uſe to the moſt baſe murderers and uſurpers of the Empire?
6. Another Roman deceit is this; When they find any mention of the exerciſe of the (now thriving) Roman Power, over their own Dioceſs or Patriarchal circuit, they would hence prove his univerſal Power over all. And by that Rule the Patriarch of Alexandria or Conſtantinople may prove as much.
7. Alſo when they meet with the paſſages that ſpeak of the elevation of their Pope to be their firſt Patriarch, in the Roman Empire, or any Power that by the Emperors was given him, they cunningly confound the Empire with the world, and eſpecally if they find it called by the name of the world; and they would perſwade you that all other Chriſtians and Churches on earth, did aſcribe as much to the Biſhop of Rome, as the Roman Empire did. Its true that he was in the Empire acknowledged to be firſt in order of dignity, becauſe of Rome the ſeat of his Epiſcopacy; eſpecially when General Councils began to trouble themſelves and the world about ſuch matters of precedency. And its well known from the language of their writers, as well as from the words of Luke 2. 1. that they uſually called the Empire all the world: And from ſuch paſſages would the Papiſts prove the Primacy at leaſt of the Pope over all the world. But put theſe Juglers to it, to prove if they can, that beyond the Rivers Meroes and Euphrates, and beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire, the Pope did either exerciſe Dominion, or was once ſo much as regarded by them, any more then any other Biſhop, except there were any adjacent Iſland or Countrey that had their dependence upon the Empire. I hope they will not deny that the Church extended much beyond the Empire. (Though our Hiſtory of that part of it be much defective.) And let them prove if they can, that ever any of thoſe Churches had any regard to the Roman Biſhop, any more then to another man. Let them tell you where either the Empire of the Abaſſines or any other out of the line of the Imperial power, was any whit like-ſubject to the Pope.
8. But their chief fraud is about names and words. When they meet with any high complemental title given to the Biſhop of Rome, they preſently conclude that it ſignifieth his Soveraignty. Let us inſtance in ſome particulars, and ſhew the vanity of their concluſions from them.
1. Sometimes the Roman Biſhops are called [Summi Pontifices,] the chief Popes: and hence ſome gather their Supremacy. But I ſuppoſe you will believe Baronius (their chief flatterer) in ſuch a caſe as this. And he tells you in Martyrolog. Roman. April. 9. that [Fuit olim vetus ille uſus in Eccleſia, ut Epiſcopi omnes, non tantum Pontifices, ſed & ſummi Pontifices dicerentur— i. e. It was the ancient cuſtom of the Church to call all Biſhops not only Pontifices Popes, but chief Popes] And then citing ſuch a paſſage of Hierom Epiſt. 99. he addeth [Thoſe that underſtand not this ancient cuſtom of ſpeech, refer theſe words to the Popedom of the Church of Rome.)
2. As for the names Papa, Pope, Dominus, Pater Sauctiſſimus, beatiſſimus, dei amantiſſimus, &c. its needleſs to tell you that theſe were commonly given to other Biſhops.
3. And what if they could find that Rome were called the mother of all Churches? I have formerly ſhewed you, where Baſil ſaith of the Church of Caeſarea, that it is as the mother of all Churches in a manner. And Hieruſalem hath oft that Title.
4. Sometime they find where Rome is called Caput Eccleſiarum, and then they think they have won the cauſe. When if you will conſult the words, you ſhall find that it is no more then that Priority of Dignity which (not Chriſt, but) the Emperours and Councils gave them, that is intended in the word. Its called the Head, that is, the chief Seat in Dignity, without any meaning that the Pope is the univerſal Monarch of the world.
