CHAP. XXVI. Their false interpretation of the sayings of Ancients, from whence they would extort a proof
CHAP. XXVI. Their false interpretation of the sayings of Ancients, from whence they would extort a proof of their Sovereignty.
D etect. 17. Another of the Papists Deceits, and one of the Principal that they support their cause with, is, A false interpretation and application of all the sayings of the Fathers, which they can but force to a show of countenancing their supremacy. That you may find out their juggling in this, I shall show you some of their Footsteps more particularly.
1. Any claim that their own ambitious Bishops have made to a further power then was due to them, they use as an Argument for their universal sovereignty: when as we deny not but that there was too much pride and Ambition in their Prelates (which is all that this will prove;) even in some that otherwise might be good men. We deny not but that Zosimus would fain have extorted a confession of his usurped power, and a submission to it from Aurelius, Augustine, and the rest of the African Council. But yet he could not do it. We confess that Leo the first, and Gregory the first, and others, were very busy for the extending of their power: And that the Roman Bishops were long endeavoring to have put the halter on the Africans heads, yea and long about the French before they got them under.
And shall these partial ambitious men be the witnesses? And because they would have had more power, doth it follow that it was their due?
2. Again, if they find that any distressed Churches or Bishops have but sent to Rome for help, they presently gather thence that they took the Pope to be Christ's Vicar General. As when Chrysostom sent to Innocent, and Basil and the rest in the East did send so oft for help into the West, when as the reasons were but such as these; 1. Because Rome during the Emperors residence there, was the place where life or death was last pronounced on every man's cause by the secular power: and therefore the Bishop of Rome had the greater opportunity to befriend other Churches. 2. And afterward
Rome had a great secular influence on the Empire. 3. And because in the divisions of the East about Arianism, they thought the countenance of the Orthodox in the West might have done somewhat to turn the scales. 4.
Because the Bishop of Rome being taken for the Patriarch of the first place, his voice might do much against an adversary.
I will delay you now with no more instances, then those of Basils time from the East. Eusebius, Meletius, Basil, and the rest of the Orthodox, being both pestered with the Arians, and all to pieces also among themselves, do send for help to the West. (Basil. Epist. 69.) But to whom? And for what?
Not to the Bishop of Rome only, nor by name, but equally to the Bishops of Italy and France, without any mention of the Roman power. And it was not that the Pope might decide all by his sovereign power, which certainly was so near a way to their relief, that no wise man can imagine them so mad as to forget it, if it had been a thing then known and approved of. But only they desire that some may be sent to help them to be the stronger party in a Synod, or at least someone to comfort them, and put some countenance on their cause. And Epist. 70. Basil writeth himself (in the name of the rest:)
but to whom [To the Bishops of France and Italy.] and France before Italy, without taking notice of a universal Head of the Church at Rome. And what doth he so importune them for? Not that the Pope would decide the controversy: but that they would acquaint the Emperor with their state
(because the West had an Orthodox Emperor, and the East an Arian) or send some to them to see how it stood with them: so that it was but either help from the Emperor, or countenance from the number of Bishops (because they were over voted quite at home) that they desired. So Epist. 74. Basil again writes, [to the Bishops of the West;] (and so no more to the Roman
Bishop then the rest,) and he giveth these as his Reasons [For, (saith he) what we here speak is suspected, as if we spoke through private contention.
—But for you, the further you are remote from them by habitation, so much credit you have with the people, whereto is added that the grace of God helpeth you to relieve the oppressed: And if Many of you unanimously decree the same things, it is manifest that the multitude, will produce a certain reception of your opinion.] Wonderful! If there were then a Vicar
General of Christ at Rome, that it never came into their mind to crave his decision or help, as such?
O but say the Papists, that was because they had to do only with the Arians, that cared for no authority that was against them. Answ. 1. But would these Arians have so much regarded the votes of the French and Italian Bishops, yea or a few men sent from them, and yet not regard the Head of the Church? The Arians sure had heard of this Headship, if any had. And would not the Orthodox desire so much as a word from Rome for this advantage? 2. But it is false that they were only the Arians that they called for help against. They expressly say, that it was also because they were divided among themselves, (by personal quarrels.) How importunately
doth Gregory Nyssen afterward call for help from others, and telleth Flavianus in his Epist. to him, of their misery as if all were lost? And the only sad instance was, that Helladius (counted a good Bishop) had proudly neglected him, and made him stand at his door (when he went to visit him) a great while before he was let in; and then did not bid him sit down; and then did not speak to him first but two or three strange angry words. This was the great business. But to proceed with Basil. Epist. 77, he falls to chiding the Western Bishops, for not sending to them, nor regarding them and their communion: and to touch their pride, he addeth, [We have one
Lord, one faith, one hope: Whether you think yourselves the Head of the universal Church: the head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you; or if you place yourselves in the order of other Church-members, you cannot say to us, we need you not.] And would you here believe that the Papists have the faces to cite this passage of Basil, for their Headship, because here is the word Head! When as its plain, 1. That Basil by the Head means but the chiefest part, and not the sovereign power. 2. That he speaks to all the Bishops of the West, and not only to the Roman Bishop. 3. That he doth it as a smart reproof of their arrogancy, and not in any approbation at all. But anything will serve them. More from Basil I shall have occasion to mention anon.
