Romanism Discussed, Treatise · Article 1 · Section 7
SECT. VII.
The Catalogue of H. T. is defective for the proof of his pretended ſucceſſion in the Roman Church, in the firſt three hundred years.
IN the firſt age he alledgeth Chriſt, and St. Peter the Apoſtle, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, and the Council of the Apoſtles at Hieruſalem, St. Peter preſiding Act. 15. as a general Council, and then he recites eleven Roman Biſhops from the year 100, and having ſaid ſomewhat for Peters preſiding, and the tranſlation of his chair from Antioch to Rome; he names ſome Catholick profeſſors to the year 100. and the ſpreading of the Church over all thoſe Countries; to which St. Paul wrote his Epiſtles and ſome others, as France, Spain, England, and ſome Catholick profeſſors to the year 200. with a falſly, ſo called Canon of the Apoſtles approved in the ſix…h General Synod.
Anſw. That all this is little to his purpoſe, appears by conſidering. 1 That it is manifeſtly falſe, which he ſuppoſeth. 1. That becauſe Chriſt is the chief Paſtor of the Catholick Church rightly ſo termed, and the Roman Church hath arrogantly uſurped the title of the Catholick Church, and the Pope is Biſhop of that See; therefore the Pope muſt be ſucceſſour to Chriſt in ſuch a peculiar manner, as no other Biſhop or Paſtor is; and that the title of Vicar of Chriſt belongs to him peculiarly, which is the title blaſphemouſly aſcribed to him by flattering Romaniſts. 2. That Chriſt hath a ſucceſſor in his Paſtoral office, though the Scripture aſcribe to Chriſt, becauſe of his living for ever, an office which paſſeth not to any other, as Aarons did, Heb. 7. 24. 3. That Peter is ſucceſſor to Chriſt in the Paſtoral office he had, and no other Apoſtle, or Biſhop beſides the Biſhop of Rome; though if there were any that could challenge ſucceſſion to Chriſt or Peter, it ſhould be rather the Biſhop of Jeruſalem the mother Church, if any, where Chriſt Preached, and as the Apoſtle and high Prieſt of our Profeſſion offered himſelf, being Miniſter of the circumciſion, Rom. 15. 8. and Peter was Apoſtle of the circumciſion, Gal. 2. 7. and Paul when he went to ſee him (which Romaniſts make an acknowledgement of ſuperiority) went to Jeruſalem, Gal. 1. 17. not to Rome, and if he were Preſident in the Council, Act. 15. as H. T. imagins, it was at Hieruſalem, not at Rome. 4. It is falſe, that either Chriſt, or Peter, or the Catholick Profeſſors he names in the firſt and ſecond ages, held the ſame profeſſion of Faith with the now Roman Church in the points, wherein the Proteſtants, who hold the Doctrine of the Church of England, do diſſent from them. 2. That if all were granted, H. T. which he ſaith about the ſucceſſion in the two firſt ages, yet it doth not amount to the proof of ſo much as one of the twenty eight Articles he holds in his Manual, or the Articles in Pope Pius the fourth his Creed, to have been held by any of them, not the Popes ſupremacy, tranſubſtantiation, invocation of Saints deceaſed, half communion, worſhipping of Images, &c. For Peter might be Preſident at the Council at Jeruſalem, he might tranſlate his chair from Antioch to Rome, it might be decreed lawful to appeal from other Biſhops to the Biſhop of Rome, chief honour might be given to the Biſhop of Rome; yet neither Peter nor the Biſhop of Rome the head, viſible Monarch or Ruler over the Apoſtles and the whole Church: mention might be made of oblation and ſacrifice, yet the maſſe no properly ſo called ſacrifice propitiatory for quick and dead. There's not a word in any of Chriſts, or John Baptiſts, or Peters, or Pauls, or James, or Johns, or Judes Sermons or writings, to prove any of the points of Popery, but enough to the contrary. Nor is there any of the reſt of the Martyrs or Confeſſors alledged of the two firſt ages, of whom he is able to produce any one ſentence of theirs, which may demonſtrate their acknowledging of any one of the points now held by the Romaniſts, which are by the Proteſtants forenamed contradicted: which will appear by conſidering the frivolouſneſs of what H. T. here produceth. Peter, ſaith he, defined, Act. 15. 