A Trial of the Romish Clergys Title to the Church, Text and commentary · Quoted chapter 16 · Commentary 8
A. W.
That Apoſtolickneſſe, which is a marke of the true Church, is as I ſhewed Chap. 15. an agreement and ſuceſſion in doctrine, with and to the Apoſtles; not as you would hauehave it, a perſonall deſcent from them. And therfore your reaſon againſt our Churches, is naught.
EueryEvery Apoſtolicke Church (ſay you) can deriue the pedegree of their preachers lineally, without interruption, from the Apoſtles.
The Proteſtant Churches cannot ſo deriue their pedegree.
Therefore the Proteſtant Churches are not Apoſtolicke.
Your maior is euidently falſe, becauſe otherwiſe ſome church To the propoſition.profeſſing the true faith, and not keeping record of the ſucceſſion of their teachers, might be held not to be Apoſtolicall. But zTertul. de praeſcrip. ca. 32.Tertullian affirmeth the contrary directly, that thoſe Churches which agree with the Apoſtles in faith, though they can alledge no Apostle or Apoſtolicke man for their firſt founder, yet are neuer the leſſe to be counted Apostolicall, becauſe of their conſent in doctrine. And indeed it is both impious and abſurd, to denie any Church to be Apoſtolicall, that holdeth that faith, by the preaching whereof the Apoſtles planted Churches.
Your minor alſo is vntrue: becauſe it is wel known, that if you hauehave any ſuch ſucceſſion amongſt you, we hauehave it too. For Luther, To the Aſſumption.Caluin, and ſome other of our Diuines, were ordered by biſhops of your church. Concerning Luther, what reaſonable mā can be ſo abſurd, as to think that Luther wold make any mā beleeue, that the Goſpel was firſt preached by himſelf: whereas he continually appeals for the proof of his doctrine to the writings of the Prophets and the Apoſtles? But Luther might truly ſay, that he was the firſt which had in thoſe times publiſhed Chriſt; eſpecially in the chiefe point of the Goſpell, which is, iuſtification by faith in Chriſt. And in this reſpect it is an honor to Luther, to hauehave bin a ſon without a father, and a diſciple without a maſter: and no more glory to your Popiſh Biſhops and Prieſts, to hauehave had ſo long a ſucceſſion in error and hereſie, then for the Arians to hauehave bene able to reckon vp ſo many Biſhops of their faction. Vincentius acknowledgeth a ſucceſſion, continued though ſecretly, Vincen. Lyrin.from Simon Magus to Priſcilian.
Let vsus ſee' now whether you bring any better reaſon for your ſelues, then you hauehave done againſt vsus: They are euen much about one.
That Church which can ſhew a line all ſucceſsion of her Biſhops, without interruption, from the Apostle Peter to Cloment now liuing, is Apoſtolicke.
But the Church of Rome can ſhew ſuch a ſucceſsion, without interruption.
Therefore the Church of Rome is Apoſtolicke.
cTertul. de praeſc. cap. 32.Tertullian thought it ſufficient to proue the hereticks not to To the Propoſition.be Apostolicke, that their doctrine agreed not with the Apoſtles. And dAmbroſ. de paenit. cap. 6.Ambroſe truly affirmed, that they hauehave not the inheritance of Peter, which hauehave not the faith of Peter. He (ſaith eGreg. Naziā. de laudib. Athanaſ.Nazianzen) that profeſſeth the ſame doctrine of faith, is partaker of the ſame throne. But he that embraceth contrary doctrine, muſt be thought an aduerſary, euen in the throne. He may hauehave the name, but the other hath the truth of ſucceſſion. Therefore fIren. lib. 4. cap. 43.Irenaeus ſaith plainly, that thoſe Biſhops onelyonly are to be obeyed, who together with ſucceſsion hauehave the truth. But of this I ſpake before, Chap. 15.