3. Nore also, that when the Papists find but any Heresy condemned by the Bishop of Rome, they cite this as a testimony of their Sovereignty: As if other Patriarch and Bishops condemned them not as well as they; Or as if we knew no that the Church desired the most general vote against Heretics, and therefore would be loath to leave so great a Bishop out.
4. And when they find the Pope excommunicating foreign Bishops, they cry up this as a Testimony of his Headship: As if we did not know, 1. That
to refuse Communion with another Church or Bishop is no act of Jurisdiction over them. 2. That other Bishops have made bold also to excommunicate the Pope: I will now but recite those words of Nicephorus lib. 17, c. 26, which you use to glory in (as many do in their own shame)
[Vigilius (saith he) proceeded to that insolency, that he excommunicated Mennas for four months. And Mennas did the same by him: But Justinian being moved to anger with such things, sent some to lay hold on him. But Vigilius being afraid of himself, fled to the Altar of Sergius the Martyr, and laid hold on the Sacred Pipes, would not be drawn away till he had pulled them down—] But by the Mediation of the Empress Theodora, the Pope was pardoned, and Menna and he absolved one another. A fair proof of the Vicarship! 3. And so it was, that Pope Honorius was condemned for a Heretic by two or three General Councils.
5. Also when they meet with any big words of their own Popes (as I command this or that) they take it for a proof of the Vicarship: As if big words did prove Authority. Or as if we knew not how lowlily and poorly they spoke to those that were above them. As Gregory the first for instance, was high enough towards those that he thought he could master. but what low submissive language doth he use to secular Governors that were capable of overtopping him? And what flattering language did his successors use to the most base murderers and usurpers of the Empire?
6. Another Roman deceit is this; When they find any mention of the exercise of the (now thriving) Roman Power, over their own Diocese or Patriarchal circuit, they would hence prove his universal Power over all.
And by that Rule the Patriarch of Alexandria or Constantinople may prove as much.
7. Also when they meet with the passages that speak of the elevation of their Pope to be their first Patriarch, in the Roman Empire, or any Power that by the Emperors was given him, they cunningly confound the Empire with the world, and especially if they find it called by the name of the world; and they would persuade you that all other Christians and Churches on earth, did ascribe as much to the Bishop of Rome, as the Roman Empire did. Its true that he was in the Empire acknowledged to be first in order of dignity, because of Rome the seat of his Episcopacy; especially when
General Councils began to trouble themselves and the world about such matters of precedency. And its well known from the language of their writers, as well as from the words of Luke 2:1, that they usually called the Empire all the world: And from such passages would the Papists prove the Primacy at least of the Pope over all the world. But put these Jugglers to it, to prove if they can, that beyond the Rivers Meroes and Euphrates, and beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire, the Pope did either exercise
Dominion, or was once so much as regarded by them, any more than any other Bishop, except there were any adjacent Island or Country that had their dependence upon the Empire. I hope they will not deny that the Church extended much beyond the Empire. (Though our History of that part of it be much defective.) And let them prove if they can, that ever any of those Churches had any regard to the Roman Bishop, anymore then to another man. Let them tell you where either the Empire of the Abyssinians or any other out of the line of the Imperial power, was any whit like-subject to the Pope.
8. But their chief fraud is about names and words. When they meet with any high complemental title given to the Bishop of Rome, they presently
conclude that it signifieth his Sovereignty. Let us instance in some particulars, and show the vanity of their conclusions from them.
1. Sometimes the Roman Bishops are called [Summi Pontifices,] the chief Popes: and hence some gather their Supremacy. But I suppose you will believe Baronius (their chief flatterer) in such a case as this. And he tells you in Martyrolog. Roman. April. 9, that [Fuit olim vetus ill usus in Ecclesia, ut Episcopy omnes, non tantum Pontifices, sed & summi
Pontifices dicerentur— i.e. It was the ancient custom of the Church to call all Bishops not only Pontifices Popes, but chief Popes] And then citing such a passage of Jerome Epist. 99, he addeth [Those that understand not this ancient custom of speech, refer these words to the Popedom of the Church of Rome.) 2. As for the names Papa, Pope, Dominus, Pater Sauctissimus, beatissimus, dei amantissimus, &c. its needless to tell you that these were commonly given to other Bishops.
