Which is the True Church, Part 2 · Chapter 3 – Chapter 4
W. J's Fourth Chapter answered.
I next added (for he begins his Chapter in the middle of a Section,) 2. That the Emperours Sect. 1.called and enforced the Councils who had no power out of the Empire.]
To this he saith [Called they them alone? had they not the Authority of the Roman Bishop joyned with them, or rather presupposed to theirs? prove that the Emperours called them.]
Ans. Shall I prove it to those that have read the Histories of the Councils, or to them that have not? If to them that have not, I cannot prove it or any such matters, but by desiring them to read it: If you tell a Woman that it is ten thousand years since the World was created, and I tell her it is not 600, neither of us proveth to her what we say, but she will believe him that she liketh best: But to him that hath read, or will read, the History, I disdain the Task: Must I write Books to prove that there were such men as Constantine or Theodosius in the World? I will be none of that mans Teacher that hath read the full history of the Councils of Nice, First and Second, of Ephes. First and Second; of Constantinople First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, &c. of Sirmium, Armenium, and many such, as cannot see that the Emperours called them without any previous Call or Authority of the Pope; some (as Nice) the Emperour called immediately by his own Letters without a word of the Popes interposing Authority or Call: Most of the Emperours wrote to the Patriarchs and Metropolitanes to call the Bishops under them: Sometimes to the Patriarch of Alexandria first (if not only) to call the rest; sometimes to him of Constantinople; and sometimes to all the five; and if the Pope did at any time send a Bishop or two and a Priest thither, you thence pretend that the Pope called the Council.
He addeth [Had not the Emperours power to signifie to those extra-imperials that a Council was to be celebrated, and to invite them at least?]
Ans. Yes, sure, even at the Antipodes; but when the History tells us that he commanded and oft threatned them if they came not, and that he wrote to them, and the men are named, what signifieth your question?
W. I. [Could not the Bishop of Rome, or other under whose Jurisdiction they were respectively, notifie to them the celebration of the Council, and require their presence in it? you cannot but see this.]
Ans. I cannot but see your shame when you open it. 1. Could not an Angel from Heaven have called them? yes no doubt: but no History saith that they were so called, but tells us how in another manner.
2. The word [Jurisdiction] signifieth so much of your Errour and interest, that you are resolved at least to keep up the name and supposition; and when you do but adde [over all the World] it maketh me remember Christs temptation [All this will I give thee;] but it is too strong a temptation for the Pope to over-come. But you would have gratified me much if you had told me what Patriarch's Jurisdiction in those times, the Churches in Persia and India, and the rest that were extra-imperial, did belong to? or where I may find any notice of the Summons that the Pope or any Patriarch sent them to any of those ancient Councils.
3. I told him that [the Diocesses which these Bishops were related to are described and expresly confined within the verge of the Empire; vid. Blondel. de primatu.]Sect. 2.
To this, 1. He taketh it for a Fob to be referred to Bloudel. Answ. Look then in your own Cosmographers, and even in Aub…rtus Myraeus his Notitia Episcopatuum, (abating his Fiction of the submission of the Abassine Emperours, and such-like in him; and his Confession that his Book had next to nothing of the Patriarchate of Alexandria:) He tells you that the Armenia major and minor were in the Province of Pontus, Scythia in the Province of Thracia, &c. And that you may know who it was that gave these Jurisdictions, he tells you how Iustinian gave his Name to a City of Bulgaria, subjecting many Bishops of Dacia, Dardania, Mysia, Pannonia, &c. to that Arch-Bishop; with this addition, sed & ille ab ipsis consecretur, & eadem jura super eos habeat, quae Papa Romanus habet super Episcopos sibi subditos. (Was that all the World then?) Novel. 119. 508.
He next citeth Pisanus's Nicene Canons, giving the Pope Universal Power, and the Bishop of Alex. and Antioch extra-imperial Power; and he promiseth hereafter to justifie those Canons. But in the mean time, I shall as much regard his Citations out of Esop's Fables, or out of Genebrard, or Cochleus.
