A Key for Catholics, Treatise 1 · Chapter 7 – Chapter 8
CHAP. VII.
Argum. 5. THE true Catholick Church of Chriſt is but One: The pretended Roman Catholick Church is more than One: Therefore the pretended Roman-Catholick Church is not the true Catholick Church of Chriſt.
The Major is confeſſed. The Minor I prove thus, 1. Where there are two Heads or Soveraign Powers ſpecifically diſtinct, there are two Societies, or Churches. But thoſe called Papiſts, or the Roman Catholick Church, have two Heads or Soveraign Powers ſpecifically diſtinct. Therefore they are two Churches.
The Major is granted by all Politicians, who do without contradiction ſpecifie Common-wealths and other Political Societies from the Soveraign Powers: and ſo the Monarchical, Ariſtocratical and Democratical are ſeveral Species. The Belgian Common-wealth, and the French, be not ſpecifically the ſame.
The Minor hath two ſtanding proofs ſo viſible that he muſt be blind indeed that cannot ſee them. Firſt there are the many Volumes that are written by both ſides for their ſeveral forms: Bellarmine, Gretſor and the reſt of the Italian faction proving that the Pope is the chief Power, and above a General Council, and the ſeat of Infallibility, and not to be judged by any, being himſelf the Judge of the whole world. And the other party proving that a General Council is above the Pope, and that he is to be judged by them, and may be depoſed by them. If any ſay, that they are but few and no true Catholicks of this Opinion, I anſwer, then a General Council are but few and no true Catholicks, which yet is ſaid by them to repreſent the whole Catholick Church: For the General Council of Conſtance and of Baſil have peremptorily aſſerted it, and repeat it over and over; yea the Council of Baſil ſay, Seſ. ultim. that [Not one of the skilfull did ever doubt but that the Pope was ſubject to the Judgement of a General Council, in things that concern faith. And that he cannot without their conſent diſſolve or remove a General Council; yea and that this is an Article of faith, which without deſtruction of ſalvation cannot be denyed, and that the Council is above the Pope, defide, and that it cannot be removed without their own conſent, and that he is an heretick that is againſt theſe things] See Binnius page 43. 79. 96. And Pope Eugenius owned this Council ibid. page 42. And for the Council of Conſtance, Martin the fifth was choſen by it, and preſent in it, and perſonally confirmed it in theſe words [Quodomnia & ſingula determinata, concluſa, & decreta, in materiis fidei per praeſens concilium, conciliariter tenere & inviolabiliter obſervare volebat, & nunquam contraire quoquo modo. Ipſa que ſic conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, & non aliter, nec alio modo] (that is, what they did as a Council, and not what private members did) you ſee then even General Councils repreſenting the Catholick Church do not only ſay that a Council is above the Pope, but make it an Article of faith, and damn thoſe that deny it. (What then is become of Bellarmine and the reſt of their champions?)
But perhaps you'l ſay, they are but few on the other ſide. I anſwer: yes: Not only moſt Popes, and the Italian Clergy, and the predominant party of Papiſts, but another General Council, even that at the Lateran, under Julius 2. and Leo 10. expreſly determine on the contrary, that the Pope is above a General Council. So that here is not only an undenyable proof that General Councils are fallible by their contradicting each other, and that there is a Neceſſity of rejecting ſome of them, and conſequently that the Foundation of Popery is rotten; but alſo here is one Repreſentative Catholick Church againſt another Repreſentative Catholick Church, and one Council for one Species of Soveraignty, and another for another Species of Soveraignty. So that undoubtedly it is not the ſame Church, that had two heads of ſeveral ſorts.
2. And the Nations that are on both ſides to this day, are a proof beyond denyall of their diviſion. The French on one ſide, and the Italians on the other; and other nations divided between both. So that the thing which they call by one name, is two indeed. But ſo is not the true Catholick Church.
Object. What though ſome in England took the King to be the Soveraign, and ſome the Parliament, and ſoom thought it was in both Conjunct; did this prove that you were more than one Common-wealth?
Anſw. Where the Soveraignty is mixt and not in either alone, if any one ſhall ſet up the one as the only Soveraign, and ſubject the other to them, they change the form of the Commonwealth, but do not ſet up two Commonwealths; but if half take one for the Soveraign, and the other half take the other for the Soveraign, they plainly divide the Commonwealth into two: if they do it only in mind, and the ſecret thoughts of their hearts, this cannot be known to others, and ſo cannot be the ground of a Society: but if they do it by a publike conſent and practice, they evidently make two Commonwealths. What elſe brought us into a war which ended not till one party was ſubdued? It is not poſſible that one Political body ſhould have two Soveraigns ſpecifically diſtinct. Indeed it may have five hundred natural perſons in the Soveraignty (as in a Senate;) but they are but one Political perſon, or one ſumma poteſtas.