7, 8, 9, 10. That the Jewiſh ceremonies were not to be impoſed on the Gentiles, therefore he had the premacy over the Apoſtles and the whole Church, as if the defining in a Council or Colledge did prove ſuperiority. By the ſame reaſon it might be proved that James had the premacy, ſith he ſpake leaſt, and according to his ſentence was the decree. Paphnutius in the Nicene Council, as Sozome…l 1. hiſt. c. 22. relates, when the Council was about to forbid Prieſts the uſe of wives, defined the contrary, and the Nicene Council approved it; was he therefore the primate over the other Biſhops in the Council? as in conſequence it is which H. T. adds: Hicrom ſaith, Peter was Prince and Author of the decree, therefore he had the primacy, that is the ſupreme headſhip over the Apoſtles and whole Church, though being [Prince and Author of the decree] imports no more, but to give ſentence firſt, according to which the decree was framed. But James who ſpake after, was he according to whoſe ſentence the decree was framed entirely, however Peter began before; ſo that by this reaſon James had the primacy, and not Peter. A like in conſequent is this, Peter remained not always at Antioch, as all that Church acknowledgeth, nor did ſhe ever challenge the firſt chair in any general Council, as appears in the Councils, ergo Peter tranſlated his chair from Antioch to Rome: riſum teneat is araici? As if Peter did always remain at Rome; or that becauſe we read not of Antioch's challenge, therefore it was not made, or as if the not challenging the firſt chair, were becauſe of Peters tranſlation of his chair from thence to Rome, whereas the very decree of the Chalcedon Council, Can. 28. gives Rome the firſt chair becauſe of the dignity of the City, not by reaſon of Peters ſupremacy, or tranſlation of his chair from Antioch to Rome, of the ſame ſort of inconſequence is the next. The Council of Sardis (Sardica in Illyria, Anno Domini 400. Weſtern Fathers 300. Eſtern 76.) decreed, that in caſes of Biſhops for honour of St. Peters memory, it ſhould be lawful to appeal from whatſoever Biſhop to the Biſhop of Rome, Can. 3. therefore the primacy was in Peter, and after him in the Biſhop of Rome. For, 1. This Council (whatever it were) was not in the firſt or ſecond ages. 2. Nor was it reckoned, no not by the Roman Church of old among O…cumenical Councils, much leſs by the Greeks who refuſed to be preſent, as Socrates relates, l. 2. c. 16. unleſs Athana…ius were removed for not yielding, whereto the Biſhops of the Eaſt met by themſelves at Philippi in Thracia, and made decrees apart ſaith Sozom. l. 3. c. 10. yea however in the late edition of the Councils at Paris, corrupt devices are uſed to gain the credit of a general Council to it, and for ſome advantage to the Papacy to make its Canons of authority: yet H. T. makes it to have had but ſeventy ſix Eaſtern Fathers, when there were three hundred Weſtern; and the ignorance of any general Councils eſtabliſhing appeals from Africa to Rome in the ſixth Council of Carthage, ſhews that it was not taken for an O…cumenical Council. 3. Nor doth the Canon it ſelf decree as H. T. ſets down, that the Biſhop of Rome ſhould have power to receive appeals, and to judge the cauſe, but in caſe of the depoſition of a Biſhop, they permit the Biſhop of Rome to deliberate whether the judgement ſhould be renewed, and then conſider whether he ſhould ſend ſome from his ſide who might be preſent at the renewed cognizance of it, and if it ſhould ſeem meet, alſo appoint judges out of a neighbouring Province: none of which give the Biſhop of Rome a judiciary power, but onelyonly a Directory. Nor was this to be extended to any other than thoſe of the weſtern countreys, the Africans and Greeks ever rejecting it. 4. The very canon