He saith, [The Council of Calcedon, c. 28. giveth to the Bishop ef Constantinople Authority over the barbarous Nations near those Parts; that is, such as were extra-imperial, such as that of Russia, and Muscovia.]
Answ. Is not this a confident Man? 1. The Council saith only that the [Bishops of the fore-said Diocesses (naming only, Pontus, Asia, and Thracia,) which are among the barbarous, shall be ordained by the Throne of Const. And who knoweth not, that the word Diocess signified then a part of the Empire? and that many of the barbareus, so called then, were within the Empire? such as were the Scythians, Gothes, (or Getae, or Sauromatae,) which Eusebius saith were Conquered by Constantine: But is here any mention of Russia, or Muscovy? 2. And how long after this was it that all History tells us the Muscovites and Russians (that were not Gothes) were converted to Christianity?
So that here is not a Syllable in all that he hath said for Popery, except the Canons of Pisanus and Turrian, which they must better prove before we take them to be of any just regard: It is not the word of Baptista Romanus, or any late Iesuite that can suffice us.
I added lastly that Patriarchal Priviledges were ordinarily given by the Emperours, who added and altered, and sometimes set Rome highest and sometimes Constantinople. His many vain words against this I will not tire the Reader with reciting: Every man knoweth it that knoweth Church-History: Why else in the days of Mauricius and Phocas was one set highest at one time, and the other at another time? How else came the Bishop of Constantinople to pretend to Universal Primacy?
His marvel, that I translate Pontifex Pope, as if never man had so done, as if we had never read Bellarmine de Pontifice Romano, and others that so speak, &c. is a vain digression not worthy an answer, nor the rest.
I will here briefly recite some undeniable Reasons which I have given pag. 100, &c. of my Naked Popery, to prove what we have been all this while upon.
1. That the Papal Power was not held to be jure divino, but humano. 1. It stood by the same right as did the other Patriarchs; but it was jure humano.
2. The Africans, Aurelius, Augustine, &c. of the Carthage Council, enquired not of Gods Word, but of the Nicene Canons to be resolved of the Papal Power.
3. The whole Greek Church heretofore and to this day is of that Judgment; for they first equalled and after preferred Constantinople, which never pretended to a Divine Right; but they were not so blind as to equal or prefer a humane right before a Divine.
4. The fore-cited Ca. 28. of the Council of Calcedon expresly resolves it.
5. Their own Bishop Smith confesseth that it is not de fide that the Pope is St. Peters Successor jure divino.
II. The Roman Primacy was over but one Empire; besides all the Reasons fore-going I added, That the Bishop of Constantinople, when he stood for to be Universal Bishop, yet claimed no more; therefore no more was then in contest, but Power in the Empire.
III. That Councils then were called General in respect only to the Empire, I proved by ten Arguments, p. 104. 105. adding five exceptions.
Page 114. he had put a Verse under the name of Pope Leo, with a Testimony, &c. I shewed that there was no such; and he confesseth the Errour, but he supposeth a confident Friend of his put it into his Papers, and now saith the Verse was Prosper's, and some words to the like purpose are Leo's de Nat. Pet. Prosper (he saith) is somewhat ancienter than Leo, and less to be excepted against.
