Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 1 · Section 11
SECT. XI.
The defect of H. T. his catalogue of ſucceſſion in the thirteenth and fourteenth ages is ſhewed.
IN the thirteenth century are ſet down ſeventeen Popes as chief Paſtors, of whom the firſt is Gelaſius the ſecond, who was firſt in the former age; but I imagin, though it be not noted in the Errata, for Honorius the third who was a bloody Biſhop, as others before him, ſetting up Emperor againſt Emperor, cruel Friers againſt the godly Waldenſes, beſides other wicked acts he did. The like were Gregory the ninth, in whoſe time the bloody factions of Guelphs and Gibellius happened, and Innocent the fourth whom Robert Groſthead Biſhop of Lincoln withſtood, contemning his excommunication, and being dead was ſuch a terror to this wicked Pope as to haſten his death. Nicolas the third, whom H. T. makes the converter of the Pomeranians and Norwegians, raiſed the quarrel between Peter of Arragon and Charles of France for Sicily, whence grew the maſſacre of the French called the Sicilian Veſpers, and the laſt and worſt of them, Boniface the eighth is ſaid to have entred like a Fox, reigned like a Lyon, died like a dog. H. T. adds two general Councils: the fourth Lateran council (Fathers 1285.) Pope Innocent the third preſiding, Anno 1215. And tells us, that this Council deſined that the univerſal Church of the faithful, is one out of which no man is ſaved. Which definition we approve, and thereby the doctrin of the Proteſtants is confirmed; who teach, that the Catholick Church we believe, is the inviſible Church of true believers; and that the Catholick Church is not only the Roman Church, and thoſe who ſubject themſelves to the Biſhop of Rome, and profeſs the ſame faith with the now Roman Church: but all the believers who believe the doctrin of the Goſpel taught by Chriſt and his Apoſtles, though they neither know nor own the Roman Church in the things therein held againſt the Proteſtants, nor acknowledge any ſuperiority of the Biſhop of Rome, are members of the Catholick Church; and that it is not the Church of Rome (which is falſly called Catholick) out of which none can be ſaved, but the univerſal Church of the faithful; in which who ever is by true faith in Chriſt he may be ſaved, though he diſclaims the Biſhop of Rome as Antichriſt, and the faction or party joyning with him as the Synagogue of Satan; and conſequently, that it is not as H. T. ſaith in his Epiſtle to the Reader, the moſt important controverſie to know the notion and authority of the Church; but to know the true faith, by which alone the true Church is known; and it is a moſt impudent aſſertion, which H. T. takes on him in his firſt Article to maintain, that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God, unleſs he can prove none are believers but they. So that this very definition of the Lateran council is ſufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book, and to ſhew how heedleſs or impudent a writer he is.
H. T. tells us alſo that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profeſſion of faith, can. 1. that the true body and blood of Chriſt is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread being tranſubſtantiated by the divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood. Which is granted, if it be true, that the Council it ſelf did define any thing, and not Pope Innocent himſelf three years after the Council. Platina ſaith in his life, that many things then came into conſultation indeed, and yet not any thing could be openly decreed. But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed, it was a moſt bold and preſumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith, of which, as Bellarm. tom. 3. cont. l. 3, c. 23. confeſſeth. Scotus in quartum ſent. diſt. 11. q. 3. ſaid, that the tenent of tranſubſtantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council, and Scotus and Cameracenſis expreſly ſay, that neither by words of Scripture, nor by the Creeds, nor ſayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of tranſubſtantiation. And Cardinal Cairt. in 3. Aq. q. 75. art. 1. ſaith, that nothing out of the Goſpel doth appear to compel us to underſtand theſe words [this is my body] properly. To the ſame purpoſe John Fiſher Biſhop of Rocheſter, contra. capt. Babylon c. 1. For which reaſon Cuthbert Tonſtal l. 1. of the Euchariſt, p. 46. ſaid, perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture, concerning the manner of Chriſts body being in the Euchariſt, as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty, and therefore he was oſt heard to ſay, if he had been preſent at the Lateran Council, he would have endeavoured to perſwade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of tranſubſtantiation as an article of faith. And indeed the reaſon of the Council is ſo groſly abſurd, that had there been any underſtanding men at the making of the decree, it's likely it had not paſſed. For this reaſon they give of their decree, that to perfect the myſtery of unity we our ſelves may take of his what he received of ours, the bread being tranſubſtantiate into the body, the wine into blood by the divine power, intimates, 1. That the bread is tranſubſtantiate into the body and wine into the blood, not either into body and blood, and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood, nor is it ſaid to be tranſubſtantiate into it as an animate body, ſo that that determination makes it a tranſubſtantiation without life. 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours; which in plain ſenſe intimates, that Chriſt receives our body and blood by eating and drinking, as we do his. 3. It makes this the myſtery of our unity, as if the myſtery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this groſs Capernaitiſh Cannibalitiſh eating Chriſts very fleſh made from bread by a Prieſt, and drinking his very blood with our mouth, in drinking tranſubſtantiate wine. All which are ſuch groſs, irrational, unchriſtian abſurdities, as had not the age been blockiſh, and Popes and popiſh writers and people dementate, they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination.
