The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 32
CHAP. 32. Of the ſucceſsion of chairs. Whether it be a mark of the true Church? And what that ſucceſsion is, of which the Fathers ſpeak.
AMong the marks of the true Church, they put the ſucceſſion of Paſtors in the ſame chair, ever ſince the Apoſtles: Certainly that ſucceſſion is a goodly ornament, if with the ſucceſſion of perſons, there may be a ſucceſſion of Doctrine and conformity of vertue: But there are many chairs in which they that ſit, hold a contrary Doctrine to their Predeceſſors. Thus the Scribes and Phariſes were ſitting in the chair of Moſes, and had the perſonal ſucceſſion; nevertheleſs Jeſus Chriſt commandeth his Diſciples to beware of the leaven of their Doctrine, and reproacheth them that they had tranſgreſſed the Law of God by their tradition, Mat. 15. Thus the Biſhops of the Churches of Antioch, and Rome, and Alexandria, boaſt themſelves to be Succeſſors of Saint Peter, and yet are diſſenting and ſeparate in Communion. The Biſhops of Conſtantinople, fetch their ſucceſſion from the Apoſtle Saint Andrew, as Nicephorus goeth about to prove in the eighth book of his Chronology, chap. 6. Yet theſe Biſhops by the judgement of the Roman Church, are Schiſmaticks and Hereticks. Whence it appears, that the ſucceſſion of chairs cannot be a fit mark for the true Church, ſince it is found in heretical Churches, as Tertullian ſaith in the thirty ſecond chapter of the book of preſcriptions.(a)Ipſa eorum Doctrinacum Apoſtolica comparata, ex diverſitate & contrarietate ſua pronunciabit neque Apoſtoli alicujus eſſe neque Apoſtolici. Their Doctrine compared with the Apoſtolical Doctrine, will make it manifeſt by its diverſity and contrariety, that the Author thereof is neither an Apoſtle nor an Apoſtolical man; becauſe as the Apoſtles have not taught different things among themſelves, ſo they that followed the Apoſtles, would not have ſet forth things contrary to the Apoſtles, excepting only thoſe that have withdrawn themſelves from the Apoſtles, and have taught otherwiſe. And a little after: Therefore they ſhall be ſummoned to anſwer that form of examination by the Churches; which though they cannot produce any of the Apoſtles, or any Succeſſor of the Apoſtles for their Author, as being much later in time, and ſome of them every day erected; yet agreeing in the ſame faith, they are not held leſs Apoſtolical by reaſon of the conſanguinity of their Doctrine [with the Apoſtles. (b)Ad hanc itaque formam provocabuntur ab illis Eccleſiis quae licet nullum ex Apoſtolis vel Apoſtolicis authorem ſuum proſerant, ut multo poſteriores, quae denique quotidie inſtituuntur, tamen in eadem fide conſpirantes, non minus Apoſtolicae reputantur pro conſanguinitate doctrinae.] And ſoon after, he ſaith, that the Heretick Churches are not received to the Communion by the Apoſtolick Churches, becauſe Hereticks cannot be Apoſtolick, ob diverſitatem Sacramenti, by reaſon of the diverſity of the ſacred Doctrine; for ſo the Fathers take the word Sacrament. And in the twentieth chapter, after he hath ſaid that the Apoſtles have ſpread the Doctrine of faith, and that from thence all the Churches have their origine, he addeth, So all the Churches are firſt Churches, and all are Apoſtolick, as long as the communication of peace, and the name of brethren, and the mutual mark of hoſpitality, prove that there is one unity among them all; which rights are ruled by no other reaſon then the tradition of the ſame Doctrine. Thus if Tertullian be believed, true ſucceſſion conſiſteth in conformity with the Doctrine of the Apoſtles: which being found in a Church, whether great or ſmall, of old or freſh date, ſuch a Church is truly Apoſtolical, although for lack of Hiſtories, ſhe cannot ſhew the line of her ſucceſſion.
