Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 1 · Section 8
SECT. VIII.
The Catalogue of H. T. is defective in proof of his pretended Succeſſion in the Roman Church in the fourth and fifth Centuries.
IN the fourth Age he begins with a catalogue of catholick Profeſſors to the year 400. of whom ſome were of the African Churches, ſome of the Greek, ſome of the Aſiatick, ſome of the Latin Churches: but he ſhews not that any one either owned the Popes Supremacy, or the Doctrine of the Romaniſts, which he maintains againſt the Proteſtants. Sure Hierom was no Aſſertor of the Papacy, who in his Epiſtle to Euagrius makes Biſhops and Presbyters the ſame, and the Biſhop of Rome of no higher, but of the ſame merit and Prieſthood with the Biſhop of Eugubium. And for the Nations converted which he mentions, there were ſome of them, as Indians and Ethiopians, who it is not likely ever heard of the Roman Church, nor had any converſion from them. No… is it likely that any of them either owned the Popes or Church of Rome's Supremacy, or any point of Doctrine, they now hold in oppoſition to the Proteſtants.
As for the fourteen Popes of this century, what ever their ſucceſſion were, (which is not without queſtion) yet that they did aſſert as due to them ſuch a Supremacy as the Popes now claim, or that faith, which now the Papiſts hold in oppoſition to the Proteſtants, cannot be proved. The ſame may be ſaid of the two general Councils he mentions in the fourth century, to wit, the firſt Nicene, and the firſt Conſtantinopolitan: which never aſcribed to the Biſhop of Rome any more power than to the Biſhops of Alexandria and Conſtantinople, nor after them the Epheſin and Chalcedonian in the fifth century. H. T. himſelf ſaith onelyonly, The firſt Nicene Council was approved by Pope Sylveſter, but doth not affirm that either he called it, or was preſent at it, or was Preſident of it, And it being confeſſed that Hoſius Biſhop of Corduba was Preſident there by Bellarmine himſelf, lib. 1. de concil. & Eccl. c. 19. tom▪ 2. controv. he imagines, but proves not Hoſius to have been the Popes Legate out of the Council, or any one that was there. And whereas H. T. ſaith, The firſt Conſtantinopolitan Council (Fathers 1. 50.) Pope Damaſus pre…iding, Anno 381. againſt Macedonius, it is contradicted by Bellarmine in the ſame place. It is alſo manifeſt that the Roman Pope was not Preſident there, but Nectarius Biſhop of Conſtantinople: of which thing the cauſe is, becauſe the Roman Pope was neither preſent by himſelf, nor by his Legates. What he adds of Pope Caeleſtin his preſi…ing in the Council at Epheſus againſt Neſtorius, Anno 431. is not true, ſith it is manifeſt from the ſubſcription to the Council, that Cyril of Al…xandria was Preſident there, and with him Juvenal of Jeruſalem. And though it be ſaid, that Cyril held the place of Pope Caeleſtinus, yet that was in giving ſuffrage to ſhew the agreement of the Patriarchs, not in preſidency, or if in preſidency, yet ſo as to be preſident, ſuo jure, by his own right, as one of the Patriarchs without deputation from Rome. H. T. adds, The Chalcedon Council (Fathers 600.) Pope Leo preſiding, Anno Dom 451. againſt Eutyches. But Pope Leo was preſident onelyonly by his Legates, and together with them Anatolius Patriarch of Conſtantinople, and Juvenal of Jeruſalem, did preſide. And when the Popes Legates oppoſed the aſcribing to the Patriarch of Conſtantinople equal authority and privileges with the Biſhop of Rome, yet the ſix hundred Fathers determined for the Patriarch of Conſtantinople.
But what do the Councils in theſe two Ages ſay for H. T. his Minor? He brings ſome paſſages out of the Arabick Canons and the Decrees, as if the Nicene Council aſſerted the Popes ſupremacy and the real preſence. But thoſe Arabick canons are of no credit, being but lately (as they ſay) brought by a certain Jeſuit from the Patriarch of Alexandria, and thoſe variouſly publiſhed by Piſanus and Turrian, in which are eighty canons: whereas of old in the Nicene Synod there were but twenty, and the Letter of the African Biſhops (of whom Auguſtin was one) in the ſixth Synod at Carthage written to the Pope of Rome, aſſuring that the copies of the Nicene canons which Cecilian Biſhop of Carthage brought from Nice, and the copies they had from Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Conſtantinople, had not the canon about Appeals to Rome from all parts, which three Biſhops of Rome alleged; but the true canons of the Nicene council, to wit, the fifth and the ſixth being againſt the arrogated power about appeals to the Biſhop of Rome, in vain doth H. T. obtrude his nine and thirtieth and the threeſcore and fifth Can. Arab. for the Popes ſupremacy and prayer for the dead. And for the canon, that forbids Deacons to give the Euchariſt Presbyters being preſent, (which he bring for the countenancing of the Sacrifice of the Maſs) the genuine words of the canon mention not a power in prieſts (as he terms them) to offer ſacrifice, which Deacons have not, but a reſtraint of Deacons from that giving the Euchariſt, Presbyters being preſent, which they might do in their abſence. And for the other teſtimonies which he fetcheth out of the Decretals, for Baptiſms, purging away ſin, and the unbloody Sacrifice, they are of no validity, being not taken out of the acts of the Council, but the compiler of the canon-law, who thruſt into the canon-law all ſorts of Determinations, whether they were chaff or wheat, genuine or ſuppoſititious. And yet if they were genuine they may have a ſenſe agreeing with proteſtant doctrine.
