Examination of those Plausible Appearances in the Romish Church, Chapter 27 – Chapter 28
CHAP. XXVII. That the Cardinalls, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monkes, and Nunnes of the Romish Church, are not of Apostolicall institution.
AFter we hauehave examined the succession of the supreame degree of authoritie in the church of Rome, come wee now to the inferiour orders, and first to the Cardinalls. Who is so ignorant at this day, as to thinke, or so impudent as to affirme, that their institution was in the times of the Apostles: or that their office, such as it is at this day, was in the church a good while after the age of the Apostles. The church increasing, there were created by the principall churches aPolyd. Virg. lib. 4. de inven. c. 19.Presbyteri Cardinales, that is to say, principall, or chiefe Elders. Diaconi Cardinales, principall or chiefe Deacons. Their office was limited within the iurisdiction of the church where they were created; if at Rome, within the iurisdiction of the church of Rome: if at Carthage, within the iurisdiction of the church of Carthage. Their charge was a superintendency over the common Elders, and common Deacons. The Cardinalls at this day, hauehave nothing of it but the name, their charge is quite of another nature, their institution is altogether different. They are now the electours of the Pope, which they were not anciently, except those of the citie of Rome as making a part of the Clergie. Now they take care of the affaires of all those churches, which are obedient to the Pope: anciently their charge was bounded within the circuit of one church alone. Howsoever it's true indeed, that by hypocrisie, they beare now adaies certaine titles, which seeme to assigne and to binde them to certaine parishes in Rome; to the end that they may retaine, if not the truth, yet the name of what they were anciently. Anciently their authority allowed them not any degree aboue Bishops: now they are, as it were, Princes of the bloud in the church, next to the triple crowne. So then the Cardinalls hauehave no succession deriued from the Apostles, and by consequence neither the church of Rome, in respect of this part of her policy.
As for the Patriarchs, there were none of them also in the times of the Apostles, nor a long time after. Only we read in the decrees of the Nicene councell,bCan. 6. that their iurisdiction is called an ancient custome, a tearme very different from an Apostolicall tradition. Moreover the Patriarchs were supreame, and equall to the Bishop of Rome in iurisdiction: he was but their companion, albeit he were first in order. All the other Patriarchs hauehave long since renounced the communiō of the Roman church: the Pope also will no longer be accoūted a Patriarch. The Patriarchs which are at this day in the Romish church, are elected by the Pope, who hath no power to choose thē, seeing that at their first institution (which howsoever was not Apostolicall) they were his fellowes in authoritie. So the Patriarchs of the Romish church hauehave no lawfull succession, their beginning being not not from the true beginning, the times of the Apostles, yea not from the primitiue institution of Patriarches.
The Romish Archbishops and Bishops at this day are nothing like those ancient, primitiue ones, I say not onelyonly in respect of their manners, but also in respect of their authority. Their authority at this day dependeth barely of the Pope: anciently, it was not subiected but to the Companie of Bishops; They might not be deposed, but by the common consent. They were not bound, to runne to Rome for their election; But they gaue their mutuall aduice, one to another, both in the election and deposition of a Bishop. Anciently they had no such authority ouer the magistrate, as they at this day vsurpe. It's worth the observation, to see how matters are changed. Their authority in respect of the Pope, is become slauish: in respect of the magistrate, tyrannicall This is their comfort, that they hauehave gotten on the one side, that which they hauehave lost on the other; so they would hauehave it, choosing rather to be subiect to one who is far from them, and whose greatnesse dependeth of theirs, then to many which are neare them, and whose lustre might obscure theirs. In regard of this order therefore, there is no succession in the Church of Rome.
In the ancient Church there were Elders tearmed Presbyteri, from whence came the name of Prebsters, Priests, But the Priests of the Romish Church retaine nothing of them, but the name. Their Principall office was to c.1. Tim. 1.89.teach and instruct, where as the Romish Priests for the most part, are vnlearned idiots, and by consequence are no otherwise successours of those Primitiue ones, then darknesse, pouerty, sicknesse, succeed light, wealth, health. Now this default, cannot be excused, by alleaging that it is the fault of the persons; for so it is in Ecclesiasticall functions, that were the incapacity of the person is, the function cannot bee. I call here the incapacity, not simply the fault of the person, but the impossibility of discharging the function. The womā which hath no milke, cannot be a nurse, and if she take the office of one who hath vponupon her, this cannot be in the qualitie of a nurse, shee cannot be a nurse beyond the name. So he which hath not in some sort the abilities requisite for reaching, he cannot possibly be a teacher; if he succeede one that could and did teach, he succeedeth him not as teacher, but onelyonly in his name. Moreouer, the Principall part of the priests office consisteth now a dayes in mumbling of masse, and in being sacrificers, of which there is no mention in the Primitiue ordination of Priests.