3. And what if they could find that Rome were called the mother of all Churches? I have formerly shown you, where Basil saith of the Church of Caesarea, that it is as the mother of all Churches in a manner. And Jerusalem hath oft that Title.
4. Sometime they find where Rome is called Caput Ecclesiarum, and then they think they have won the cause. When if you will consult the words, you shall find that it is no more than that Priority of Dignity which (not Christ, but) the Emperors and Councils gave them, that is intended in the word. Its called the Head, that is, the chief Seat in Dignity, without any meaning that the Pope is the universal Monarch of the world.
5. But what if they find the Pope called the Archbishop of the Catholic Church, or the Universal Bishop? Then they think they have the day. I
answer, indeed three flattering Monks at the Council of Calcedon, do so superscribe their libels; but they plainly mean no more than the Bishop that in order of dignity is above the rest; And many particular Churches are oft called Catholic Churches. There's difference between [A Catholic Church] and [The Catholic Church.] And the Bishop of Constantinople had that Title, even by a Council at Constant. an. 518, before the Bishop of Rome had it publicly, or durst own it: It was settled on the Patriarch of Constantinople to be called the Oecumenical or Universal Patriarch. Who knoweth not that Emperors gave such Titles at their pleasure? Justinian would sometime give the Primacy to Rome, and at another time to Constantinople, saying [Constantinopolitana Ecclesia omnium aliarum est caput: The Church of Constantinople is the Head of all other Churches.] An.
Dom. 530. C. de Episcopis. l. 1, lege 24. And its known that this Justinian that sometime calls Rome the Head, did yet when the fifth General Council had condemned Vigilius Pope of Rome, permit Theodora his Empress to cause him to be fetched to Constantinople, and dragged about the street in a halter, and then banished, till they had forced him to subscribe and submit to the Council: even as they had deposed Pope Silverius his predecessor.
And Baronius himself mentioneth a Vatican Monument which as it calls Agapetus Episcoporum princeps on one side, so doth it call Menna [the Apostolic Universal Bishop:] Which Baronius saith, doth mean no more than that he was Universal over his own Provinces: and if that be so, any
Bishop may be called Universal. And do not these men know what Council of Carthage decreed that the Bishop primae sedis should be called neither
Summus Sacerdos, nor Princeps Sacerdotum, vel aliquid hujusmodi, tantum Episcopus primae sedis: i.e. Not the chief Priest, or the chief of Priests but the Bishop of the first seat] And how long will they shut their eyes against
the testimony of two of their own Popes, Pelagius and Gregory the first that condemned the name of Universal Bishop?
Sometime they find the Church of Rome called Apostolic; and so were others as well as that, as is commonly known.
And sometime the Pope is called the Pillar of the Church; And what of that? So are many others as well as he; as all the Apostles were as well as Peter? The Church is built on the Foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.
That the Pastors of the Church were ordinarily called the Pillars and props of it, as by Nicephorus Gildas, Theodoret, Basil, Tertullian, Dionysius,
Jerome, Augustine, &c. you may see proved in Gatakers, Cinnus p.
395,396.
And lastly, when the Papists read their Popes called the Successors of Peter, they take this as a proof of their Sovereignty. Whereas 1. Peter himself had no such Sovereignty. 2. They succeed him not in his
Apostleship. 3. They are called Paul's Successors as well as Peters. 4.
Others are called Peters Successors too as well as they, by the Fathers. 5.
And other Bishops ordinarily are called the Apostles Successors, and other Churches called Apostolic Churches.
I shall only set before them the words of one man at this time, (Hesychii Hierosol. apud Photium Cod. 269.) and desire them to tell me whether ever more were said of the Pope, yea or of Peter, then he saith of Andrew, calling him [Chori Apostolici primogenitus, primitus defixa Ecclesiae columna,
Petri Petrus, fundamenti fundamentum; principii principium vel primitiae, qui vocavit antequam vocaretur, adduxit priusquam adduceretur] i.e. [The first begotten of the Apostolic Chore, the first fixed Pillar of the Church; the Peter of Peter, or the Rock of Peter, the Foundation of the Foundation; the
Principal of the Principal, who called before he was called, and brought (others) to (Christ) before he was brought to him (by any others.)
And the same Hesychius saith of James apud Photium Cod. 275. [Πῶς ἐγκωμιάσω, &c. i.e. With what Praises may I set forth the servant and Brother of Christ, the chief Emperor (or Commander or Captain) of the New Jerusalem; the Prince or chief of Priests, the President or Principal of the Apostles, the Crown or Leader among the Heads, the principal Lamp among the Lights; the principal planet among the Stars; Peter speaketh to the people; but James giveth the Law (or sets down the Law)] Can they show us now where more than this is said of Peter himself? Much less of the Pope?