The Novelty of Popery Opposed to the Antiquity of True Christianity, Book 1 · Chapter 36
CHAP. 36. That the Popes have a falſe title, and without any Word of God, to the ſucceſsion of St. Peter, in the charge of head of the Univerſal Church, and that ſuch a charge is not grounded in Gods ordinance.
TO begin at the ſpring, If St. Peter had no ſucceſſor in his Apoſtleſhip or in the charge of Head of the Univerſal Church, then Popes falſely boaſt of that ſucceſſion. Upon that we inſiſt often, but can get no anſwer. Let our Adverſaries ſay if they can, where, and when God hath appointed ſucceſſors to St. Peter in his Apoſtleſhip, or in his Headſhip over the Univerſal Church. For ſuch a ſucceſſion can have no place, if God hath not inſtituted it. But about that, there is not one word in Gods Word. Thus Aaron had ſucceſſors in his charge of High Prieſt, becauſe God had inſtituted it in his Law. But Moſes being Prince, Lawgiver, and Prieſt, had no ſucceſſor in thoſe joynt qualities, becauſe God had inſtituted none. John the Baptiſt had no ſucceſſor. None ſucceeded in the Apoſtleſhip of St. John, St. Paul and the other Apoſtles, becauſe Chriſt did not command it, and ſpake never a word about that. That ſucceſſion then in Peters primacy is imaginary and an humane invention. We find indeed in Scripture, that the Apoſtles going from place to place, preaching the Goſpel, would create Paſtors and Presbyters in every town where they paſt, and thoſe Paſto…s were ſucceſſors of the Apoſtles, in the government of thoſe particular Churches. Neither muſt we doubt, but that if Peter ever was at Rome, he ſetled Paſtors there, to ſucceed him in the conduct of the Church of Rome. But of providing a ſucceſſion for him in the Apoſtleſhip, or in the Primacy over the Univerſal Church, there is a deep ſilence in Scripture; For ſince the other Apoſtles left no ſucceſſors in their Apoſtleſhip, there is no reaſon why St. Peter ſhould have left any in his. And whereas St. Peter writing his ſecond Epiſtle to the Univerſal Church, was neer his death, as himſelf ſaith, in the 1. chap. and the 14. verſ. one might wonder, if any ſucceſſor ſhould have been expected in his Office of Apoſtle, why he did not give notice unto the Church, what ſucceſſor he was to leave in his room, that he might be acknowledged and obeyed after him without contradiction.
And if there had been need of a ſucceſſor to St. Peter in that primacy, which they ſay, he had over the Univerſal Church, no doubt but that dignity did belong to ſome of the Apoſtles that outlived him; to St. John eſpecially, that excellent Apoſtle, the diſciple whom Jeſus loved, who remained in the world thirty years after Peter? Is it credible, that Linus or Clement were preferred before him? the firſt a man, whoſe name hardly remains, And of the other we have but ſome ſuppoſitious Conſtitutions, and ſome Epiſtles aſcribed to him, where there are orders about mice dung, and where he commendeth Plato for baniſhing the words meum & tuum out of his Commonwealth, and(a)Cauſa 12. qu. 1. Can. Dilectiſſimis. Communis uſus omnium quae ſunt in hoc mundo eſſe debuit; ſed per iniquitatem alius hoc dixit eſſe ſuum & alius iſtud, & ſic inter mortales facta eſt diviſio. Denique quidam Gra… corum ſapientiſſimus haec ita ſciens eſſe communia debere, ait amicorum communia eſſe omnia. In omnibus autem ſine dubio ſunt conjuges. for inſtituting community of goods and of women.
Or if Linus or Clemens were to be preferred before the Apoſtles, at leaſt, as Matthias was choſen by the common ſuffrage of the Apoſtles, they ought to have been called, and ſo much reſpect ſhould have been deferred unto them, as to have had their advice for that election.
And whereas in the firſt age after the Apoſtles, the Biſhop of Rome was elected by the common ſuffrage of the people of the Church of Rome: is it credible that the people of one City, had the power to give a head to the Church of all the world, without calling the other Provinces, that had the like intereſt in it, and never yielded their right to the people of the Church of Rome?
