The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome, Part 18
XVIII. Of the POPE.
1. WE do not charge them with believing the Pope to be God; which it seems himself did, if we believe the Misrepresenter in his Preface; but there is some Reason to doubt whether they do not at some times give him greater Honour than becomes a Man. I instance in the Adoration after his Election, when the new Cerem. Sect. 1. c. 2.Pope is placed upon the Altar to receive the Submissions of the Cardinals; but the Altar, themselves do confess to be Sacred to God alone; And there they profess to Worship Jesus Christ, as present in the Host. This therefore looks too much like assuming the Place of Christ, and not becoming the Distance between God and Man.
2. The Question is, Whether Christ hath appointed the Pope or Bishop of Rome to be Pastor, Governour, and Head of his Church under him? This, he saith, he believes, and this he knows we deny, and therefore had P. 40.Reason to expect some Proof of it. But instead, he tells us how they look on themselves as obliged to shew him the Respect due to his Place, which he knows is not the matter in Question. Two things however he saith, which seem to justify his Title.
1. He is the Successor of St. Peter, to whom Christ P. 41.committed the care of his Flock. But how far is this from proving the Pope to be Head of the Church under Christ? For, how doth it appear that Christ ever made S. Peter Head of the Church, or committed his Flock to him, in contradistinction to the rest of the Apostles? This is so far from being evident from Scripture, that the Learned men of their Church are ashamed of the Places commonly produced for it; it being impossible ever to justify the sense of them according to their own Rules of Interpreting Scripture, viz. by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. For, 1. Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock Matt. 16. 18.will I build my Church, is interpreted by many of the Fathers both Greek and Latin, of S. Peters Confession, and not of his Person; so by S. Chrysostom, S. Ambrose, S. Augustin, Chrysost. hom. 1. in Pentec. Tom. 5. ed Savil. p 979. Ambros de Incarnat. Dom. Sacramento c. 5. Aug. de verbis Dom. ad Evang. secund. Matth. Serm. 13. Tract. in Joh. 124. Basil. Seleuc. Orat. 25. ad fin. Hilar. de Trinit. l. 6. Greg. Nyssen de Advent. Domini cap. ult. Theodoret Epist. 77. 146.S. Basil of Selucioe, S. Hilary, S. Gregory Nyssen, and Theodoret; all great and considerable Persons in the Christian Church, whose words are plain and full to that purpose; and so they can never produce the unanimous consent of the Fathers for S. Peter's Supremacy out of these Words. 2. And unto thee will I give the Keys of the Matt. 16. 19.Kingdom of Heaven, are interpreted by the Fathers of S. Peter in common with the other Apostles; so Origen, S. Orig. Comment. in Matt. Gr. Lat. p. 275. Cyprian. de Unit. Ecclesiae. Hilar. de Trinit. 1. 6. Hier. c. Jovin. l. 1. c. 14. in Matt. 16. Aug. in Joh. Tr. 118. 124. in Epist. Joh. To. 10. Moyens su… & honestes, &c. p. 34, &c. Entretiens de Philaleth. in Phile… p. 121. Joh. Launoi. Epist. part. 5. Reim. Formentino, & Part. 2. Ep. 5. p. 47, &c.Cyprian, S. Hilary, S. Hierom, and S. Augustin, as they are all owned by a Member of the Roman Communion. And 3. For these Words, Feed my Sheep, a late Learned Doctor of the Sorban shews, that if they prove any thing Peculiar to S. Peter, they must prove him sole Pastor of the Church, which was the thing S. Gregory disputed against so warmly. But that there was nothing peculiar to S. Peter, above or beyond the rest of the Apostles, he shews at large from S. Chrysostom, S. Cyril, S. Augustin and others, to whom I refer the Reader, and to the former Authors. But suppose it were made to appear, that S. Peter was Head of the Church, How doth the Bishop of Rome's Succession in that Headship shew it self? To that he saith, 2. That there hath been a visibile Succession of above Two hundred and fifty Bishops, acknowledged as such in all past Ages by the Christian World. As such: What is that? As Bishops of Rome? That is not of weight enough to put it upon Trial; as Heads of the Catholick-Church? That he knows is not only denied by us, but by all the Greek, Armenian, Nestorian, Abyssin Churches; so that we dare say, it was never allowed in any one Age of the Christian Church. But we need not insist on the proof of this, since the late mentioned Authors of the Roman Communion have taken so great pains, not only to prove the Popes Supremacy to be an Incroachment and Usurpation in the Church, but that the laying it aside is necessary to the Peace and Unity of it. And until the Divine Institution of the Papal Supremacy be proved, it is to no purpose to debate what manner of Assistance is promised to the Pope in his Decrees. P. 42.Our Author is willing to decline the debate about his Personal Infallibility, as a matter of Opinion, and not of Faith; and yet he saith he doubts not but God doth grant a special Assistancé to the High Priest, for the good of the whole Flock, under the New Law, as he did under the Old; and produces the Instance of Caiaphas, Joh. 11. 51. This is a very surprizing way of Reasoning; for if his Arguments be good from Scripture, he must hold the Popes personal Infallibity as a matter of Faith; and yet one would hardly think he should build an Article of Faith on the instance of Caiaphas: For what consequence can be drawn from Gods over-ruling the mind of a very bad man, when he was carrying on a most wicked design, to utter such words, which in the event proved true in another sense than he meant them; that therefore God will give a special Assistance to the Pope in determining matters of Faith? Was not Caiaphas himself the man who proposed the taking away the Life of Christ at that time? Was he assisted in that Council? Did not he determine afterwards Christ to he guilty of Blasphemy, and therefore worthy of Death? And is not this a rare Infallibility which is supposed to be consistent with a Decree to crucifie Christ? And doth he in earnest think such Orders are to be obeyed, whether the supreme Pastor be Infallible or not? For so he concludes, That his Sentence is to be obeyed, whether he be infallible or no?