it ſelf expreſſeth the reaſon of it, not any divine appointment, or ancient uſe, the Council of Nice having to the contrary, Can. 5. determined that ſuch controverſies ſhould be ended in a provincial Council, but it was then propoſed firſt by Hoſius, for honour of St. Peter's memory, and the laſt determination of the cauſe to be by a Council, Can. 13. & 14. No betis that which H. T. adds, The Council of Chalcedon, Anno 451. ſaid, All primary and chief honour according to the Canons was to be kept for the Archbiſhop of old Rome, therefore this is good evidence that in the firſt Age the primacy was in Peter and the Pope. For neither doth that Council held in the fifth Age mention what honour or primacy the Biſhop of Rome had in the two firſt Ages, nor doth it aſcribe to the Biſhop of Rome any ſuperiority, but doth expreſly in that very Canon aſcribe to the other Patriarchs equality with the Roman Biſhop in power, however he were firſt in order, and this was determined notwithſtanding the reluctancy of the Popes Legates. The reſt is as vain. Pope Antherus Anno 238. ſaid, Peter was changed from Antioch to Rome, Gregory in the ſixth Age ſaid, he knew no Biſhop, but is ſubject to the See of Rome, Epiſt. 62. Ergo, Peter and the Pope had the ſupreme Headſhip over the whole Church in the firſt Age. As if the counterfeit writing of a Pope in the third Age, or the ſaying of a Pope in the ſixth Age of what was then in uſe (though not true, ſith the Greek Biſhops to his knowledge were not ſubject) without telling them by what means it was ſo, were a ſufficient proof either of right or poſſeſſion in the firſt Age of ſo great a power as the Biſhop of Rome now claims, What he adds, that the (falſely ſo called) Canons of the Apoſtles define, that if any Biſhop or Prieſt (the oblation (H. T. …oyſts in the, word Maſs) being made) ſhall not communicate he ſhould be excommunicate, as giving ſuspition of him who hath ſacrificed that he hath not rightly offered, Can. 9. approved in the ſixth general Synod, therefore the Apoſtles profeſſed a ſacrifice properly ſo called propitiatory for quick and dead in the Maſs, is as frivolous. For neither were thoſe canons made by the Apoſtles, as many things in them ſhew, and if they were, private Maſſes uſed by Papiſts ſhould be condemned, nor doth it follow there is mention of a Sacrifice and Offering, therefore in the Maſs was Chriſt offered as a propitiatory Sacrifice properly ſo called, ſith it might be termed, as it is in many of the Ancients, an euchariſtical or commemorative Sacrifice, not a propitiatory Sacrifice, properly ſo called. This H. T. in the two firſt Ages brings for the proof of his Minor; let us go on to view his catalogue in the next Age.
He ſets down fifteen Biſhops of Rome, whereof the laſt Pope Marcellinus was condemned in a Council at Sinueſſa (if there were ſuch a Council) for his Idolatry, confeſſeth no Councils in the ſecond and third Ages, yet claims a Succeſſion of Popes, Martyrs, and Confeſſors ſufficient for his purpoſes, and then ſets down Decrees of eight Popes in their Epiſtles, which have been long ſince proved counterfeit by Dr. John Rainold confer. with Hart chap. 8. diviſ. 3. in which the Forger tells us, that Pope Anacletus decreed Anno Dom. 101. that Prieſts when they ſacrifice to our Lord muſt not do it alone, (which is againſt private Maſſes, and proves not a propitiatory ſacrifice properly ſo called in the Maſs) that the Apoſtles ſo appointed, and the Roman Church holds (if ſo then the Roman Church, which now holds private Maſſes, holds not the ſame tenet it did then) if more difficult queſtions ſhall ariſe, let them be referr'd to the Apoſtolick See (of Rome, which is H. T. his Addition) for ſo the Apoſtles have ordained by the commandment of our Lord (no where extant, nor any way probable) that Pope Alexander decreed, that Bread onelyonly and Wine mingled with Water ſhould be offered in the Sacrifice of the Maſs, that Pope Sixtus