A General View of Papistry, Book 1 · Controversy 4 · Question 4
THE FOVRTH QVESTION, WHETHER THE Bishop of Rome be the true successor of S. Peter.
The Papists.
error 40 THey doe generally hold, that the Bishops of Rome being lineally descended by succession from Peter, they hauehave the same primacie, apostolike authoritie & iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, which Peter had, Bellar. lib. 2. de pont. c. 12.
They are very barren and scant of arguments in this place to maintaine and vphold this succession by, and in the end the Iesuite runneth to tradition: and at the length he thus concludeth; that it is not, de iure diuino, it is not necessarie by the lawe of God, that the Romane Bishop should be Peters successor: but it dependeth onelyonly vponupon the ordinance of Peter, Bellarm. cap. 12.and is proued by tradition, not diduced out of scripture. That it was necessarie for Peter to hauehave a successor, they say, it is proued out of scripture: which we also graunt, that all faithfull Pastors and Ministers are the Apostles successors, though they hauehave not their plenarie and Apostolike power: but that the Pope ought to bee and is his successor, it standeth vponupon tradition.
We see then the grounds of their opinion: scripture they hauehave none but blind tradition: vnlesse therefore they could bring better stuffe for the Papall succession, we will not spend any time in confuting nothing.
The Protestants.
THat the Pope or Bishop of Rome neither can, is, or ought to be S. Peters successor, in his high and Apostolike authoritie, primacie, and iurisdiction ouer the whole Church, which Peter himselfe neuer had: thus we declare it.
1 The Pope, though hee were Peters successor, yet can hee not receiue that from him, which he neuer had: but Peter had neuer any such primacie of power, as we hauehave shewed before, Quaest. 1.2. Ergo, he is not here in his successor.
2 That primacie which Peter had, could not bee conueyed to any other: namely, his primacie of confession, which he first of all the Apostles did vtter concerning Christ, proceeding from faith, did adhere so to his person, that it could not bee deriued to any successor of his: for Peters faith was a proper adiunct to himselfe, Argument. Tonstalli, Fox. pag. 1066.
Agayne, how can he hauehave the Apostolike authoritie being not an Apostle: But an Apostle he is not: for Christ onelyonly made Apostles, the Apostles did not ordayne other Apostles, Argum. Nili.
3 He succeedeth not Peter rightly in place: for seeing Peter sate at Antioch: why may not that Church challenge succession, as well as Rome? Why might not also other Churches hauehave Apostolike succession, as Alexandria from Peter and Marke, Herusalem from Iames, Constantinople from Andrew?
Further, they hauehave no certaine succession from Peter: Tertullian maketh Clement the next successor to Peter. Optatus first nameth Linus, then Clement: Irenaeus, after Peter, placeth Linus, and Cletus, and Clement in the fourth: What certaintie therefore can they hauehave of so vncertaine succession? Fulk. annot. in Rom. 16. sect. 4.
4 It skilleth not who commeth in the place & roome of the Apostles: They that will be their true successors, must followe their example, and walke in their steps, teaching their doctrine and embracing their holie vertues. Wherfore the Pope is not Peters right successor, swaruing both from his doctrine & example. Non sanctorum filij sunt, qui tenent loca sanctorum, sed qui exercent opera eorū. They are not the children of the Saints, which occupie the same places, but they which doe their workes, Lambert. Fox pag. 1120.So Bernard writing to Eugenius chargeth him, that in respect of his pompe and pride, he did rather succeede Constantine, then Peter, Iohann. Huss. pag. 610.
5 All good Bishops and Pastors are as well the Apostles successors, as the Pope, nay rather then he, being a wicked man, Iohn. Huss. articul. 4. Fox. pag. 590. Lambert. pag. 1120. Nay, they hauehave greater and more excellent titles▪ then to be called the Apostles successors: for those that walke in obedience vntounto Gods commandements, our Sauiour calleth them, his sisters, kinsfolkes and brethren, Math. 12.50. Ergo, the Pope is not the right successor of Peter.
Lastly, of this matter Augustine thus writeth: Cathedra tibi quid fecit ecclesiae Romanae, in qua Petrus sedit, & in qua hodie Anastasius sedet: Cont. Petil. lib. 2. ca. …1.vel ecclesiae Hyerosolymitanae, in qua Iacobus sedit, & in qua hodie Iohannes sedet. What hath the Sea of Rome done vntounto thee, wherein sometime Peter sate, & where Anastasius now sitteth? or what hath the Church or chaire of Ierusalem committed, where sometime Iames sate, and Iohn now sitteth? In those words Augustine ascribeth as much to the succession of other Apostolicall Churches, as he doth to the succession of the Bishops of Rome. Cap. de precept. eccles. artic. 9. B.And therefore Canisius craftely leaueth out the one half of the sentence, cōcerning the Church of Ierusalem: Neither is it true, which our aduersaries say, that Peters Sea remaineth still at Rome, when all other Apostolicall Sees are gone: for euen to this day the See of Antioch standeth and hath a Patriark: likewise the See of Alexandria. The See of Constantinople neuer wanted successors to this day: nor the Church of Ephesus: In India and Aethiopia, there hath been alwaies a succession in those Churches planted by the Apostles, and is at this day, Fulk. 2. Thess. 2. sect. 7. Wherefore they hauehave no cause to bragge of their succession, which is found in other places, as well as at Rome.