Ans. 1. He was Leo's Servant, even his Secretary, as Vossius and Rivet have shewed; and so his Words and Leo's are as one's. 2. It is in a Poem where liberty of phrase is ordinarily taken. 3. No wonder if Caput Mundo be found in a Poet, either as it is spoken de Mundo Romano, or as Caput signifieth the most excellent, great and honourable: And so Rome it self is oft called by Historians Caput Mundi, before and since Christianity entered it. And it may well be said that this was Pastoralis Honoris, though not ex Pastorali Regimine Universali; For one Bishop was a Caput or chief to others Pastorali Honore, that was not their Governour; as the chief Earl, or chief Judge among us, is to the inferiours. 3. And the Pope did Nihil possidere armis. 4. And Tenere and Regere be not all one. He may be said thus [Tenere] in that the Religion which he professed had possession of more than the Roman Empire, and he was the Chief Bishop in honour of that profession. The sense seemeth to be but this, [As great a honour as it is to be the Bishop of the Imperial City of a Conquering Empire, it is a greater to be the Prime Bishop of that Christian Religion which extendeth further than the Roman Conquests.] He citeth a sentence as to the same sence out of Prosper de Vocat. Gent. l. 2. c. 6. viz. [That the Principality of the Apostolick Priesthood, hath made Rome greater through the Tribunal of Religion, than through that of the Empire.] Which I take to be the true sence of the Poet: but to be greater by Religion than Empire is no more to be Ruler of the World, than if I had said so of Melchizedeck, that he was greater as he was Priest of the most high God, than as he was King of Salem. But there is in the cited place of Prosper none of these words, nor any about any such matter at all; but there is somewhat like it in cap. 16. which indeed is expository. Ad cujus rei effectum credimus providentia Dei Romani regni latitudinem praeparatam, ut Nationes vocandae ad Unitatem Corporis Christi, prius jure unius consociarentur imperii; quamvis gratia Christiana non contenta sit eosdem limites habere quos Roma, multosque jam populos sceptro Crucis Christi illa subdiderit quos armis suis ista non domuit. Quae tamen per Apostolici sacerdotii principatum amplior facta est arce Religionis quam solio potestatis. All this we acknowledge that Prosper then said about 466 years after Christ, being Pope Leo's Secretary, and seeing the Church in its greatest outward Glory: The Unity of the Empire prepared for the greatness of the Church, and those that were United in one Empire were United after in one Religion, and yet the Gospel went further than the Empire; and Rome it self became more honourable in being the seat of the most honourable Christian Bishop, whose Religion extended further than the Empire, than in being the Imperial Seat of Power.
The words which he citeth of Leo, I made the lightest of, because he was a Pope himself, and pleaded his own cause more highly Sect. ….than any of his Predecessors, and lived so late; but yet the words do not serve the Papists turn; for he at large sheweth that his meaning was, that Rome which was domina mundi, before it wa… Christian, (and yet not the Ruler of the World) was prepared to be the Seat of Peter and Paul, that even the outer Nations, by their Neighbourhood to the Empire, might be capable of the Gospel; which is a certain Truth. Ut hujus inenarrabilis gratiae per totum mundum diffunderetur effectus, Romanum regnum divina providentia praeparavit; cujus ad eos limites incrementa perducta sunt, quibus cunctarum undi que gentium vicina & contigua esset universitas. Disposito namq divinitatis operi maxime congruebat, ut multa regna uno conf…derarentur imperio, & cito pervios haberet populos praedicatio generalis, quos unius teneret regimen civitatis.—Nec mundi dominam times Romam, qui in Caiphae domo expaveras sacerdotis ancillam. And mentioning … … … at Rome. he saith▪ ut cos in …, … caput est Christus, quasi geminum constituerit lumen oculorum, de quorum meritis atque vi…tutibus, que omnem loquendi superant facultatem, nihil diversum, nihil debemus sentire discretum; quia illos & electio pares, & labor similes, & finis fecit aequales.
And in the next Sermon, expounding super hanc petram, thus saith, [super hanc, inquit, … …ternum extruam templum, & ecclesiae meae caelo inserenda sublimitas, in hujus fidei firmitate consurget. Hanc confessionem portae Inferi non tenebunt, &c.]
And of Tibi dabo claves—[Transivit quid…m in Apostolos alios vis illius potestatis; sed non frustra uni commendatur, quod omnibus intimetur: Petro enim singulariter hoc creditur, quia cunctis ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma proponitur: Manet ergo Petri privilegium ubicun que ex ipsius fertur aequitate judicium, nec nimia est vel severitas vel remissio.—
So Petrus Chrysologus expoundeth super hanc petram, Serm. 74. p. 69. 1. and many others.
