CHAP. XVIII. Some of their deluding Ambiguities
CHAP. XVIII. Some of their deluding Ambiguities.
D etect. 9. The most common and prevalent Deceit of the Papists is, by ambiguous terms to deceive those that cannot force them to distinguish, and to make you believe they mean one thing, when they mean another, and to mock you with cloudy words. I shall here warn you to look to them therefore especially in three terms, on which much of their controversies lies, that is, the words Church, Pope, and Council. For there's but few understand what they mean by any one of these words.
1. When you come to dispute of the Church with them, see that you agree first under your hands of the Definition of that Church of which you dispute. And when you call them to Define it, you will find them in a wood, you will little think how many several things it is that they call [the Church:] For example, sometime they mean the whole Body, Pastors and People: but more commonly they mean only the Pastors, which are the far smallest part. And sometime they mean the Church Real: and sometimes only the Church Representative, as they call it in a General Council. But whether they mean the Pastors or People, they exclude all saving the Pope
of his subjects, and so by the [Church] mean but a part or sect. Sometime in the Question about Tradition, some of the French take the [Church] for the community, (as fathers deliver the doctrine of Christ to their children, &c.)
And sometime they take it in its Political sense, for a holy society, consisting of a visible Head and members: But then they agree not of that Head, some setting the Pope highest, and some the Council. But frequently they take the word [Church] for the supposed Head alone, as in most questions about Infallibility, Judging of Controversies, expounding
Scripture, keeping of Traditions, defining points of faith, &c. They say, The Church must do these: but commonly they mean the supposed Head: And one part mean a General Council: and the Jesuits and Italians, and predominant part do mean only the Pope: so that when they talk of the whole Catholic Church, and call you to its Judgment, and boast of its
Infallibility (you would little think it) they mean all this while but one poor sinful man: and such a man as sometime hath been more unlearned then many of your school boys of twelve or fourteen years of age; and sometime hath been a Murderer, Adulterer, and (if General Councils, or the common vote may be believed) an Heretic, an Infidel, an Incarnate Devil. This man is their Church, as Gretser, Bellarmine, and the rest of that strain profess.
So that if you do but force them to define and explain what they mean by the Church, you will either cause them to open their nakedness, or find them all to pieces about the very subject of the Dispute.
2. So also when they use the name of [a Pope] in disputation, make them explain themselves, and tell you (in a Definition) what they mean by [a Pope.] For, though you would think this term were sufficiently understood, yet you shall find them utterly at a loss, and all to pieces about it. Let us consider distinctly of the Efficient, Matter, and Form. 1. As to the efficient
cause of their Pope, there must concur a Divine Institution (which they can nowhere show) and a call from man (& Nemo dat quod non habet, what man or men have power to make a Head to the Catholic Church.) But whether they will call it an Efficient Cause, or only a Causa sine qua nen,
Election and Ordination must go to make a Pope. Now either they will put these into their Definition, or not. If not, know of them whether a man without Election and Ordination may be Pope: If so, what makes him one?
If Possession, then he that can conquer Rome, and sit down in the chair is Pope: If not possession, what then? And why may not any man say, I am
Pope? Well: but doubtless they will tell you that Election, or Ordination, or both, is Necessary. If so, then first for Election, is it Necessary to the being of a Pope, that some certain persons Elect who have the Power, or will any
Electors serve whosoever? If any will serve, then every Monastery or every Parish may choose a Pope: If there must be certain Authorized Electors, see that those be named in the Definition: or at least declared. And then first know whether these Electors are impowered to that work by Divine Law, or by Human: If by Divine, let them show it if they can. In Scripture they can never find who must choose the Pope. And their Tradition (if that were a Divine law) hath no such precept, as appeareth by the alterations and diverse ways. And if it be but by a Human Ecclesiastical Canon, then it seems the Papacy is so too: for the Power received can have no higher a cause then the Power giving or authorizing.
2. When you come to know who these Electors must be, you open their nakedness. For first if they say, It must be the Cardinals, ask them, where then was the Pope when there were no Cardinals in the world? And whether that were a Pope or not that was chosen by the whole Roman Clergy? Or whether those were Popes or not that were chosen by the People? Or those
that were chosen by the Emperors? Or those that were chosen by Councils?
If they tell you that it must be the Roman Clergy; Know whether the Cardinals be the whole Roman Clergy, who are Bishops of other Churches, or whether they are not merely Titular, at least many of them? And whether the People, the Council, or the Emperors were the Roman Clergy? If they would persuade you, that either the people, or the Emperor, or Council did not elect the Pope, but only show whom the Roman Clergy should elect, interposing exorbitantly some unjust force, with the Due Election, then all currant History crieth shame against them, and we will lay the Dispute on that with them readily, though it were with Baronius himself. Nothing almost is more evident in the Papal History, then that there have been at least these five ways of election among them. Let them put it upon this issue with us when they will.