Where there is no beginning, what continuance or ſucceſſiō To the Aſſumption.can there be? Is not the queſtion, whether Peter were euer at Rome or no, full of doubt? Are you able in any ſort to reſolue it by Scripture? vnleſſe perhaps we may ſay, that he neuer came there, becauſe it is no where plainly ſet downe, nor probably to be gathered from thēce, that euer Saint Peter was at Rome. But it is more vnlikely, that euer he was Biſhop of Rome. I might go forward, to aske you who was his ſucceſſor, Linus or Clement: which is a point not agreed vponupon by auncient writers. Since that time, you hauehave had 32. ſchiſmes in your Church, ſometimes two, ſometimes three Popes at once, that your ſucceſſion cannot be ſo cleare as you would make it.
To proue your minor, you tell vsus, that the auncient Fathers did much eſteeme ſucceſsion from the Apoſtles, and vſed it as an argument to confound the hereticks, and to confirme themſelues in the vnitie of the Catholicke Church. Who denieth that ſucceſſion is to be eſteemed, and that it hath ſome force to confute and confirme? But what ſucceſſion is it, that is of ſuch price & force? Perſonall ſucceſſion alone without truth? VVe heard ere while, what Tertullian, Irenaeus, Nazianzen and Ambroſe ſay concerning ſucceſſion, that without truth it deſerueth no credit. Yea gBellar. de Eccle. mil. l. 4. c. 8 §. Dicoſecundòſome of your owne writers confeſſe, that an argument from ſucceſſion doth not hold affirmatiuely, as if there were a true Church, whereſoeuer there is ſucceſſion.
VVherby doth Irenaeus confound hereſies? by ſhewing a perſonall ſucceſſion of Biſhops from the Apoſtles? VVhat could that helpe the matter, vnleſſe he be alſo able to proue that the doctrine he maintaines, hath come ſucceſſiuely from the Apoſtles by them? He ſpeaks plaine enough, hIren. li. 3. c. 3We confound all errors by the doctrine of the Apoſtles, and the faith preached to men by thē. Let not the word tradition trouble any man. iLib. 3. cap. 1Irenaeus for that expounds himſelfe where he ſaith, that the Apoſtles firſt preached the Goſpell, and afterward by the will of God kTradideruntdeliuered it to vsus in the Scriptures, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith. The continuance of this doctrine, by ſucceſſion, is vſed by Irenaeus as a motiue to perſwade men to the liking of that truth which had receiued ſo good acceptation, and was warranted by ſo good authority, as the teaching of the Apoſtles themſelues. In a word Irenaeus ſaith, that hereſies might then be refuted, by ſhewing that they who had bene ordained Bb. by the Apoſtles and their ſucceſſors, continued in the doctrine receiued, without any approbation of ſuch hereticall fancies.
lAuguſt. contr. epiſt. Fundam. cap. 4Auſtin (you ſay) was held in the Church (as himſelfe profeſſeth) by the ſucceſſion of Prieſts from the verie ſeat of Peter. And why ſhould he not be held by that, rather thē leaue the Church for the dreames of the Manichees? VVe ſay, as Auſtin did, that ſuch a ſucceſſion is a better proof of the Church, then their bare promiſe of truth; eſpecially ſince (as the ſame mAuguſt. breuic. collat.Auſtin ſheweth otherwhere) they wold hauehave their word to be takē, as you now would hauehave yours, for ſufficient proofe. But Auſtin in the verie ſame place you alledge, addeth withall, that if they could ſhew that the truth was on their ſide, he would preferre it before ſucceſſion; and whatſoeuer other reaſon, that made him continue a member of the Church. In this ſenſe did thoſe other ancient writers eſteeme and vrge ſucceſſion, whoſe names you muſter to ſmall purpoſe, but onelyonly for ſhew of authoritie.
