A Learned Treatise of Traditions, Treatise · Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. The ſecond marke ſet by our Adverſaries, to diſtinguiſh the good Traditions from the bad, to wit, Succeſsion.
To diſcerne the good Traditions from the bad, our Adverſaries agree, that thoſe ought to be held for divine and Apoſtolicall, which are received by the Churches that derive their ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles.
This marke hath no more certainty then the former, and maketh as much againſt our Adverſaries. The doubtfulneſſe of it is manifeſt in this, that the Churches of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Epheſus, of Theſſalonica, of Candia, &c. (which are contrary to the Romiſh Church, and more ancient) doe boaſt themſelves to bee of equall ſucceſſion, and one part of them challengeth a ſucceſſion from Saint Peter: yea before the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch did ſuffer any interruption, by the perſecutions of the Mahumetans, they were often in diſcord with the Church of Rome, and were not in any wiſe ſubject unto it: and more particularly, the Church of Theſſalonica founded upon Saint Paul, and the Church of Candia where Saint Paul eſtabliſhed Titus, (from whom deſcended the Biſhops of Candia) keepe a ſucceſſion from the Apoſtles, which never was interrupted, and hath continued ſince the time of Chriſt, who ſpeaking from heaven, ſent the Apoſtle Saint Paul; yet notwithſtanding theſe Churches are ſeparated from a communion with the Church of Rome, and the Pope holdeth them for Schiſmatickes and Heretikes.
As for the Biſhop of Rome, ſo many ſchiſmes dividing, and ſo many hereſies tainting his Seat, (as our Adverſaries themſelves confeſſe, and we have elſewhere proved) have long ſince broken the ranke of this imaginary ſucceſſion.
Alſo the uncertainty of this ſucceſſion betrayeth it ſelfe, in that it is a meere tradition, ſo as if the ſervice of Images, or the Communion under one kinde, be founded upon ſucceſſion; behold then Traditions founded upon a Tradition, and this Tradition founded upon humane hiſtories, which may miſtake, yea often doe jarre and diſagree: wherefore this is an uncertainty founded upon another uncertainty, as atomes and motes carried upon the aire.
But how ſhall a Mechanicke, or a woman know this ſucceſſion? How ſhall they be aſſured that the ſecond Biſhop of Rome hath beleeved in the points of Religion as the firſt, the third as the ſecond, the fourth as the third, and ſo for ſixteene hundred yeeres, though there never might have happened any alteration? Who doth not perceive that theſe men, by a palpable falſhood invent projects, wherof they know that the knowledge is impoſſible, and wherein the ſearch is a labour in vaine, to the end that the ignorant finding themſelves muffled up in darkneſſe, may catch hold and graſpe the hand, which theſe men ſtretch forth to them, to be conductours of their blindneſſe?
Yet let us briefly obſerve, what this ſucceſſion of the Church of Rome may ſignifie or bee: they bring us clauſes of ancient Authours, reporting the Biſhop of Rome to be Saint Peters Succeſſor; and ſhew a Nomenclature of the Biſhops from Saint Peter to this day: but we finde that the ancients make ſuch another Catalogue of the Biſhops of Ieruſalem, and of Antioch, whoſe ſucceſſion is of greater antiquity then that of the Biſhops of Rome. The Biſhops of Alexandria likewiſe draw out their ſucceſſion from Saint Peter. But our Adverſaries will not have this ſucceſſion to be eſteemed, for (ſay they) thoſe Churches are hereticall, and yet the ſame Churches alſo call the Church of Rome hereticall and ſchiſmaticall. Herein then lieth the point of difficulty, the ancients reckon up the Succeſſours of Saint Peter, and other Apoſtles in Iernſalem, in Antioch, at Rome, and at Alexandria: but they meane not they ſhould bee Succeſſours of the Apoſtles in the Apoſtleſhip, they meane onelyonly in the governement of ſuch and ſuch a particular Church, planted by one of the Apoſtles. So, putting the caſe that Saint Peter founded the Church of Rome, and was there Biſhop, (which nevertheleſſe is doubtfull and miſtruſted) I will alſo agree that the Biſhops of Rome of the firſt ages have beene Succeſſours to Saint Peter, but in the Biſhopricke of the Church of the city of Rome onelyonly. In the ſame manner as Simon was Succeſſame manner to Saint Iames the Apoſtle in the Biſhopricke of Ieruſalem, and Timothy Succeſſour to Saint Paul in the Biſhopricke of Epheſus, but not in his Apoſtleſhip.