But it is the way of these Men, to take some Sentence that soundeth, as they think, for sufficient Proof of their Foundations.
Leo in his Epistles to Anatolius, and to the Emperour Martian against him, Ep. 54. p. 131. layeth all the Priviledges of the Churches on the Council of Nice, [Privilegia ecclesiarum sanctorum Patrum Canonibus instituta, & Venerabilis Nicenae Synodi fixa decretis, nulla novitate mutari, &c. He saith, that no later Council, though of greater number, can alter any thing done in the Council of Nice;—and so none of their Rules for the Churche's Regiment. And in many other Epistles (to Pulcheria, &c.) he over and over accuseth him as breaking the Statutes of the Fathers, and Councils, but not the Institution of Christ, or his Apostles.
Next he citeth Leo's Epist. 82. to Anastas. But it is in the 84th. and he Sect. 9.that will but read it will easily see, that it was but in the Empire that L…o claimed the final Decision and Appeals.
And once more I here appeal to any impartial Man that ever read over Sect. 10.all the true Epistles and Decretals of the Popes themselves, and findeth that none of them for 400, if not 500 years, were ever sent to any extraimperial Church, as any way exercising Authority over them; yea, and till after 600 (when Gregory sent into England) they wrote but to their own Missionaries, or but by way of Counsel, as any Man may do; whether he can believe they then arrogated the Government of all the World.
In the rest of this Chapter there is nothing worth the answering, but that he saith, (to prove Ethiopia under the Patriarchs of Alexandria,) That, 1. Some Learned Men think Ethiopia is included in Egypt. 2. That Dr. Heylin and Rosse did regard Pisanus his Nicene Canons; and their Authority is more than mine.
Answ. 1. You are a Learned Man, who take Thracia to have been without Sect. 11.the Empire; and must I therefore be of the same mind? If your Learned Men cannot distinguish between Egypt, an imperial Province, and the vast and distant Kingdoms of Ethiopia; What's that to me? Is it enough to confute any evident truth, that there was found some Man that was against it? 2. Nor is the Name of Heylin and Rosse of any more Authority to prove the Antiquity of a late-produced Script, against all the Testimony of the Fathers and Councils near those times, than your own naked Assertion would have been. Is not this a pitiful Proof, that Pisanus's Canons are authentick and ancient, because Dr. Heylin and Rosse regard them? If you had any better Proof, Why did you not produce it?
An Answer to W. J's fifth Chapter.
The thing that I asserted is, 1. That the Pope had never any Governing Sect. 1.Power over the whole Earth. 2. Nor anciently over any out of the Empire. 3. Nor a proper Government of the other Patriarchs, or exempt Provinces within the Empire: But that he was (principally for the honour of the Imperial Seat, and next as to honour, the Memorial of St. Peter) voluntarily by Councils and Emperours, made the prime Bishop of the Empire; Alexandria first, and Constantinople after, the second; Antioch the third, &c. And that not the Pope, but the Emperours, and General Councils were the chief Rulers of the Imperial Churches: But in these Councils the Bishop of Rome had the first Seat, and Alexandria the second: And that this Bishop of Rome had but one Voice ordinarily in Councils, but sometimes he claimed a Negative Voice; and sometimes Councils have condemned, excommunicated, and deposed him: And in his absence, the Bishop of Alexandria had the same Power as he, when present, had.
Now, W. I. here citeth some Testimonies truly, and some falsly, to prove that which I deny not; that sometimes the last Appeals were made to him, and other Priviledges allowed him, which belonged to the first Bishop of the Empire. I think it but an injury to the Reader to examine them any further. If he will read the Histories and Fathers themselves, he needs not my Testimony: If he will not, my Testimony is no notifying Evidence to him.
And upon the perusal of the rest, I find nothing in this Chapter needing, or worthy of any further Answer: And I am sensible that fruitless altercation Sect. 2.will be ungrateful to wise and sober Men.