The Decree of the firſt Conſtantinopolitan Council againſt Macedonius, which decreed the Biſhop of Conſtantinople to be chief next to the Biſhop of Rome, proves not that the Fathers then aſcribed to the Biſhop of Rome ſuch a ſupremacy of power as now the Popes arrogate over all Biſhops, but the contrary. For it doth make the Biſhop of Conſtantinople a chief, not under the Biſhop of Rome, but next him, and aſcribes to him honour and dignity alike with the Biſhop of Rome, though in order of mentioning, ſitting and ſome ſuch like acts it prefers the biſhop of Rome.
In the firſt Epheſin council, if Peter were defined Head and Prince of the Apoſtles, yet they never meant thereby ſuperiority and power over them, but priority in order, and excellency in virtue. The power of binding and looſing ſins was not given to Peter any otherwiſe than to other Apoſtles, John 20. 23.
In the third action (ſaith H. T.) Pope Leo is called univerſal Arch-biſhop. And it is granted that the Council extolled Leo, yet they made him not Univerſal Biſhop over all biſhops in the world, but he was ſtyled Occumenical Archbiſhop of old Rome, not by the council, but by particular men of the council, which yet did give it to John of Conſtantinople: but by none was that title then given to either in that ſenſe in which now the Pope claims it; for that very council did aſcribe foreign, equal privileges or Segniories to the other Patriarchs with the biſhop of Rome, notwithſtanding the gainſaying of the Popes Legates; which determination was again confirmed in the ſixth Synod at Conſtantinople in Trullo in the ſixth Age. The ſenſe in which the title of Oecumenical, or Univerſal Biſhop was given to any of the Patriarchs was not given to them as aſcribing to them ſupremacy & power over all biſhops, and churches, as afterwards John of Conſtantinople affected the title, and Boniface of Rome uſurped it by the means of Phocas the Emperour, but it was given to each of the Patriarchs for their eminency by reaſon of their great care of the churches, in like manner as Paul ſaid of himſelf, 2 Cor. 11. 28. Upon me cometh daily the care of all the Churches: which was therefore put on them becauſe of the dignity of their cities, and amplitude of the rule and dominion which was exerciſed there by the Emperours Lieutenants, by means whereof the biſhops of thoſe cities had the advantage of intelligence and aſſiſtance in the ordering of things belonging to many churches in a large compaſs, even as at this day a Patriarch at London hath an advantage for the ordering of things concerning the Britiſh and Iriſh churches: the regiment of the churches in thoſe days much following the government of the Empire, as is manifeſt by the acts of councils and hiſtories of thoſe times. It is granted that in the fifth age Pope Leo affected the extolling of Peter, and did it too immoderately, and that the phraſe of Peter's doing what the Pope did was in uſe: and this proves that then ambition had crept in among the biſhops, and the affecting of vain titles increaſed, and that in reſpect of theſe things there was great corruption in the Patriarchs and other biſhops, which grew to an extreme height afterwards; yet neither in that age nor any other was that power over the whole church, which now the Popes and their flatterers challenge aſcribed unto them without controul of the ſounder part, and is yet to this day oppoſed by the French popiſh churches, and ſome other.
That which is added by H. T. of the Council of Eleberis in Spain, and the ſecond of Atles in France, about Prieſts abſtaining from their Wives, or elſe to be degraded, and that no man who was married could be made a Prieſt unleſs a converſion were promiſed, is but of provincial Synods, not general councils, about a matter onelyonly of Eccleſiaſtical Diſcipline, not a point of Faith, about which alone is the Queſtion, whether he can prove ſuch a Succeſſion as he aſſerts in all ages: beſides the Eleberin canon ſuppoſeth they had then Wives; and it appears that till then they did uſe them, and that there were married prieſts: but many being corrupted in their opinions of Marriage by the debaſing of it as carnal, and extolling Virginity as meritorious, began to put that yoke on men, which occaſioned in after ages the intolerable tyranny of denying Marriage to prieſts, againſt Gods allowance, and the practice of former ages.
The catholick profeſſours he mentions to the year 500. were many of the Greek and other churches, who, though they held communion with the biſhop of Rome in oppoſing the Hereſies then riſen, yet did neither acknowledge the Popes ſupremacy now challenged, nor held the Doctrine the Romaniſts now teach in oppoſition to Proteſtants.
As for the Nations converted, Scots, French, the Martyrs of Africa, which he mentions, it is not ſhewed, that either they were converted by any from Rome, or acknowledged ſubjection to him as the ſupreme oecumenical biſhop, or held what the Romaniſts now hold againſt Proteſtants. And thus have I ſhewed the inſufficiency for the proof of his Minor of the catalogue of H. T. of the firſt five hundred years, within which he included his Demonſtration, which were better than the later, though not without their corruptions. I proceed to view what he ſaith of the ſixth and other ages following.