Our Adverſaries profit nothing by their allegations, if they prove not firſt by teſtimonies both divine and irrefragable, that God hath ordained Saint Peter to have a Succeſſour in his Apoſtleſhip, and that the Biſhop of Rome was Succeſſour to Saint Peter, in the dignity of the head of the univerſall Church. For ought not this ſucceſſion to have come from God? Did God eſtabliſh a ſupreame and ſucceſſive head over the Church of all the world, without making any mention of it in his word? And did Saint Peter himſelfe forget to ſpeake of this ſucceſſion, from whence we have two long Epiſtles? See then whereupon we ſtand, and how our Adverſaries are taken. All their Religion is founded upon this Tradition, to wit, that the Pope hath beene ordained from God, to bee the Succeſſour of Saint Peter, in the charge of head of the univerſall Church; hereunto they bend their force, this is the ſcope of all the controverſies. And yet concerning this Tradition, they cannot produce one poore divine truth, nor one ſingle word out of the word of God: yea, when it commeth to humane teſtimonies, it is apparant that they are contrary to this Monarchicall ſucceſſion of the Pope of Rome.
In one thing our Adverſaries finde themſelves much incumbred: We demand of them, when they ſpeake of a ſucceſſion, whether they underſtand it of perſons without ſucceſſion of doctrine, or of a ſucceſſion of perſons in the ſame doctrine: If they underſtand a ſucceſſion of perſons, ſitting in the ſame chaire, without ſucceſſion of doctrine, this ſucceſſion is impious, ſerving for a title of ſucceſſion to make warre againſt God. Hee that corrupteth the Doctrine of his Predeceſſors, ſucceedeth themforeign. as ſickneſſe ſucceedeth health, and darkneſſe light; ſo Gregory of Nazianzene ſpeaketh in his Oration upon Athanaſius: To have the ſame Doctrine (ſaith he) is to have the ſame Seat; but to have a contrary Doctrine, is to have a contrary Seat: one hath the name, the other hath the truth of the ſucceſsion, &c. Vnleſſe a man will call it ſucceſsion, when the maladie ſucceedeth health, and darkneſſe the light.
But if our Adverſaries ſpeaking of ſucceſſion, underſtand it of perſons, not only in the ſame Chaire, but alſo in the ſame Doctrine, this ſucceſſion is excellent, and a ſingular ornament in a Church: no man can erre in adhering to ſuch a ſucceſſion, for it carrieth conformity of Doctrine with the Apoſtles: and before this ſucceſſion can bee knowne, it is behovefull to be inſtructed in the writings of the Apoſtles, and in their Doctrine.
Such a ſucceſſion is that whereofIren. lib. 4. cap. 43. E… qu… in Eccleſia ſunt Preſbyteru obedire oportet, his qui ſucceſsionē habent ab Apoſtolus qui cum Epiſcopatus ſucceſſione chariſ…a veritatis certū ſecundū placitū Patris acceperunt Irenaeus ſpeaketh, ſaying, That wee ought to obey Prieſts, who are in the Church, who have the ſucceſsion of the Apoſtles, and with the ſucceſsion of the Biſhopricke have received the certaine talent of the truth. Not acknowledging ſucceſſion in the Biſhopricke, without ſucceſſion in the truth of the Doctrine. And Tertullian ſpeaking of the Heretikes: Their Doctrine Tertull. de praeſcr. c. 21 I…ſa eorū doctrina cum Apoſtolica comparata ex diverſitate & contrari…tate doctrina pronuntiabit neque Apoſtoli …lic…ius auctoru eſſe neque Apoſtolic….being compared with that of the Apoſtles, by the diverſity and contrariety therein, will plainely demonſtrate, that it hath not any Apoſtle for Authour, nor any one that is Apoſtolicall. Snatching this ſpecious title of Apoſtolike ſucceſſion from thoſe, who taught otherwiſe then the Apoſtles had done.
It is no ſmall abuſe (when wee would know whether a Religion bee true or no) to give us a liſt of Biſhops in painting and pictures, without knowing whether the latter doe teach as the firſt; pinning religion unto the Chaires, to the end to ſuppreſſe the true rules and inſtitutions: as alſo to divert the people from reading of the holy Scripture, for feare leſt they ſhould apprehend the conformity in Doctrine with the Apoſtles, which is the true ſucceſſion.
We muſt note by the way, that in the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian, who wrote about ſix ſcore yeeres after the Apoſtles, it was eaſie to ſhew the ſucceſſion; Then (I meane) when the Churches wherein the Apoſtles had taught, did hold one and the ſame faith: I ſay, when the ſucceſſion was of no great length, and the memory of the Apoſtles and their diſciples preaching was freſh and familiar. But now that the Churches which were planted by the Apoſtles are divided into contrary Sects, and ſeparated from communion, and that the confuſions abounding in ſpace of ſome fifteene hundred yeeres, have throwne downe ſo many Chaires, and reared up others, and that particularly the Biſhopricke of Rome is turned into a temporall Monarchy, and the Pope of a Biſhop is become a temporall Prince, this ſucceſſive derivation of Chaires in the Eaſt and Weſt is impoſsible, conſidering that the entayle of this ſucceſsion hath beene thouſands of times cut off, ſo that it is a meere impoſture, to enter into this lea of Hiſtories and confuſions, to the end to examine the Traditions, in ſtead of addreſſing our ſelves to the word of God.