Concerning that ſpeech of nAthan. contra Arian. orat. 2Athanaſius, be not ſo iniurious either to him or your ſelues, as to preſſe his teſtimony to ſo leud a purpoſe. Would you hauehave men thinke that he which refuted and confounded Arius and his complices by ſo many and ſo worthy proofes out of the holy Scriptures, would condemne not onelyonly other men, but himſelfe alſo for deriuing his faith in that point from the Scriptures? But though you care not what become of all the Fathers, ſo your Popery may flouriſh: yet like a reaſonable man, conſider what a terrible blow you giuegive your owne cauſe. Is there no other marke of the Church but ſucceſſion? Then, by oBellar. de eccle. mil. l. 4. c. 8Bellarmines iudgement, there is none at all; who allowes it not, as a certaine light, to ſhew vsus the Church. But what wants it of blaſphemy, to pronounce men to be hereticks for making the Scriptures the foundation of their faith: to which purpoſe pIren. li. 3. c. 1Irenaeus ſaith that they were left? And I pray you, anſwer me directly, why it ſhould not be as lawful for me to groūd my faith vponupon the beginning of this ſucceſſion in the Apoſtles, as vponupon the continuance of it in other men. Yet might Athanaſius well ſay, concerning that point of our Sauiour Chriſts Godhead, that he was to be counted an hereticke, that ſhould deriue the beginning of his faith from any other ground then the whole ſucceſſion: wherein the Apoſtles were comprehended, and whoſe doctrine the Churches of Chriſt till that time, in that matter had followed. But how will you proue out of this place of Athanaſius, that this ſhould be a mark to diſcerne hereticks by alwaies? It was then an excellent and admirable argument in that point, not of it owne nature, but becauſe the truth had ſucceſſiuely bene held till thoſe times.
How will you anſwer qBellarm. vbi ſupra.Bellarmine, who affirmes confidently and truly, that truth goes not alwaies with ſucceſſion? For if it did, why ſhould not ſucceſſion be a certaine mark of a true Church? But Bellarmine ſaith, it is not. You tell vsus, that otherwiſe the ordinance of Paſtors made by our Sauiour Chriſt, ſhall be fruſtrate of the effect intended by him.
What? vnleſſe there be truth whereſoeuer there is ſucceſſion? Then can it not come to paſſe, that any Paſtor hauing lawfull ordination, can erre. For if one may, for all the priuiledge of ſucceſſion, doubtles ſucceſſion doth not by the nature of it, free a man from erring. But they cannot all vniuerſally erre. What is that to purpoſe, vnleſſe this impoſſibilitie of erring proceed from ſucceſſion? Let vsus draw your reaſon into forme, that we may the better ſee the force or weakneſſe of it.
If our Sauiour hauehave appointed a ſucceſsion of Paſtors, that the Church may not be caried away with eueryevery blaſt of doctrine, then ſucceſsion and truth go together.
But our Sauiour hath appointed Paſtors to that purpoſe.
Therefore ſucceſsion and truth go together.
Now the weakneſſe of your reaſon eaſily bewrayes it ſelfe: To the propoſition.the conſequence of your maior is ſo feeble. rSee my anſwer to 12. art. part. 1. art. 5.Shall I ſhew it you euidently in a like matter?
If God appointed Dauid and his ſucceſſors to rule his people according to his wil and word, that they might truly ſerue him: then whoſoeuer ſucceeded Dauid, did ſo rule, and the people ſo ſerued God.
But God did appoint Dauid and his ſucceſſors to that end.
Therefore whoſoeuer ſucceeded Dauid, did ſo rule, and the people ſo ſerued God.
I ſhall not neede to make any further anſwer to your maior, vnleſſe perhaps I may bring the like reaſon from Gods appointing a ſucceſſion of Prieſts and Leuites in the Church of the Iewes, to the very ſame end, that the people might know and do his will: which intent of his notwithſtanding was often made voyde both by Prieſts and people. Yet do not we ſay, that the world hath at any time bene without true Paſtors, and their flockes in ſome one place or other, in a greater or leſſe number, who hauehave taught and beleeued the true faith of Ieſus Chriſt in all points fundamentall: without diſtinct beleefe whereof, no man can be ſaued. But we denie, that either all or any Paſtor hath this priuiledge, becauſe of his ſucceſſion: yea ſD. Sutcliffe againſt D. Kelliſons ſuruey: pag 5.we affirme, that a Chriſtian congregation, where the ordinarie meanes cannot be had, may chuſe and authorize any man able and fit to teach, for their Miniſter; and the truth of God may be in ſuch companies preſerued, without any plea of not erring, by reaſon of ſucceſſion eſtabliſhed, by vertue of our Sauiours appointment.