5. But what if they find the Pope called the Archbiſhop of the Catholick Church, or the Univerſal Biſhop? then they think they have the day. I anſwer, indeed three flattering Monks at the Council of Calcedon, do ſo ſuperſcribe their libels; but they plainly mean no more then the Biſhop that in order of dignity is above the reſt; And many particular Churches are oft called Catholick Churches. There's difference between [A Catholick Church] and [The Catholick Church.] And the Biſhop of Conſtantinople had that Title, even by a Council at Conſtant. an. 518. before the Biſhop of Rome had it publikely, or durſt own it: It was ſetled on the Patriarch of Conſtantinople to be called the Oecumenical or Univerſal Patriarch. Who knoweth not that Emperours gave ſuch Titles at their pleaſure? Juſtinian would ſometime give the Primacy to Rome, and at another time to Conſtantinople, ſaying [Conſtantinopolitana Eccleſia omnium aliarum eſt caput: The Church of Conſtantinople is the Head of all other Churches.] An. Dom. 530. C. de Epiſcopis. l. 1. lege 24. And its known that this Juſtinian that ſometime calls Rome the Head, did yet when the fifth General Council had condemned Vigilius Pope of Rome, permit Theodora his Empreſs to cauſe him to be fetcht to Conſtantinople, and drag'd about the ſtreet in a halter, and then baniſhed, till they had forced him to ſubſcribe and ſubmit to the Council: even as they had depoſed Pope Silverius his predeceſſor. And Baronius himſelf mentioneth a Vaticane Monument which as it calls Agapetus Epiſcoporum princeps on one ſide, ſo doth it call Menna [the Apoſtolick Univerſal Biſhop:] Which Baronius ſaith, doth mean no more then that he was Univerſal over his own Provinces: aad if that be ſo, any Biſhop may be called Univerſal. And do not theſe men know what Council of Carthage decreed that the Biſhop primae ſedis ſhould be called neither Summus Sacerdos, nor Princeps Sacerdotum, vel aliquid hujuſmodi, tantum Epiſcopus primae ſedis: i. e. Not the chief Prieſt, or the chief of Prieſts but the Biſhop of the firſt ſeat] And how long will they ſhut their eyes againſt the teſtimony of two of their own Popes, Pelagius and Gregory the firſt that condemned the name of Univerſal Biſhop?
Sometime they find the Church of Rome called Apoſtolick; and ſo were others as well as that, as is commonly known.
And ſometime the Pope is called the Pillar of the Church; And what of that? ſo are many others as well as he; as all the Apoſtles were as well as Peter? The Church is built on the Foundation of the Apoſtles and Prophets. That the Paſtors of the Church were ordinarily called the Pillars and props of it, as by Nicephorus Gildas, Theodoret, Baſil, Tertullian, Dionyſius, Hierom, Auguſtine, &c. you may ſee proved in Gatakers Cinnus page 395, 396.
And laſtly, when the Papiſts read their Popes called the Succeſſors of Peter, they take this as a proof of their Soveraignty. Whereas 1. Peter himſelf had no ſuch Soveraignty. 2. They ſucceed him not in his Apoſtleſhip. 3. They are called Pauls Succeſſors as well as Peters. 4. Others are called Peters Succeſſors too as well as they, by the Fathers. 5. And other Biſhops ordinarily are called the Apoſtles Succeſſors, and other Churches called Apoſtolick Churches.
I ſhall only ſet before them the words of one man at this time, (Heſychii Hieroſol. apud Photium Cod. 269.) and deſire them to tell me whether ever more were ſaid of the Pope, yea or of Peter, then he ſaith of Andrew, calling him [Chori Apoſtolici primogenitus, primitus defixa Eccleſiae columna, Petri Petrus, fundamenti fundamentum; principii principium vel primitiae, qui vocavit antequam vocaretur, adduxit priuſquam adduceretur] i. e. [The firſt begotten of the Apoſtolick Chore, the firſt fixed Pillar of the Church; the Peter of Peter, or the Rock of Peter, the Foundation of the Foundation; the Principal of the Principal, who called before he was called, and brought (others) to (Chriſt) before he was brought to him (by any others.)
And the ſame Heſychius ſaith of James apud Photium Cod. 275. [foreign, &c. i. e. With what Praiſes may I ſet forth the ſervant and Brother of Chriſt, the chief Emperour (or Commander or Captain) of the New Hieruſalem; the Prince or chief of Prieſts, the Preſident or Principal of the Apoſtles, the Crown or Leader among the Heads, the principal Lamp among the Lights; the principal planet among the Stars; Peter ſpeaketh to the people; but James giveth the Law (or ſets down the Law)] Can they ſhew us now where more then this is ſaid of Peter himſelf? Much leſs of the Pope?