Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 1 · Section 6
SECT. VI.
The ſucceſſion pretended to be in the Roman Church, proves not the verity of the Roman Church, but the contrary.
BU… H. T. contenting himſelf to have ſet down theſe Texts, leaves the Reader to extract what he can out of them, and paſſeth on to the proof of his minor, That the Church now in communion with the See of Rome, and no other, has had a continued ſucceſſion from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time; which according to his meaning, is as if he had ſaid, The Church either in Rome, or Italy, or Spain, or France, or Germany, or Poland, or any other part of the world, which hath owned the Pope and his doctrine, and been ſubject to his rule, and no other, has had a continued ſucceſſion of Biſhops, Prieſts, and Laicks, profeſſing the ſame faith with the now Biſhop of Rome, ſo conſpicuous as that there may be a catalogue of ſuch produced out of good records, and no other can do ſo. So that then if he proves his Minor, he muſt prove, 1. That church to have this ſucceſſion continued. 2. That no other hath. Which he takes on him to do, by a catalogue of the Roman churches chief Paſtors, Councils, Nations converted, and publique Profeſſors of her Faith. But his catalogue proves not that which it is brought for. For 1. many hundreds of years there hath been no one of the Roman Popes, or very few, who have been Paſtors at all in the church of God; they have been Stateſmen, have meddled with the civil affairs of many kingdoms, diſturbed the Empire and many Kingdoms, advanced their baſe ſons, who are tearmed their nephews, and their kindred, made wars with chriſtian Princes; but have not preached the Goſpel, nor expounded the Scriptures to the people, though even the Council of Tre…t decree, Seſſ…. de reform. c. 1. Seſſ. 23. de reform. c. 1. that they ought to be reſident, becauſe they ought to feed their flock with the Word, with Sacraments, with Prayers, and good Works, which is the onelyonly feeding which can denominate men paſtors of the church of God. But the Popes have for a long time ſhewed themſelves neither to have skill nor will thus to feed the flock by preaching the Goſpel, but uſe to ſtay the flock of Chriſt by their Bulls, Excommunications, and Inquiſitions. 2. Of thoſe he reckons up, p. 32. from the year 1300. five or ſix of them cannot be termed the Roman churches Paſtors, but hire…ings, which forſook it, they being abſent from Rome, and inhabiting Avignon in France, many hundred miles from Rome, ſeventy years together. 3. Some of them who are reckoned in the catalogue could not be Paſtors at their entry, one, to wit, Benedict. the ninth, being a boy almoſt ten years old, as Baronius terms him, Ann. 1033. num. 6. Another, John the thirteenth, a lad eighteen years old at moſt, as Baronius, Ann. 955. num. 2. & 3. reckons, when they firſt were Popes. And if a great many of their own beſt Writers in their times do not bely them, there was one of the Popes a woman, and ſate ſome years as Pope. 4. Their ſucceſſion is a very uncertain thing. For 1. It is certain that Jeſus Chriſt was never Paſtor of the Roman church, as Biſhop there ſeated; and it is very audaciouſly, if not blaſphemouſly done by H. T. to reckon him as chief Paſtor of the Roman church, and to make Peter and others as Succeſſors to him in his paſtoral Office, as if it were ceaſed in his own Perſon, and transferred to another as his Succeſſor. Nor is it likely that Peter was ever at Rome, or Biſhop there, notwithſtanding ſome of the Ancients by uncertain tradition have conceived he was. For neither were the Apoſtles ſettled any where as Biſhops of one place, nor were they to be, it being againſt their commiſſion, and peculiar work of planting churches in many places. And Peter being the Apoſtle of the circumciſion, Gal. 2. 7. and his being many years in the parts about Judea (of which the Scripture makes expreſs mention) it is very improbable that he was at Rome at all, certainly not ſo as to ſit there as Biſhop ſo many years, as ſome Writers do write of him. And it is more likely, if any where, he was Biſhop of Antioch, where it is certain he was, Gal. 2. 11. and as good authority there is of his being Biſhop there, as of his being Biſhop of Rome, and therefore the ſucceſſion to Peter was rather to be there than at Rome; nor is there any proof of tranſlation of Peter's See from Antioch to Rome. 2. Concerning the ſucceſſion after Peter, there is ſo much uncertainty, as may ſhew how miſerable a people they muſt needs be, who have no better proof for their church than ſuch uncertain ſucceſſion. For 1. There is no certainty, but difference among their own Writers, who was next after, whether Linus or Clemens, or whether both together, and the like concerning the order of Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens, as may be ſeen in Platina and Onuphrius, and others. 