Yet ſuppoſe that Chriſt had inſtituted a ſucceſſor to St. Peter in that imaginary primacy; doth it follow therefore that this ſucceſſor muſt be the Biſhop of Rome? and why rather he then James Biſhop of Jeruſalem, who by Clement himſelf Biſhop of Rome is called Epiſcopus Epiſcoporum, the Biſhop of Biſhops, ruling the Churches of all the world? For this is the inſcription of the firſt Epiſtle, which he writes unto James, (b)Clemens Jacobo fratri Domini, Epiſcopo Epiſcoporum, regenti Hebraeorum ſanctam Eccleſiam quae eſt Ieroſolymis, ſed & omnes Eccleſias quae ubique Dei providentiā fundatae ſunt.Clement to James Brother of the Lord, Biſhop of Biſhops, governing the holy Church of the Hebrews, which is in Jeruſalem, yea and all the Churches which are founded anywhere by the providence of God.
If one ſaith, that Peter hath been at Rome, I will ſay alſo, that Chriſt who is greater then Peter, hath been at Jeruſalem, and that all the Apoſtles have lived there many years. If one alledgeth that Peter is dead at Rome, I will ſay that Chriſt is dead at Jeruſalem, and James the Apoſtle, and after him, the other James Brother of the Lord: And that there is no reaſon, why that which ought rather to be a reproach unto Rome, to have put to death ſuch an excellent Apoſtle, ſhould turn to that Cities honour, and to an occaſion of ſo great a priviledge. Had Peter ſuffered martyrdom in a Village, muſt that Village therefore be the Seat of the Monarch of the Univerſal Church?
And ſince it is believed, that Peter reſided ſeven years in Antioch, Can any ſhew by good proofs, that Peter removing from thence, and going to Rome, removed the Primacy from Antioch, ſeeing that the perſon of Peter could not be in one place, and the Seat of his primacy in another? When Peter was in ſome Town of Pontus or Galatia, was the Seat of the Univerſal Church in that Town? Chryſoſtom was not of that opinion; For he ſpeaks of the Church of Antioch in this manner, in the third Homily to the people of Antioch, according to the verſion of Bernard of Breſs, reviſed and corrected by the Jeſuite Fronto Ducaeus, a learned man in the Greek tongue;(c)foreign. Conſider, (ſaith he) the greatneſs of the Town, and that our care at this preſent, is not of one ſoul, or two, or three, or ten, but de millibus infinitis, de totius orbis capite, of infinite thouſands, of the capital of all the world: It is the City, in which Chriſtians were firſt ſo called. And in the ſeventh Homily upon Matthew, he ſpeaks thus to the people of Antioch; (d)foreign.When it is queſtion of diſputing of precedency, you raiſe your ambition ſo high, as to preſume to have the preſidency over all the earth, becauſe this Town hath the firſt given name to Chriſtians. Whence it appears, that the Church of Antioch would at that time prefer her ſelf before the Church of Rome. The ſame Father in his Sermon upon Ignatius, having ſaid that Peter, to whom the Lord Jeſus gave the keys, and to whom he permitted the government of the Church, hath long ſojourned in Antioch, he inferreth thence foreign. that our City (meaning Antioch) may be ſet in the ballance againſt all the world; Which expreſſion in Greek, is as much as if he ſaid, Our City is equal in dignity to any City in the world, and not inferior to any, and by conſequent, yields not to the City of Rome. Which he would not have ſaid, had he believed that Peter had taken the Seat of Primacy from Antioch, to tranſport it to Rome. Baſil in the fiftieth Epiſtle, goes further, ſaying, that Meletius Patriarch of Antioch, (e)foreign.did preſide over the whole body of the Church. For Baſil Biſhop of Ceſarea, was under the Patriarch of Antioch, whom he eſteeemed not to be inferior to the Romane Biſhop, as we ſhall ſee hereafter.