H. T. adds, that the fourth Lateran Council, can. 1. defined in the profeſſion of faith, that no man can make this Sacrament, but a Prieſt rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors: which although it be otherwiſe in the text, Matth. 16. 19. expreſſeth, wherein the keys, not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven, are mentioned as given to Peter, not to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors; yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors, this would overthrow the Popes ſupremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys. For if Chriſt himſelf gave the keys of the Church to the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors, then not to Peter only and his ſucceſſors, but to other Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors as well as Peter, and conſequently according to their own principles to other Biſhops as well as the Biſhop of Rome. As for the definition of the Council, that none can make this Sacrament but a Prieſt, then it is to Prieſts only that it is ſaid [do this] (for from thoſe words he deduceth, p. 215. the power to make Chriſts body) but that is moſt abſurd, for then they only ſhould eat, the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread, being ſpoken not to the Prieſt conficient only, but to all the Apoſtles at table alſo, and if ſo, not only the cup ſhould be kept from the people, but the bread alſo, contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16, 17. & 11. 28.
H. T. tells us that they defined that baptiſm profits little ones as well as thoſe who are of riper years unto ſalvation, and condemned the hereſie of Abbas Joachim, which is nothing againſt the common tenet of the Proteſtants, though it be ſuſpected, that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man, whoſe reputed holineſs and free ſpeeches againſt the Popes and the clergy troubled them, he might have eſcaped that cenſure The definition concerning confeſſion and receiving at Eaſter are points of diſciplin, not part of the profeſſion of faith, and ſo impertinent to the preſent buſineſs.
H. T. mentions alſo the Council of Lyons (Fathers one hundred) Pope Gregory the tenth preſiding, Anno 1274. againſt the Grecians, which is nothing againſt the common tenet of the Proteſtants, and that which is added, this hitherto (ſaith the Council) the holy Roman Church (the mother and miſtris of all Churches) hath preach'd and taught, (beſides the non-ſenſe how frequently ſoever it be uſed of the Churches preaching and teaching, who preach not nor teach, but they are preached to and taught) it is but a piece of palpably falſe flattery, the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches, it being certain, that the Church of Jeruſalem was before that of Rome, and the Jeruſalem from above is ſtiled the mother of us all, Gal. 4. 26.
Among his Catholick profeſſors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis, Inſtitutors of their holy orders of Friers, but how they ſhould be Saints, whereof one was a bloody inſtigator of war againſt the innocent ſheep of Chriſt the Waldenſes, and the other an obſerver of humane inventions, with neglect of Gods command to work with his hands the thing that was good, that he might have to give to him that needs, and how they ſhould be called a holy order, who were like to the inſtitutors, but never appointed by God, I underſtand not. Many learned men in thoſe daies demonſtrated them to be no holy orders, but a company of men that promoted the Popes uſurpations and injuries, to the great miſchief of the Commonwealths and Churches of Chriſtians.
Of the Nations converted, the Emperour Caſſanes, with innumerable Tartarians were not converted by the Church of Rome, nor owned the Popes ſupremacy or faith, and therefore are no witneſſes for the Papacy.
In the fourteenth age ten Popes are ſet down, of whom moſt …te at Avignon in France, and ſo could not be Paſtors of the Church of Rome: one is Clement the fifth, who chained Francis Dandalus the Venetian Ambaſſador under his table to feed with dogs, and loſt at the pomp of his Coronation out of his mitre a carbuncle valued at ſix thouſand …orens. Another, John the twenty one, by others John the twenty ſecond, whom Bellarmin. de Pontifice Rom. l. 4. c. 14. confeſſeth to have thought that the ſouls ſhould not ſee God till after the reſurrection, though he adds a cold excuſe, as if he might ſo think then without danger of hereſie, becauſe no definition of the Church proceded: which is not true if he ſay rightly himſelf, l. 1. de eccl. triumph. c. 2. that the ſame, that is, that the ſouls ſee God afore the reſurrection, teacheth Innocent the third (who was one hundred years before John the twenty one, by H. T. his account) c. Apoſtolicam, extra, de Presbytero non Baptizat…. However, if there were no definition, it proves a Pope may teach hereſie, ſith John the twenty ſecond did earneſtly preſs this on the Pariſians, that they ſhould believe as he did. Of the reſt their unpeaceableneſs in their contention with the Emperor and among themſelves in their Schiſms, in which one Pope was ſet up againſt another; divers Popes at the ſame time, one owned by one, another by another, makes the ſucceſſion ſo uncertain, that even the Romaniſts diſagree in the ſucceſſion, ſome putting in Clement the ſeventh in this age, whom H. T. leaves out, ſome ſtanding for one, ſome for others as the right Popes. Beſides their cruelty and covetouſneſs, p…ove them rather Butchers than Paſtors of the Church of Chriſt.
H. T. adds one general Council of Vienna (Fathers three hundred) Pope Clement the fifth preſiding, Anno Domini 1311. in which he tells us, the Council defined baptiſm to be neceſſary for infants, condemned the Begards and Beguines, who held carnal luſt done out of temptation to be no ſin, and that we ought not to ſhew reverence at the elevation of the body of Chriſt, which laſt alone is againſt Proteſtants in common. But the Council whether provincial or general, being ſwayed by a proud prelate, Clement the fifth, its no marvel it ſhould make ſuch decrees as then were made.
As for the Catholick Profeſſors, there is ſcarce a man of any note, but Iro a Canoniſt, whoſe profeſſion will be of little weight with conſiderate men. That an Emperour of Ruſſia, if made a Chriſtian, did embrace the Romiſh Religion, and ſubmit to the Pope, is not likely. The reſt of the Nations converted, H. T. proves not to have been converted from Rome, or to have held communion with the Pope, if they did, it avails little to prove H. T. his Minor, that ſuch rude people did ſo.