Then to know whether that ſucceſſion of chairs be good, we muſt of neceſſity know before whether the Doctrine agree with that of the Apoſtles; and to know that, we muſt be inſtructed in the true Apoſtolical Doctrine. Whence it follows, that this ſucceſſion of chairs cannot be a mark of the Church, ſince to know her, we have need of another mark which is the truth of the Doctrine,(c)Sic omnes primae & omnes Apoſtolicae, dum unam omnium probant unitatem communicatio pacis & commiſeratio hospitalitatis, quae jura non alia ratio regit quam ejuſdem Sacramenti una traditio. and conformity with the Doctrine of the Apoſtles; and that the ſucceſſion of perſons in the ſame chair, is no perpetual mark of a true Church, ſince there are true Churches which cannot prove that continual ſucceſſion. Where conformity with the Doctrine of the Apoſtles is evident, to what end ſhould a Church be required to ſhew by hiſtories the thred of a continual ſucceſſion, unleſs it be to tire mens ſpirits by an infinite length, and keep them from ſeeking for the conformity in Doctrine, which is eaſie to be found? What doth it import from how far the water of a brook comes to us, ſo that the water be quick and good? And if the brook be ſpoiled, becauſe it paſt through unwholeſom fens, what have I to do to follow the whole courſe of the ſtream, when I may drink at the ſpring?
Where the way is ſhort and eaſie, why do they labour to make it long and intricate? Such as love error, purpoſely looſe themſelves in an endleſs length and an in extricable maze. How much labour and time muſt one loſe? How many Greek and Latin Books muſt one read, to know upon every point of Doctrine the belief of all the Biſhops of one Church from the Apoſtles time unto ours? and to ſhew upon every point the ſucceſſion of Doctrine from Biſhop to Biſhop? Certainly we are not ſaved by chairs, but by rules; nor by titles or ſucceſſion of perſons, but by the precepts of faith and godlineſs. The Apoſtle Rom. 10.15. ſaying after Iſaiah, How beautifull are the feet (that is, how is the coming pleaſant) of them that bring peace, that bring gl d tidings of good things! ſheweth, that in vain one boaſteth that he is ſent, if he bring tidings of evil things.
Truly if chairs did teach, or if truth was ſticking to thoſe chairs, we ought to beleive it without any more ado. But in thoſe chairs men are ſpeaking, who many times abuſe them to give authority to untruth, as the Scribes and Phariſes made uſe of the ſpecious title of the chair of Moſes to reſiſt Jeſus Chriſt.
Beſides, that cannot be a mark of the true Church, which is unknown to the people. For how ſmall is the number of thoſe that have read all the Greek and Latin Hiſtories, where that ſucceſſion is ſet down? They give to the people a liſt of ſucceſſive Biſhops in a picture, but the people know not whether nothing be falſe and forged in that picture: They know not whether the laſt entred into the chair by uſurpation, or violence, or gifts. They know not whether the laſt Biſhops teach the ſame as the firſt, or whether of thoſe that came between, none erred in the faith. Certain it is, that many Popes have been notorious hereticks, as Liberius and Felix who were Arians, Honorius a Monothetite, and John the XXIII. that denied the immortality of the ſoul. In the Papal See, ſeveral Schiſms have been, and divers times many Popes together, excommunicating one another, and reciprocally calling one another Antichriſt; and of thoſe Antichriſts, the worſt commonly overcame. So according to the very Canons of the Roman Church, factions and corruptions in the creation of the Popes, have ſeveral times made their election void, and therefore have broken the thred of that ſucceſſion
Some places indeed are found in the Fathers, eſpecially in Tertullian and Irenaeus, where diſputing againſt Hereticks, they oppoſe unto them the authority of thoſe Churches that were able to ſhew their ſucceſſion of perſons and Doctrine ſince the Apoſtles, and queſtion thoſe Hereticks about their ſucceſſion. But they ſpeak of ſucceſſion of chairs in the ſame Doctrine. Beſides, thoſe allegations have not the ſame force in theſe laſt ages, as they had then, when the line of their ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles being ſhort, was alſo eaſie to ſhew. It was eaſie to ſhew at Epheſus ſince Saint John, and at Jeruſalem ſince Saint James, that ſeven or eight ſucceſsive Biſhops had ſtill taught the ſame Doctrine. But now after an interval of above fifteen hundred years, and ſo many changes and revolutions, the Churches which then agreed, being now at odds, it is impoſſible to make ſuch a deduction. And our Adverſaries would find themſelves ſhrewdly plunged, if they were put to ſhew of every Biſhop of Rome, or Alexandria, or Antioch, that all ſucceſſively have believed the Purgatory, or the invocation of Saints, or Tranſubſtantiation, or the Popes power over the temporal of Kings, or the Communion under one kind.