2. But I prove the Minor by another Argument. Where there are two three or four Heads or Soveraigns at once numerically diſtinct, there are two or three or four Churches. But the Roman Church pretending to be Catholike, hath had two or three or four Heads at once numerically diſtinct; therefore it was two or three or four Churches.
The Major is a known truth to all that are verſt in any degree in the doctrine of Politicks. It is not only two ſpecies of Soveraignty, but two individual Soveraigns that are inconſiſtent with the numerical Unity of a Political body. Two, or ten, or two hundred may joyn in one Soveraignty, as one Political perſon (as I ſaid) but if there be two Soveraigns, there are certainly two Societies: for if both be Supream, neither is Subordinate. The Minor is not to be denyed: for the Papiſts lay their very foundation on a ſuppoſed diviſion: for ſooth Peter and Paul were both at once their Biſhops. And there is not many of them that adventure to tell us, that Peter only was the Supream, and that Paul was under him: but they make them as equals, or coordinate; and ſome of them ſay, that Paul was the Biſhop of the uncircumciſion, and Peter of the Circumciſion (and then Peters Church is confined to the Jews) And they do not tell us, that one Headſhip was divided between them: For then that example would direct them ſtill to have two Popes, or two Biſhops to a Church: ſo that Peter being a Head, and Paul a Head, they had ſure diſtinct bodies.
But whether they ſtand to this or not, they cannot deny their many following diviſions. The twenty third ſchiſme (as Wernerus a zealous Papiſt in faſciculo tempor. reckons them) was between Felix the fifth and Eugenius: of which the ſaid Wernerus ſpeaking ſaith, [That hence aroſe great contention among the writers of this matter, pro & contra, and they cannot agree to this day: for one part ſaith, that a Council is above the Pope, the other part on the contrary ſaith, No, but the 'Pope is above the Council. God grant his Church peace, &c.]
Of the twenty ſecond ſchiſme the ſame Wernerus ſaith thus, (ad annum 1373.) [the twenty ſecond ſchiſme was the wo…ſt and moſt ſubtile ſchiſme of all that were before it. For it was ſo perplexed, that the moſt Learned and Conſcientious men were not able to diſcuſs (or find out) to whom they ſhould adhere. And it was continued for fourty years, to the great ſcandal of the whole (lergy, and the great loſs of ſouls, becauſe of Hereſies and other evils that then ſprung up, becauſe there was then no diſcipline in the Church againſt them. And therefore from this Urbane the ſixtht to the time of Martin the fifth, I know not who was Pope]
After Nicolas the fourth there was no Pope for two years and an half, and Celeſtine the fifth that ſucceeded him reſigning it, Boniface the eighth entered, that ſtilled himſelf Lord of the whole world in Spirituals and Temporals, of whom it was ſaid, He entered as a Fox, lived as a Lyon, and dyed like a Dog, ſaith the ſame Wernerus.
The twentieth ſchiſme (ſaith the ſame Author) was great between Alexander the third, and four Schiſmaticks, and it laſted ſeventeen years.
The nineteenth ſchiſme was between Innocent the ſecond, and Peter Leonis: and Innocent get the better, becauſe he had more on his ſide (ſaith he.)
The thirteenth ſchiſme (ſaith Wernerus) was between another and Benedict the eighth.
The fourteenth ſchiſme (ſaith the ſame Author) was ſcandalous and full of confuſion between Benedict the ninth and five others, which Benedict (ſaith he) was wholly vitious, and therefore being damned, appeared in a monſtrous and horrid ſhape; his head and tail were like an Aſſes, and the reſt of his body like a Bear, ſaying, I thus appear, becauſe I lived like a beaſt.] In this ſchiſme (ſaith Wernerus) there were no leſs then ſix Popes at once. 1. Benedict was expulſed. 2. Silveſter the third gets in, but is caſt out again, and Benedict reſtored. 3. But being again caſt out, Gregory the ſixt is put into his place; who becauſe he was ignorant of letters (and yet infallible no doubt) cauſed another Pope to be Conſecrated with him to perform Church Offices; which was the fourth; which diſpleaſed many, and therefore a third is choſen, (which was the fifth) inſtead of the two that were fighting with one another: but Henry (the Emperor) coming in, depoſed them all, and choſe Clement the ſecond, (who was the ſixth of all them that were alive at once)
But above all ſchiſms that between Armoſus and Sergius, and their followers, was the fowleſt, ſuch ſaying and unſaying, doing and undoing there was, beſides the diſmembring of the dead Pope, and caſting him into the water. And of eight Succeſſors, ſaith Wernerus, [I can ſay nothing obſervable of them; becauſe I find nothing of them but ſcandalous, becauſe of the unheard of contention in the holy Apoſtolike ſea one againſt another, and together mutually againſt each other.]