2. It is manifeſt, that the ſucceſſion hath been through diſſention about the election ſometimes a great while interrupted, as Baronius confeſſeth, Ann. 853. num. 63. It hath fallen out, that the See of Rome hath been void above two years and five moneths, the election being delayed through contention. 3. There have been many Schiſms, very near thirty, in which there have been two or three Popes at once, one oppoſing, curſing and condemning the other, and no clear certainty who was the right Pope, Nations and Princes being divided, ſome adhering to one, ſome to another. 4. A great part of their ſucceſſion, even by the confeſſion of their own Writers, is of Monſters, as they term them, more truly to be termed devils incarnate rather than men, ſo abominably wicked, that hell hath not worſe in it, not worthy of the name of Chriſtians, much leſs of Paſtors of the church of God, not worſe ſurely in any church, I think not the like for wickedneſs any where; ſo that the ſucceſſion of ſuch Paſtors is fitter to prove the Roman party a Synagogue of Satan, the very ſeat of Antichriſt, than the onelyonly true church of God. Methinks no man that thinks well of Chriſt, ſhould imagine he would truſt the Government of the Univerſal church with ſuch men, but rather if he intended to commit that care to any one, have choſen a better race than the Popes have been to manage it. 5. Their ſucceſſion is alſo by their own Writers ſaid to be with ſuch wicked practices of poyſoning predeceſſors, corrupting Cardinals, power of notorious whores, dealing with the devil, Simony and bribes, fightings and bloodſhed, as proves them Succeſſors to Nero, rather than to Peter. So that if a man would draw an Argument to prove the Roman church to be the Mother of barlots and abominations of the earth (as Rome is ſtiled, Rev. 17. 5. by the confeſſion of their own Writers) the ſtory of the ſucceſſion of the Popes and their lives, might convince one that is not bewitched with their ſorceries, that ſuch hath been for many hundred years together the Church of Rome. 6. It is alſo falſe, that thoſe he calls cheif Paſtors, have had a continued ſucceſſion in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith with the now Roman, ſith it is not denied, that Pope Liberius joyning with the Arians, and ſubſcribing to the condemnation of Athanaſius, (as Hierom in his Chronicle and Catalogue of writers, in that of Fortunatianus teſtifies) did, as Bellarmin acknowledgeth, l. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 9. by interpretation, if not expreſly, conſent to the Arian hereſie: and Pope Honorius the firſt in the ſixth Synod at Conſtantinople, Act. 12. & 13. Pope Agatho being Preſident, was condemned as a Monothelite by hundreds of Biſhops, and after by other Synods; beſides what is charged on ſundry other Popes even by Popiſh writers, as Anaſtaſius, John the 22. &c. As for H. T. his Catalogue of Councils, Nations converted, and publick Profeſſors of the Romiſh Faith; it proves much leſs, that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome, has had a continued ſucceſſion of Biſhops, Prieſts and Laicks, ſucceeding one another in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith, with the now Roman Church from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time. For, 1. According to his own allegation, the agreement of profeſſion is never in any age entirely the ſame in points of Faith, afore the ſixteenth Century and the Trent Council. In all the ages before, the moſt he can produce is, that after the five or ſixth firſt Centuries, ſome in each age held ſome of the points now held by the Papiſts, but denied by Proteſtants; the moſt we can find in the firſt ages, is ſome agreement in rites, and ſome priviledges of the Roman Biſhop, taken either from forged writings impoſed on the firſt Popes, or ſome ſayings of Fathers miſinterpreted. 2. He confeſſeth ſundry ages, to wit, the ſecond and third produced no Councils; and that he finds no general council nor yet provincial in the tenth age, in which any controverſie of moment was decided. 3. Of thoſe Councils he doth produce, there is no one general Council alleged in the four firſt Centuries, which was held at Rome, or did acknowledge ſubjection to the Biſhop of Rome, as now they require, and they being all or moſt of them of the Greek▪ Church, which did and doth yet deny ſuch communion with the See of Rome, as H. T. means, it is falſly ſaid, that they prove his continued ſucceſſion in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome. 4. For the Nations converted and Chriſtian profeſſors in his Catalogue, there were few of them Romans or converted by any from Rome, or had any acquaintance with the Roman Church or Biſhops; and therefore to make them witneſſes of a ſucceſſion of Biſhops, Prieſts and Laicks in the profeſſion of the ſame Faith continued from Chriſt and his Apoſtles to this time in the Church now in communion with the See of Rome, is extreme impudence and vanity: nevertheleſs let's view his Catalogue.