So we come to this iſſue, and here hold faſt, that ſince the Word of God ſaith not that the Biſhop of Rome muſt be ſucceſſor of Saint Peter, in the Office of Head of the Univerſal Church, yea and gives no ſucceſſor to him in his Apoſtleſhip, nor in his primacy over the Univerſal Church, the Pope hath but a falſe title to that ſucceſſion which he brags of, and that it is a meer humane invention without the Word of God.
Here I call upon the conſciences of all lovers of truth (for here the ſpring of the error is laid open) to ſee with what ſpirit of ſtumbling God hath ſmitten the Adverſaries. Cardinal Bellarmin in his preface to the Books de Pontifice Romano, ſpeaks thus; What thing is in queſtion when we treat of the Primacy of the Pope?(f)Etenim de qua re agitur cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Breviſſimè dicam, de ſumma rei Chriſtianae. Id enim quaeritur, Debeatne Eccleſia diutius conſiſtere, an vero diſſolvi & concidere? Quid enim aliud eſt quaerere an oporteat ab aedificio fundamentum removere? &c. To ſpeak in few words, it is then the queſtion of the ſumm [or the main ſubſtance] of Chriſtianity. For the queſtion is, whether the Church muſt ſubſiſt any longer, or be diſſolved and periſh? For what is it elſe but to ask Whether the foundation muſt be taken away from the building? It is no wonder that he ſpeaks ſo, ſince the Roman Church holds the Pope to be the foundation of the Church, and the ſoveraign and infallible judge of matters of faith, whoſe authority is above the Scriptures, which receive from him (belike) all the authority they have. So that by this account, the Popes authority being overthrown, down fals the Church, and the authority of Scripture, and the whole Doctrine of ſalvation vaniſheth away.
Since then from the Popes ſucceſſion in the primacy of Saint Peter, the whole Chriſtian Religion doth depend, reaſon did require, that this ſucceſſion ſhould be inſtituted by God and grounded on his Word. But that Cardinal himſelf acknowledgeth, that God hath taken no order about it in his word, and that this point is not a matter of divine right, as in effect our Adverſaries alledge no divine teſtimony, nor one ſingle word of Scripture to prove that ſucceſſion. Theſe be the very words of that ſame Cardinal Jeſuite, in his ſecond book de Pontifice, in the twelfth chapter,(g)Obſervandum eſt, licet ſorte non ſit de jure divino Romanum Pontificem, ut Romanum. Pontificem, Petro ſuccedere; tamen id ad fidem Catholicam pertinere. Non enim eſt idem aliquid eſſe de fide & de juredivino. Nec enim de jure divino fuit ut Paulus haberet penulam; eſt tamen hoc ipſum de fide Paulum habuiſſe penulam. Et ſi autem Romanum Pontificum ſuccedere Petio non habeatur expreſſè in Scripturis, &c. We muſt obſerve (ſaith he) that although perhaps it is not a point of divine right, that the Roman Pope, as Roman Pope, be a ſucceſſor of Peter; yet that belongs to the Catholick faith: For to be of the faith, and to be of divine right, are not all one. It is not a thing of divine right, that Paul had a cloak; yet it is a point of faith, that Paul had a cloak. Then he doth ingenuouſly confeſs, That it is not found in Scripture, that the Roman Pope is ſucceſſor of Peter; tacitly acknowledging, that Saint Pauls cloak is far more certain then the Popes ſucceſſion, ſince Scripture ſpeaks of that cloak, but of that ſucceſſion not one word.
Every one that hath ſome liberty of Judgement, will eaſily acknowledge, that by this Doctrine, all Chriſtian Religion is blown up, and that the enemy of our ſalvation brings us this way ſtrait to Atheiſm, ſince they will have the authority of Scripture, and by conſequent that of Gods Law, and of the Doctrine of ſalvation contained in the Scripture, to be grounded upon the authority of the Church, and the authority of the Church upon the Popes authority, and the Popes authority upon his ſucceſſion to Saint Peters primacy; And that this ſucceſſion is not of divine right, as our Adverſaries confeſs, and is deſtitute of all teſtimonies of Gods Word. So that to come to the baſis of their building, it is found that they ground the certitude of the divine oracles upon an humane tradition, and ſuch a tradition as we have ſhewed to be falſe, and will further ſhew it hereafter.