Reader, wouldſt thou be troubled with any more of theſe Relations? I tell thee nothing but from their own Hiſtorians, and that which multitudes of them agree in: I go not to a Proteſtant for a word. But one Pope in thoſe contentious times, I find lived in ſome peace, and that was Silveſter the ſecond, of whom ſaith Wernerus (as others commonly) [This Silveſter was made Pope by the help of the Devil to whom he did homage: that all might go as he would have it:—but he quickly met with the uſual End, as one that had placed his Hope in deceitful Devils.]
Well! I ſhall now appeal to reaſon it ſelf, whether this were one Church, that for fourty (or ſay others fifty) years together had ſeveral Heads, ſome of the people following one, and ſome another, and the moſt Learned and moſt Conſcientious not able to know the right Pope, nor know him not to this day. If England were fourty years thus divided between two Kings, it were certainly two Kingdoms. But the true Catholike Church of Chriſt is but one.
CHAP. VIII.
Argum. 6. THE true Catholike Church hath never ceaſed or diſcontinued, ſince the founding of it to this day. The Church of Rome hath ceaſed or diſcontinued: therefore the Church of Rome is not the true Catholike Church.
I prove the Minor (for the Major they will grant.) If the Head which is an Eſſential part, hath diſcontinued, then the Church of Rome hath diſcontinued. But the Head hath diſcontinued: therefore, &c.
The Minor only needs proof: and that I prove 1. There have been many years interregnum or vacancy, when there was no Pope at all. And where then was the Church when it had no Head?
2. There have been long ſucceſſions of ſuch as you confeſs your ſelves, were not Apoſtolical, but Apoſtatical. 3. Your own Popes and Councils command us to take ſuch for no Popes. For example, Pope Nicolas in his Decretals (ſee Caranza pag. 393.) ſaith [He that by money or the favour of men, or popular or military tumults is intruded into the Apoſtolical ſeat without the Concordant and Canonical election of the Cardinall and the following religious Clergy, let him not be taken for a Pope, nor Apoſtolical, but for Apoſtatical.] And even of Prieſts, he commandeth, [Let no man hear Maſs of a Prieſt whom he certai…ly knoweth to have a Concubine or woman introduced] Caranza, pag. 395. and ibid. he ſaith, [Prieſts that commit fornication, cannot have the honour of Prieſthood.]
4. But our greater Argument is from the authority of God, and the very nature of the office. An infidel, or notoriouſly ungodly man, is not capable of being a Paſtor of the Church (in ſenſu compoſito, while he is ſuch) But the Popes of Rome have been Infidels, and notoriouſly ungodly men: therefore they were uncapable of being Paſtors of the Church (and conſequently that Church was Headleſs, and ſo no Church.) The Major I prove. 1. Where there is not the neceſſary matter and diſpoſition of the matter, there can be no reception of the form: But Infidels and notoriouſly ungodly men, are not matter ſufficiently diſpoſed to receive the form of Paſtoral Power: therefore they cannot receive it.
The Minor is proved 1. As every true Church is a Chriſtian Church (it being only a Congregation of Chriſtians that we ſo call, in our preſent caſe) ſo every Paſtor is a Chriſtian Paſtor: but an Infidel or notoriouſly ungodly man is not a Chriſtian Paſtor: therefore not a true Paſtor. 2. Otherwiſe a Mahometan, Jew, or Heathen may be a true Pope; which I think they will deny themſelves. 3. If any Diſpoſition or Qualification at all be neceſſary to the being of the Paſtoral Office (beſides manhood) then is it neceſſary, that he own God the Father, and the Redeemer (that is, be not notoriouſly an Infidel, or ungodly.) But ſome qualification is neceſſary: therefore, &c. None can be named more neceſſary then this.
And that Popes have been ſuch as I here mention, is proved before. Not to mention Marcellinus that ſacrificed to an Idol, or Liberius that ſubſcribed to the Arrian profeſſion; (for I believe there is an hundred times more hope of their Salvation by Repentance, then of an hundred of their Succeſſors) John the twenty ſecond held that the ſoul dies with the body, of which the Pariſians and others condemned him. John the twenty third, as I ſhewed before, denyed the life to come, and ſo was an Infidel. The Witchcraft, Poyſonings, Simony, Sodomy, Adulteries, Inceſt, &c. of others, are ſufficiently recorded by their own Hiſtorians.