If they allow of any of these as valid, which ever it be (as they must, or give up their succession) then 1. We would know by what Law of God the Emperor of Germany may choose a Head for the Catholic Church, anymore then the Emperor of Habassia, or the King of France or Spain? 2. And we would know when the Emperor hath chosen one, and the Clergy another (if not some others a third) whether both were not true Popes, if both parties were authorized Electors? And if yet the People choose one, and the Roman
Clergy another, and the Cardinals alone a third, and the Emperor a fourth, and the Council a fifth, must all these stand, or which of them, and why? Or if they tell you that it must be the particular Roman Church; then 1. If the people of that Church choose one, and the Clergy by major vote another, and the Cardinals a third, which is the true Pope? 2. And then the succession is gone however: For they were no Popes that Emperors or Councils chose.
2. If they shall tell you that it is not Election but Consecration that makes a Pope, yea or that Consecration is of Necessity with Election; then 1.
Demand of them whether it be any one whosoever that may Consecrate, or whether this high power be confined to certain hands? If any may serve, or any Bishops, then he that can get three drunken Bishops to consecrate him may be Pope. And then there may be a hundred Popes at once. But if it be confined to certain hands, 2. Let it be put down in the Definition, or at least declared who those are that must ordain or consecrate him. 3. And if they say, that It must be only the Italian Bishops that must consecrate, then 1.
Know of them by what Law of God they have power to consecrate a Head to the universal Church, when all nations are agreed that quod pertinet ad omnes, ab omnibus tractari debet. 2. And by what Law they can create or Generate a creature of a more noble species then themselves, as if a beast should beget a man? Or whether this prove not, that as a Bishop at first was but Presbyter primae sedis, (like the fore man of a Jury) and thence sprung an Archbishop, who was Episocopus primae sedis, and thence a Patriarch, who was Archiepiscopus primae sedis; so in process of time, when Pride grew riper, the Pope grew to be Patriarcha primae sedis; but not till long after, the Head or Governor of the universal Church, nor Patriarcha
Patriarcharum; no more than the Archbishops or Bishops were at first Episcopy Episcoporum.
But if they can show us no law of God empowering these special consecrators, any more than others, then where is the Papacy that dependeth on it? There is nothing in Scripture to empower the Italian Bishops anymore then the Gallicane, Germane, or Asian, to Consecrate a Head for the Catholic Church.
3. But suppose there were, yet we must be resolved whether it be some or all the Italian Bishops that must do it? If but some, which be they? And how is their power proved? If all or any, then 1. What shall we do when some of them consecrate one Pope, and some another, and some a third, which hath fallen out: which of these is the Pope? If Consecration give the Power, then all are Popes. 2. And still the Papal succession is overthrown while many
Popes had no Consecration by Italian Bishops.
Thus you may see what a case the poor Jesuits or Friars will be in, if you put them but to insert the necessary Electors and Consecrators in their
Definition of a Pope.
2. But thats not the worst, you must require them to put his necessary Qualification in the Description. For if no Disposition of the Matter be necessary, but ex quolibet ligno fit mercurius Romanus, then a Jew or other
Infidel may be Pope: which they will deny. And if any Disposition of the subject be of necessity to the Reception of the form, then cause them to put it down. And then 1. It is either true Godliness: and then farewell Papacy. 2.
Or it is common honesty and sobriety: and then still farewell Papacy. 3. Or it is learning and knowledge: and then Alphonsus à Castro, and others of their own will bear witness that some Popes understood not their Grammar, and one good man being (saith Wernerus) rudis literarum, was fain to get another Compope to say his offices, (though it happened that they could not agree, and so a third was chosen, and his choice disliked, and a fourth chosen, till there was six chosen Popes alive at once.) 4. If age be necessary, then the Children Popes (one at least) have interrupted the succession. 5.
Yea, if the Masculine Gender be but Necessary, Pope Joan hath interrupted the succession, unless between forty or fifty of their own Historians deceive us. 6. But all this is the smallest part, the Question is whether faith in Christ
be of Necessity to a Pope? If so, then what will you say to John the twenty third, that denied the life to come, and to those that have been guilty of Heresy? So that by that time they have put the necessary Qualification of a Pope into their Definition, you shall find them hard put to it.
3. But yet the worst is behind. They be not agreed about the very form of the Papacy: For some say, He is the Head of all the Catholic Church But others with the General Councils of Constance and Basil say, that he is the Head only of the singular members, but a subject to the Catholic Church represented in a Council, which receiveth its power immediately from Christ, so that you may see what a case they will be in, if they be but forced to tell you what they mean by a Pope, and to Define him.