declared Anno 129. that the ſacred Myſteries and ſacred Veſſels ſhould not be touched but by ſacred Miniſters, and that the Priest beginning Maſs, the People ſhould ſing Holy! holy! holy! and that Teleſphorus commanded the ſeven Weeks of Lent …o be faſted, Epiſt. Decret. Anno Dom. 139. Pius in his Epiſtle to the Italians enjoyned Penance for him, by whoſe negligence any of the Blood of our Lord ſhould be ſpilt, Anno Dom. 147. Anicetus tells us, that James was made Biſhop of Jeruſalem by St. Peter, James and John, in his Decretal Epiſtle to the Biſhops of France. Soter decreed that no man ſhould ſay Maſs after he had eaten or drunk. Zepherinus decreed that the greater cauſes of the Church are to be determined by the Apoſtolick See, becauſe ſo the Apoſtles and their Succeſſors had ordained, Epiſt. to the Biſhops of Sicily, 217. And then H. T. adds, Theſe were all Biſhops of Rome, but no Proteſtants I hope. Which is a ridiculous paſſage, ſhewing his folly in triumphing inſolently over his Adverſaries upon ſuch frivolous Allegations. For, 1. who that knows thoſe times of Perſecution confeſſed by himſelf, p. 7. and therefore the ſecond and third Ages produced no Councils, in which many of the Popes were Martyrs, would imagine that they ſhould buſie themſelves in making Decrees about ſacred places, ſacred veſſels, hearing of greater cauſes, faſting in Lent, when they were in danger to be ſhut up in Priſons, neceſſitated to hide themſelves, wanted perhaps food of any ſort by reaſon of perſecution? 2. Or who that reades Authours of thoſe and other Ages does not perceive in thoſe Epiſtles the ſtyle and terms of far later Ages? 3. But were it ſuppoſed they were the genuine Epiſtles of thoſe Popes, yet there is no proof from thence of the now Roman faith held by them in the points gainſaid by Proteſtants, as v. g. Tranſubſtantiation, or the Popes viſible Headſhip over the whole Church. They might call the Euchariſt a Sacrifice, yet not properly ſo called propitiatory for quick and dead. Pius might call the ſpilling of Wine, ſpilling of Chriſts Blood, ſignified by it, as the Cup is termed the Blood of the New Teſtament, becauſe it is ſignified by it, Lent faſt, faſting afore Maſs, mingling Water and Wine might be appointed, yet no real ſubſtantial preſence of Chriſt's Body and Blood taught, the greater cauſes of the Church, and more difficult queſtions referred to the Apoſtolick See, and yet no ſupreme Headſhip over the whole Church deduced thence. As for the Tale of James his being made Biſhop of Jeruſalem by St. Peter, James, and John, it rather makes againſt Peter's Supremacy, than for it, fith in that no more is aſcribed to Peter than to James and John: ſo that we may grant him, that they were Popes of Rome, and yet aver they were true Proteſtants in reſpect of their Doctrine, though differing in frivolous ceremonies, if the Epiſtles alleged had been their own, (which is altogether improbable) and ſlight the folly of H. T. in triumphing afore the victory.
His catalogue of catholick Profeſſors to the year 300. is in like manner ridiculous, ſome of them being of the African, A…ian, and Greek Churches, that had no ſuch communion with the See of Rome as H. T. makes neceſſary to the being of a true Church; yea it is well known that Cyprian Biſhop of Carthage, and other African Biſhops oppoſed Stephen and Cornelius Biſhops of Rome about Appeals to Roms, and in the point of Rebaptization of the baptized by Hereticks, which was afterward determined by the authority of the Nicene Council, not by the bare authority of the Roman Biſhops. Nor is one word brought by H. T. that ſhews they held the ſame faith which the Roman Church now holds in oppoſition to the Proteſtants. Thus have I examined his catalogue for the firſt three hundred years, which were the beſt and pureſt times of the Church, as being the times of the ten great Perſecutions, and have not found the Succeſſion which H. T. aſſerts. Let's view the reſt.