CHAP. VII. The Papists of more than One Church, yet each part pretending to be the Catholic Church
CHAP. VII. The Papists of more than One Church, yet each part pretending to be the Catholic Church.
A rgum. 5. THE true Catholic Church of Christ is but One: The pretended Roman Catholic Church is more than One: Therefore the pretended Roman-Catholic Church is not the true Catholic Church of Christ.
The Major is confessed. The Minor I prove thus, 1. Where there are two Heads or Sovereign Powers specifically distinct, there are two Societies, or Churches. But those called Papists, or the Roman Catholic Church, have two Heads or Sovereign Powers specifically distinct. Therefore they are two
Churches.
The Major is granted by all Politicians, who do without contradiction specify Common-wealth's and other Political Societies from the Sovereign
Powers: and so the Monarchical, Aristocratical and Democratical are several Species. The Belgian Common-wealth, and the French, be not specifically the same.
The Minor hath two standing proofs so visible that he must be blind indeed that cannot see them. First there are the many Volumes that are
written by both sides for their several forms: Bellarmine, Gretsor and the rest of the Italian faction proving that the Pope is the chief Power, and above a General Council, and the seat of Infallibility, and not to be judged by any, being himself the Judge of the whole world. And the other party proving that a General Council is above the Pope, and that he is to be judged by them, and may be deposed by them. If any say, that they are but few and no true Catholics of this Opinion, I answer, then a General Council are but few and no true Catholics, which yet is said by them to represent the whole Catholic Church: For the General Council of Constance and of Basil have peremptorily asserted it, and repeat it over and over; yea the Council of Basil say, Ses. ultim. that [Not one of the skillful did ever doubt but that the Pope was subject to the Judgment of a General Council, in things that concern faith. And that he cannot without their consent dissolve or remove a General Council; yea and that this is an Article of faith, which without destruction of salvation cannot be denied, and that the Council is above the Pope, de fide, and that it cannot be removed without their own consent, and that he is an heretic that is against these things] See Binius p. 43,79,96. And Pope Eugenius owned this Council ibid. p. 42. And for the Council of Constance, Martin the fifth was chosen by it, and present in it, and personally confirmed it in these words [Quodomnia & singula determinata, conclusa, & decreta, in materiis fidei per praesens concilium, conciliariter tenere & inviolabiliter observare volebat, & nunquam contraire quoquo modo. Ipsaque sic conciliariter facta approbat & ratificat, & non aliter, nec alio modo] (that is, what they did as a Council, and not what private members did) you see then even General Councils representing the Catholic
Church do not only say that a Council is above the Pope, but make it an
Article of faith, and damn those that deny it. (What then is become of Bellarmine and the rest of their champions?)
But perhaps you will say, they are but few on the other side. I answer: yes:
Not only most Popes, and the Italian Clergy, and the predominant party of Papists, but another General Council, even that at the Lateran, under Julius
2nd and Leo 10th, expressly determine on the contrary, that the Pope is above a General Council. So that here is not only an undeniable proof that General Councils are fallible by their contradicting each other, and that there is a Necessity of rejecting some of them, and consequently that the Foundation of Popery is rotten; but also here is one Representative Catholic
Church against another Representative Catholic Church, and one Council for one Species of Sovereignty, and another for another Species of Sovereignty. So that undoubtedly it is not the same Church, that had two heads of several sorts.
2. And the Nations that are on both sides to this day, are a proof beyond denial of their division. The French on one side, and the Italians on the other; and other nations divided between both. So that the thing which they call by one name, is two indeed. But so is not the true Catholic Church.
Obj. What though some in England took the King to be the Sovereign, and some the Parliament, and soon thought it was in both Conjunct; did this prove that you were more than one Common-wealth?
Answ. Where the Sovereignty is mixed and not in either alone, if any one shall set up the one as the only Sovereign, and subject the other to them, they change the form of the Commonwealth, but do not set up two
Commonwealths; but if half take one for the Sovereign, and the other half take the other for the Sovereign, they plainly divide the Commonwealth into two: if they do it only in mind, and the secret thoughts of their hearts,
this cannot be known to others, and so cannot be the ground of a Society: but if they do it by a public consent and practice, they evidently make two
Commonwealths. What else brought us into a war which ended not till one party was subdued? It is not possible that one Political body should have two Sovereigns specifically distinct. Indeed it may have five hundred natural persons in the Sovereignty (as in a Senate;) but they are but one
Political person, or one summa potestas.
2. But I prove the Minor by another Argument. Where there are two three or four Heads or Sovereigns at once numerically distinct, there are two or three or four Churches. But the Roman Church pretending to be Catholic, hath had two or three or four Heads at once numerically distinct; therefore it was two or three or four Churches.