Conſider alſo that theſe Fathers alledging unto Hereticks the ſucceſſion of Biſhops, ſpake unto Hereticks that rejected the Scriptures, either whole or in part; againſt which they had nec… to uſe probable reaſons without the Scripture. But we have to do with men that make a ſhew of the ſucceſsion of perſons, without ſpeaking of conformity and ſucceſsion in the Doctrine. Upon that the words of Irenaeus are pregnant,(d)Irenaeus, lib. 4. chap. 43. Eis qui in Eccleſia ſunt Presbyteris obedire oportet; his qui ſucceſſionem habent ab Apoſtolis, qui cum Epiſcopatus ſucceſſione chariſſimae veritatis certum donum ſecundum placitum Patris acceperunt. We muſt obey thoſe that are Prieſts in the Church, that have ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles, and with the moſt dear ſucceſſion of Epiſcopacy, have received the certain gift of the truth, according to the Fathers will. And Tertullian in the thirty ſeventh chapter of Preſcriptions, ſummoning the Hereticks to produce the ſucceſſion of their chairs, ſheweth, that in the Church where he was, they had a true ſucceſſion, becauſe ſince the Apoſtles time they had always retained the ſame Doctrine.(e)Ego ſum haeres Apoſtolorum; ſicut caverunt teſtamento, ſicut fidei commiſerunt, ſicut adjuraverunt, ita teneo. Vos certe exhaeredaverunt ſemper & abdicaverunt, ut extraneos & inimicos. Ʋnde autem extranei & inimici Apoſtolis haeretici niſi ex diverſitate Doctrinae? I am (ſaith he) an heir of the Apoſtles: That which they have ordained by their Teſtament, that which they have comitted to our faith, that which they have ſworn us unto, that I hold: But certainly they have always diſ-inherited you, and diſallowed you as ſtrangers and enemies. Now how come Hereticks to be ſtrangers and enemies to the Apoſtles, but by the diverſity of Doctrine, which every one of them hath ſet forth, or received according to their own fancy againſt the Apoſtles? For a ſucceſſion of chairs without truth, is either a continuation of error, or a corruption of the truth: which ſucceſſion, the longer it is, the more pernicious, becauſe it hath deeper roots; as Gregory Nazianzen ſaith, in his oration concerning Athanaſius, (f)foreign.Where there is the ſame Doctrine, there is the ſame See; but where there is contrariety of opinions, there is alſo contrariety of Sees, [or chairs] The one hath the name, the other hath the truth of ſucceſſion. He addeth, that he that corrupts the Doctrine is no ſucceſſor, unleſs it be as ſickneſs ſucceedeth health, and darkneſs light. Athanaſius ſpeaks the ſame language; (g)Athanaſ. in Decret. Synodi Niceae contra Arianos. foreign.Behold (ſaith he) we ſhew the ſucceſſion of our Doctrine from Fathers to Fathers. And Ambroſe (h)Ambr. lib. 1. de poenitentia, cap. 6. Non habet Petri haereditatem, qui fidem Petri non habet., That man hath not the ſucceſſion of Peter, that hath not the faith of Peter. And Irenaeus, in the 4. Book. 43, & 44. chap. calls ſucceſſion in the true Doctrine, the(i)Ab omnibus abſiſtendum qui abſiſtunt à principali ſucceſſione. principal ſucceſſion; for having ſaid that thoſe muſt be held for ſuſpect that depart from the principal ſucceſſion, he addeth, that ſuch are fallen from the Truth.
Wherefore we deteſt the beaſtial impiety of the Canon Non nos, which in the 40. Diſtinction of the Roman Decree, pins the holineſs of the Popes to their Chairs, ſaying,(k)Quis ſanctum dubitet eſſe quem apex tantae dignitatis extollit? In quo ſi deſint bona acquiſita per meritum, ſufficiunt quae à loci praedeceſſore praeſtantur. Who makes a doubt of that mans holineſs who is raiſed to ſuch a high dignity, who if he have no good acquired by his merit, he hath good enough afforded to him by his predeceſſor in that place? It is not the Chair that ſanctifieth the Paſtor, but it is the holineſs of the Paſtor and his preaching that ſanctifieth the Chair; which the older it is, one may think that there is the more to mend in it; and the higher it is, and exalted to honour, the more pernicious, when the authority thereof is imployed to authorize Error and oppoſe the Truth. It is the complaint that Bernard made of the Church of his time;(l)Bernard. de converſiſione Paul, Serm. 1. Domine, Jeſu! quia ſunt in perſecutione tua primi, qui videntur in Eccleſia primatum diligere, gerere