In the ancient Church there were d.Act. 6.2.3.Deacons; now there are Deacons, Archdeacons, subdeacons. But what hauehave these people of the ancient Deacons, beside the name? Take they any care of the poore? yea they suck their blood by a cruell and importunate exaction of their reuenues. Doe they serue tables? yea themselues are sumptuously attended at their owne. In a word, seeing they doe not the office of the ancient Deacons, how shall they be their successiours?
Concerning Monkes and Nunnes, there will no… be found a syllable in scripture, to signifie that there were any in the age of the Apostles. e.Hieron. in vit. Paul. EremSt. Hierome who hath much extolled this profession, fetcheth its originall from Paul the Hermite; a faire time after the Apostles. If else where, he referreth its beginning to a time more ancient, he contradicteth both himselfe and the truth,fin Catal. scrip Eccles. nom. Phil. being carried away by the excessiue affection he bare to this profession. Howsoeuer the Monkes of these times, cannot iustly be accounted the successours of these Monkes which St. Hierome so much commendeth: What maketh a monke g.ad Paul. de instit. Mon.sayd he, within citties? These not onelyonly abide in citties, but euen in them build citties. h.St. Austen hath left a full treatise of this point, intituled. De opere monachi. extat. 3. tem. Basil.In St. Austens time it was theft for a Monk to beg: now it is an especiall point of their sanctifie. i.Cypr. ep. 62. edit. Pamel.In St. Cyprians time it was not vnlawfull for him who had vowed continencie to marry afterwards: now it's a matter monstrously hereticall; except when the Pope dispenceth with it, who like a God vponupon earth can doe whatsoeuer it pleaseth him, and more also then God in heauen, for he can make vice vertue, and vertue vice by his dispensations.
CHAP: XXVIII. That the Ceremonies of the Romish, Church are not of Apostolicall institution.
IF we consider the Ceremonies of the Romish Church, we shall quickly see, that the ancient simplicity and Apostolicall purity is not to be found in her: that those decent customes of true antiquity, are either quite changed by her, or so extreamely abused, that they are made vnprofitable. In the flourishing time of the Apostles, there was nothing vsed in baptisme but water: afterwards there was added Chrisme and since that, salt & spittle. What successiō hauehave these additions, these new superfluities, seing they had not their originall, at the first institution of that sacrament? The channell & pipe as it were of succession here grew faulty, and receaued in this stinking water running athwart. The disguisement which they hauehave put vponupon the holy supper, is yet more prodigious, they hauehave miserably and vnhappily mangled it: they hauehave cleft the seale of the King of heauen in the middle, and cast away the one halfe of it. What is it that superstition dareth not to venture vponupon? We hauehave the institution & canō of this holy sacrament recited by three Euangelists and by St. Paul. Can there be any thing more pure, more simple, lesse stuffed with superfluous & superstitious ceremonies? lesse accompanied with pomp & compliments? Now compare with that purity, simplicitie, that nakednesse (as I may say) of ceremonies, the histrionicall pomp, the apish gestures, and anticke trickes of the Masse: can there be any thing imagined more vnlike vntounto it, and disproportionable? What succession then may be conceiued, or acknowledged, where the dissimilitude is so great, but a succession of evill to good, or corruption to purity?
Moreouer what shall we say of their superstitious consecration of chappels, altars, pixes, fonts, Chalices, plates, vestiments, holy oile, holy bread, holy water, of their Beads, Agnus Dei, Images, of their christning of Bells, of the hallowing of ensignes and swords. From whence will they fetch the institution of these trumperies? Had they a heart of lead, a face of iron, & a for…head of brasse, yet they would not dare to affirme that any of these fopperies were in vse in the age of the Apostles? What succession then of them can they pretend? Lastly their processions, their stately pompe at funeralls, so Proud and magnificent that now they fondly liue and die altogether: Came it from the Apostles? Yea is it not a relique of the Pagā superstition?