The Major is a known truth to all that are verst in any degree in the doctrine of Politics. It is not only two species of Sovereignty, but two individual Sovereigns that are inconsistent with the numerical Unity of a Political body. Two, or ten, or two hundred may join in one Sovereignty, as one Political person (as I said) but if there be two Sovereigns, there are certainly two Societies: for if both be Supreme, neither is Subordinate. The Minor is not to be denied: for the Papists lay their very foundation on a supposed division: for sooth Peter and Paul were both at once their Bishops.
And there is not many of them that adventure to tell us, that Peter only was the Supreme, and that Paul was under him: but they make them as equals, or coordinate; and some of them say, that Paul was the Bishop of the uncircumcision, and Peter of the Circumcision (and then Peters Church is confined to the Jews) And they do not tell us, that one Headship was divided between them: For then that example would direct them still to
have two Popes, or two Bishops to a Church: so that Peter being a Head, and Paul a Head, they had sure distinct bodies.
But whether they stand to this or not, they cannot deny their many following divisions. The twenty third schism (as Wernerus a zealous Papist in fasciculo tempor. reckons them) was between Felix the fifth and Eugenius: of which the said Wernerus speaking saith, [That hence arose great contention among the writers of this matter, pro and contra, and they cannot agree to this day: for one part saith, that a Council is above the Pope, the other part on the contrary saith, No, but the Pope is above the Council.
God grant his Church peace, &c.] Of the twenty second schism the same Wernerus saith thus, (ad annum
1373.) [the twenty second schism was the worst and most subtle schism of all that were before it. For it was so perplexed, that the most Learned and Conscientious men were not able to discuss (or find out) to whom they should adhere. And it was continued for forty years, to the great scandal of the whole Clergy, and the great loss of souls, because of Heresies and other evils that then sprung up, because there was then no discipline in the Church against them. And therefore from this Urbane the sixth to the time of Martin the fifth, I know not who was Pope]
After Nicolas the fourth there was no Pope for two years and a half, and Celestine the fifth that succeeded him resigning it, Boniface the eighth entered, that stilled himself Lord of the whole world in Spirituals and Temporals, of whom it was said, He entered as a Fox, lived as a Lyon, and died like a Dog, saith the same Wernerus.
The twentieth schism (saith the same Author) was great between Alexander the third, and four Schismatics, and it lasted seventeen years.
The nineteenth schism was between Innocent the second, and Peter Leonis: and Innocent get the better, because he had more on his side (saith he.) The thirteenth schism (saith Wernerus) was between another and Benedict the eighth.
The fourteenth schism (saith the same Author) was scandalous and full of confusion between Benedict the ninth and five others, which Benedict (saith he) was wholly vicious, and therefore being damned, appeared in a monstrous and horrid shape; his head and tail were like an Asses, and the rest of his body like a Bear, saying, I thus appear, because I lived like a beast.] In this schism (saith Wernerus) there were no less than six Popes at once. 1. Benedict was expulsed. 2. Silvester the third gets in, but is cast out again, and Benedict restored. 3. But being again cast out, Gregory the sixth is put into his place; who because he was ignorant of letters (and yet infallible no doubt) caused another Pope to be Consecrated with him to perform Church Offices; which was the fourth; which displeased many, and therefore a third is chosen, (which was the fifth) instead of the two that were fighting with one another: but Henry (the Emperor) coming in, deposed them all, and chose Clement the second, (who was the sixth of all them that were alive at once) But above all schisms that between Armosus and Sergius, and their followers, was the foulest, such saying and unsaying, doing and undoing there was, besides the dismembering of the dead Pope, and casting him into the water. And of eight Successors, saith Wernerus, [I can say nothing observable of them; because I find nothing of them but scandalous, because of the unheard of contention in the holy Apostolic See one against another, and together mutually against each other.]
Reader, wouldst thou be troubled with any more of these Relations? I tell thee nothing but from their own Historians, and that which multitudes of them agree in: I go not to a Protestant for a word. But one Pope in those contentious times, I find lived in some peace, and that was Silvester the second, of whom saith Wernerus (as others commonly) [This Silvester was made Pope by the help of the Devil to whom he did homage: that all might go as he would have it:—but he quickly met with the usual End, as one that had placed his Hope in deceitful Devils.]
Well! I shall now appeal to reason itself, whether this were one Church, that for forty (or say others fifty) years together had several Heads, some of the people following one, and some another, and the most Learned and most
Conscientious not able to know the right Pope, nor know him not to this day. If England were forty years thus divided between two Kings, it were certainly two Kingdoms. But the true Catholic Church of Christ is but one.