principatum. Alas, alas, Lord Jeſus, Thoſe are the firſt in perſecuting thee, that love primacy in thy Church, and hold the principality of the ſame. Then he addeth, Multi ſunt noſtris temporibus Antichriſti; There are many Antichriſts in our dayes. And ſoon after;(m)Diſſimulemus nos quoque neceſſe eſt & ſileamus interim, maxime que de Praelatis noſtris, Magiſtris Eccleſiarum. This we muſt diſſemble, and hold our peace, eſpecially about our Prelates and Maſters of Churches. And in the ſame place,(n)Iniquitas progreſſa eſt a ſenioribus judicibus, Vicariis tuis. Iniquity proceeded from the old Judges, thy Vicars, which ſeemed to govern thy people. And in the 33. Sermon, ſpeaking of the Papal Court;(o)Miniſtri Chriſti ſunt & ſerviunt Antichriſto; Honorati incedunt de bonis Domini qui Domino honorem non deferunt. They are Miniſters of Chriſt, and ſerve the Antichriſt. They that honour not the Lord, march honoured with the Lords goods. Whereupon after he hath bewailed the corruption of the Church, proceeding from them that govern her, he ſaith, that it remains no more, but that the Antichriſt ſhould be revealed, even that Antichriſt, ſaith he, who ſhall lift up himſelf above all that is called God. And in the 77. Sermon, ſpeaking of that ſucceſſion of Chairs, he ſaith,(p)Succeſſores omnes cupiunt eſſe, imitatores pauci. They will all be Succeſſors, but few will be imitators, &c.(q)Parum eſt noſtris vigilibus quod non ſervant nos, niſi & perdant. Supereſt ut reveletur homo peccati, Filius perditionis. It is a ſmall thing to ſay that our watches do not keep us, but they even deſtroy us. And in the fourth Book De Conſideratione, ſpeaking of the Roman Court;(r)De conſider. ad Eugen. l. 4. Si auderem dicere, daemonum magis quam ovium paſcua haec, &c. Petrus hic eſt qui neſcitur proceſſiſſe aliquando vel gemmis ornatus vel ſerico, &c. In his ſucceſſiſti non Petro, ſed Conſtantino. If I durſt ſpeak it, Theſe are rather paſtures of Devils then of Sheep. And ſpeaking directly to Pope Eugenius, who boaſted of the ſucceſſion of Peter; We find not that ever St. Peter marched adorned with Jewels, or clad in Silk, or covered with Gold, or riding on a white Horſe, or attended with guards, or with a multitude of ſervants making a noiſe about him. He beleived that without theſe things one might fulfil that ſalutary command, Feed my ſheep. In theſe things thou haſt ſucceeded not Peter, but the Emperour Conſtantine. That good man, who felt the Truth in a dark age, would have ſpoken far more plainly, if he had lived in an age enlightned with the Sun-ſhine of the Goſpel: For in the fervency of his zeal ſeeing two Popes excommunicating one another, and mutually calling one another Antichriſt, he goeth ſo far as to ſay,(s)Epiſt. 125. Beſtia illa de Apocalypſi cui datum eſt os loquens blaſphemiam, & bellum gerere cum ſanctis, Petri Cathedram occupat tanquam leo paratus ad praedam. That Beaſt of the Revelation to whom a mouth was given, ſpeaking blaſphemies, and [power] to make war againſt the Saints, holds St. Peters Chair like a Lion prepared for the prey. And the other Beaſt is hiſſing neer you, like a wild beaſts cub lurking in a cloſe place. He uſeth the two Anti-Popes alike, leaving to us to judge on which ſide the right of the ſucceſſion was.
Above 500 years before him, Pope Gregory the I. ſeemeth to have prophecied after the example of Caiaphas: For ſo he ſpeaks in the 38. Epiſtle of the 4. Book;(t)Omnia quae praedicta ſunt fiunt. Rex ſuperbiae prope eſt, & (quod dici nefas eſt) ſacerdotum eſt praeparatus exercitus. All that is foretold is now a doing. The King of pride is at hand; and (that which is ſhameful to ſay) an Army of Prieſts is prepared for him: foretelling that the Antichriſt will be upheld by a multitude of Prieſts, and therefore by them that ſhall hold the chairs, and boaſt themſelves of the ordinary ſucceſſion.
We will ſhut up this diſcourſe with a ſentence of Auſtin in his 46. Treatiſe upon John. (u)Sedendo ſuper Cathedram Moyſis legem Dei docent, ergo per illos Deus docet. Sua vero ſi velint docere, nolite audire, nolite facere.If ſitting in Moſes chair, they teach the Law of God, God teacheth by them; But if they will teach that which is of their own, (that is, their own inventions) hearken not unto them, and do not what they ſay.