To tGreg Nazian. de cōpoſ. diſſerēd rat. orat. 7. In Eccleſiis.that of Nazianzen I anſwered before: he ſpeaketh not of the vniuerſall Church, as you falſly auouch, but of ſeuerall congregations, as his very words ſhew: Order (ſaith he) hath decreed in Churches (not in the vniuerſall Church) that the flocke and the Pastor ſhould be diuers, the flocke one thing, the Pastor another: or that ſome ſhould be the flocke, otherſome the ſhepheards.
You may ſay what you will, and be neuer a whit the nearer, if you bring no better proofe then yet you hauehave done. uAuguſt. in Pſal. contra partem Donat.Saint Auguſtine biddeth the Donatiſts number the Prieſts, and ſee who hauehave ſucceeded one another in the Biſhopricke of Rome. What conclude you from thence? That the Church of Rome was at that time Apoſtolicke, in regard of perſonall ſucceſſion. Who denieth it? But it followeth not hereupon, either that it is ſtill in that ſort Apostolicke, about which we will not ſtriue; or (which is the principall matter) that it hath therefore ſuch Apostolickneſſe as is required to make a true Church: namely truth of doctrine; which muſt needs be meant by Auguſtine, in the words that immediatly follow: That is the rocke, againſt which the proud gates of hell preuaile not. For it is more then abſurd, to make perſonall ſucceſſion the rocke, on which the Church is builded, and againſt which hell gates cannot preuaile. It was a likely argument againſt the Donatiſts, that in ſo long a ſucceſſion there had bene neuer a Donatiſt: which Saint Auguſtine himſelfe in another place concludeth, after he hath reckoned vp all the Romane Biſhops, from Linus to Anaſtaſius then liuing. In the ranke of this ſucceſſion (ſaith xAuguſt. epiſt. 165.Auguſtine) there is not one Biſhop found that was a Donatiſt.
This teſtimonie of Irenaeus was neuer of your owne reading in him, as the corrupt alledging of it perſwadeth me. I will ſet it downe as it is yIren. l. 3. ca. 3.in the author himſelfe. zOrdinatione & ſucceſſione.By this ordination and ſucceſſion (ſaith Irenaeus) the tradition of the Apoſtles hath come to vsus: And aHaec oſtenſio.this is a moſt full demonſtration, that bFidem eſſe.it is one and the ſame quickning faith, cConſeruata & tradita in veritate.which hath bene preſerued and truly taught in the Church, from the Apoſtles till now. What one word or letter is there in this ſentence, to prooue, that your Church of Rome, at this day, is Apoſtolicke, or that bare perſonall ſucceſſion is enough, to make a Church Apoſtolicke? Rome, in Irenaeus time was an Apoſtolicall Church, becauſe it had preſerued, and truly taught ſucceſſiuely, Biſhop after Biſhop, the doctrine which was deliuered by the Apoſtles. Is it therefore Apoſtolicke now, when it hath ouerthrowne the verie foundation of the Apoſtles doctrine?
I maruell what Apoſtolicke Churches they are, with which you communicate, whereas you ſay, that there is no Church, that hath ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles but yours? dProfeſſ. fidei per Monach. Burdegal. art. 60.Your Monks of Burdeaux draw the vniuerſall Church to the communion of the Romiſh Church. It was indeed a teſtimonie of the truth, to communicate with the Apoſtolicke Churches, eTertul. de praeſcript. c. 21in Tertullians time, while the truth was, for the ſubſtance of it, preſerued amongſt them. But let vsus apply this to our purpoſe: what would you prooue by it? that the Church of Rome is Apoſtolicke? Here is no mention, nor thought of your Church in particular. But Tertullian ſaith, it is a teſtimonie of truth, for a man to communicate with the Apoſtolicke Churches. It was then a teſtimonie, but now thoſe Churches are decayed: or if ſome of them remaine amongſt the Grecians, wil you grant that all they hold is true? How will you prooue, that Tertullians generall ſpeech belongeth more to your Church, then to thoſe of the Greeks? fTertul. de praeſcript. cap. 32.Tertullian telleth you afterward, that contrarietie to the Apoſtles doctrine, may conuince Churches not to be Apoſtolicke, though they alledge ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles. But his opinion may ſufficiently appeare by that, which hath bene formerly alledged out of him: and the truth of this whole queſtion, by your diſcourſe, and my anſwer to it.