3. And if they use the name of a General Council, call them to Define what they mean by a General Council: some of them will say, It must be a true Representative of the whole Catholic, Church: so that Morally they are all Consenting to what is there done. But then the doubt remaineth whether there be a Necessity of any certain Number of Bishops? If not; it seems the whole Church may agree that twenty, or ten, or two, or one shall represent them, and be a general Council. But if this must not hold, then Must All the Bishops of the world be there, or only some, and how many? Binius saith,
Vol. 1, p. 313, that [a General Council is that where all the Bishops of the whole world may and ought to be present, unless they be lawfully hindered, and in which none but the Pope of Rome by himself or his Legates, is wont to preside.] And vol. 3, p. 229. It is when all the Church is morally
Represented, the Pope presiding.] But what a loss are we here at? 1. How prove they that only Bishops should be members of a Council, and not Presbyters?
2. But if that were granted them (without proof and contrary to practice) yet we are at a far greater loss to know what a Bishop is that must here be a member? Is he only the Primus Presbyterorum in a presbytery? Or is he the Ruler of a Presbytery, (they Ruling the people?) Or is he the sole Ruler of Presbyters and people? And is he to be in every Parish where are diverse presbyters? Or only in every Classis or lesser Synod? Or only in every
County, or Province? Or shall the old Rule stand, that every City must have one? If so, then are not all our Corporations true Cities? And so by any of these Rules, there have been few General Councils in the world. And what word of God is there why London, Worcester, Canterbury should have
Bishops; and Shrewsbury, Ipswich, Plymouth and hundreds such should have none? So that if the very matter of your Councils be so human and disordered, what is the Council composed of such? As most of them use the term Bishop, you would put them as hard to it to Define a Bishop almost, as to define a Pope.
3. But suppose they help you over this rub, yet by their Definition they null many General Councils, because the Pope presided not there: even the first General Council itself at Nice (whatsoever they boldly feign to the contrary.) 4. And by this Rule, either we never had a General Council, or but few:
For instance, At the first Session of the Council of Trent (the last and most famous Council) there were but four Archbishops, and twenty-two Bishops, taking in the Titular Bishops of Upsal, Armach, and Worcester. And at diverse other Sessions after, but eight, or nine, or very few more. In the fourth Session which Decreed to receive Tradition with equal pious affection and reverence as the holy Scriptures, and which gave us a false
Catalogue of the Canonical Books, there were but the Popes Legates, two
Cardinals, nine Archbishops (titular and all) and forty-one, or forty-two Bishops (titular and all.) Now we would fain know whether this was the whole Church morally represented? And whether these twenty-two, or forty-one were all the Bishops of the world, or the hundredth part of them?
Yea whether all the Bishops of the African, Asian, and other Churches could and ought to have been there?
If they say that most of the Bishops of the world are Heretics or Schismatics, and had nothing to do to be there, we are sure that this is but the impudent censure of a sect, that unchurcheth most of Christ's Church, for far less faults than itself is guilty of: But how is this heavy censure proved?
5. Nay to make short of it, its plain by this Definition, that a General Council is but a name (at least since the days when the Church lay in a narrow room) and that no such thing is to be expected in the world. For 1. If all Bishops, or half come thither, what shall their poor flocks do the while?
2. How many years must they be travailing from America, Ethiopia, and all the remote parts of the Christian world? 3. So much shipping, and provision, and so many thousand pound a man is necessary for the Convoy of many, that alas the poor Bishops be not able to defray the hundredth part of the charge. 4. Abundance of them are so aged and weak, that they are unfit for the journey. 5. Their Princes are some of them Infidels, and some at wars, and will never give them leave to come. 6. They must pass through many Kingdoms of the enemies, or that are in wars, that will never suffer them to pass. 7. The tediousness, and hazards of the journey, with change of air is like to be the death of most of them, and so its but a plot to put an end to the Church. 8. The length of General Councils is such (some of them being ten years, and some (as that at Trent) eighteen years) that so many
Bishops to be so long absent from home, is but to give up the Church to Infidelity or Impiety (unless the Bishops be such things as the Church can spare.) 9. When they come together, they cannot many of them understand one another, because of the diversity of their languages. 10. And the Number would be so great, that ten or twenty Council-houses or rooms would not hold them: so that they could not Converse in one Assembly: so that a true General Council now, is but a name to amuse those that think the world is no bigger than a man may ride over in a weeks journey.
6. And yet even this Definition of Binius is ridiculous: For he makes it enough that all the Bishops of the world may and ought to be there, whether they be there or not. But then what if laziness or danger deter them or detain them? Is that a Council where Bishops ought to be and are not? How many must de facto be present, any or none? Prove if you can that forty Bishops are a General Council, because the rest ought to be there. And who shall be judge of each man's case, whether he could or ought to have been there?
Will you judge men before they are heard, or their cause known? Your saying that they ought to have been there, is no proof.
And yet Binius hath one exception [unless lawfully hindered] Good still!
If all the Bishops in the world be lawfully hindered, it seems it is a General Council when nobody is there: You see now what you put the poor Papists too, if you put them to define a General Council, or tell you what they mean by that word.
And therefore I again advise you; let them not befool you with empty or ambiguous words. And when they are all to pieces among themselves, let them not make you believe they are united by agreeing in One word, when they are several things that are meant by that one word.