excused in your iudgement by ignorance concerning any positiue commaundement of God but out of doubt there are many points of truth reuealed by God onely as positiue not as such meanes to saluation that without the beleefe of them a man cannot be saued Adde hereunto that a Christian may be ignorant of many points held by the Church and that by negatiue ignorance because he could neuer come where he might heare that the Church beleeued such and such things It is therefore an vnreasonable thing to condemne all ignorance for heresie and a most vncharitable conceit to cast all into hell fire that beleeue not in euery point as the Church generally doth yea though they know what the Church mainteines be of a contrarie mind Your proofe which is a comparison of likenesse or equality betwixt infidelitie in denying all Christian religion and heresie in not beleeuing some points of it is a great deale too weake Similitudes argue indeed but rather by way of illustration then proofe And there is no equalitie betwixt denying all and doubting of some The former absolutely ouerthrowes true religion the latter onely misconceiues some points leauing the grounds of truth vntouched and beleeuing them as most certaine A. D. § 6. Fourthly I may confirme the same with the testimonie of the ancient Fathers First of S. Athanasius in his creed which is commonly knowne and approoued of all Quicunque saith he vult saluus esse ante omnia opus est vt teneat Catholicam fidem quam nisi quisque integram inuiolatamque seruauerit absque dubio in aeternum peribit Whosoeuer will be saued before all things it is needfull that he hold the Catholicke faith which vnlesse euerie one doe keepe entire and vnviolate without doubt he shall perish euerlastingly A. W. If the ancient writers should affirme a thing so vnreasonable there were good reason for a man to looke for some proofe of it out of the Scriptures But no doubt we shall finde your citations of their writings as much to the purpose as we haue done your former arguments The first you alleadge is Athanasius in his Creed to which I answer that Athanasius speaks not of all points reuealed by God but of those substantiall matters which are there set downe by him and namely of the Trinitie of persons and Godhead of our Sauiour Iesus Christ This appeares by the last verse of the same Creed where he thus concludeth This is the Catholicke faith which except a man beleeue faithfully he cannot be saued But Athanâ—siuâ— hath not comprehended all points of religion in that Creed for he leaueth out the buriall of our Sauiour Christ vnlesse you will say he put his going downe into hell for it neither doth he require in that place any other point as necessary to be beleeued to saluation but those onely that he there reciteth which must be kept entire and vnuiolate of euery man that will be saued A. D. §. 7. Qui sunt in sacris literis eruditi saith Saint Basil ne vnam quidem sillabam diuinorum dogmatum prodi sinunt sed pro istius defensione si opus est nullum non mortis genus libenter amplectuntur Those that are well instructed in holy Writ doe not suffer one sillable of diuine doctrine to be betraied or yeelded vp but for the defence thereof if need be doe willingly embrace any kinde of death A. W. That of Basil is lesse to the purpose For first he saith nothing of any doctrine propounded by the Church or of your vnwritten traditioÌ„s but only of the Scriptures And how makes this for the beleeuing whatsoeuer the Church wil deliuer without which in your iudgement faith cannot be one or entire Secondly he speakes not of all ignorant men whose faith vpon paine of damnation you will haue entire concerning euery point but of those onely that are learned in the holy Scriptures or at the most so farre as they are learned in them I astly what saith he of these but that which we alwaies require that a christian should not suffer any sillable of true doctrine to be betraied This makes against you who rest wholly vpon Popes and Councils and by that meanes oftentimes betray the truth of God manifested in the Scripture yea so farre are you from mainteining euery sillable of it with hazard of your liues that you doe what you can for shame to destroy it all You Papists depriue the people of them altogether at least for their priuate reading howsoeuer your Pope Pius 4. makes a shew of permitting it You haue thrust out the Authenticall copies of Hebrew and Greeke and in steed of them authorised a corrupt Latine translation which no man may refuse vpon any pretence though it haue 8000 places as Isidorus Clarius a great learned man of your owne affirmeth in which the sense of the holy Ghost is changed yea Cardinal Hosius blusheth not to write That it were better for the Church if there were no written Gospell extant I omit your blasphemies against the Scriptures whereof I haue spoken otherwhere A. D. §. 8. Nihil periculosius saith Nazianzen his haereticis esse potest qui cum integrè per omnia decurrant vno tamen verbo quasi veneni gutta veram illam ac simplicem fidem dominicam inficiunt Nothing can be more perilous then these heretickes who when they runne vprightly through all the rest yet with one word as with a drop of poyson doe infect that true and sincere faith of our Lord. A. W. What if Gregorie Nazianzen complaine that heretickes which held most points soundly according to truth as Arius Eutyches Macedonius Nestorius and diuers other did were very pernitious to the Church because they did more easily and secretly poyson the truth of doctrine by their heresies Will it follow hereupon that therefore a man cannot be saued vnlesse he beleeue euerie point of truth reuealed by God or that a man hath no faith because his beleefe agrees not in euery small matter with other Christians Remember I pray you we denie not that faith should be entire but that it cannot be auaileable to saluation if in any one point it misbeleeue Thus haue I examined the first part of this your Treatise of Faith which I know not how I should apply to your maine syllogisme implied in your preface when you shew the vse of it in any part thereof I will giue you answer accordingly A. D. CHAP. V. That there must be some means prouided by almighty God by which all sorts of men may learne this faith which is so necessary to saluatioÌ„ A. W. The title of this Chapter is so propounded that your meaning may easily be mistaken There must be say you some meanes prouided May not a man gather by these words that as yet there are no such meanes prouided where as you would haue vs beleeue that God hath already made prouision of fit meanes to that
and writing Further it is false that a priuate spirit agreeing with the Catholicke Church in doctrine can be in that point of agreement the rule of faith For although the doctrine he teacheth be true yet is it not the rule of faith much lesse is he himselfe because of his authoritie but either as you say by reason of the authoritie of the Church or indeed as we truly affirme for that it is agreeable to the word of God in the Scripture called canonical because it is the rule of faith and manners Now for answer to your Syllogisme I say your Assumption is not simply true but onely so farre forth as the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church I speake as you do agreeth with the truth in the Scripture reuealed Neither doth Saint Paul speake of whatsoeuer doctrine receiued by your imagined Catholicke Church of Rome but of that which he himselfe or some other of the Apostles had taught the Galatians to whom he writeth that Epistle This it should seeme you saw well enough and therefore in your crastie discretion for bare to translate the Apostles words which for the most part you set downe alwayes as well in English as in Latine The reason lieth thus He that teacheth contrary to the doctrine which the Galatians had receiued of the Apostles is to be accursed for his preaching so But a priuate spirit that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church teacheth contrary to the doctrine which the Galatians had receiued by the Apostles Therefore a priuate spirit teaching contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church is to be accursed for his preaching so Who seeth not that the truth of this Assumption dependeth vpon this point that the Catholicke Church hath receiued no other doctrine then that which the Apostles taught the Galatians But this hath as much need of sound proofe as that for the proofe whereof it is brought and therefore to dispute thus against any man that would hold a priuate spirit to be the rule of faith were to giue him occasion to laugh at you for begging the question in stead of prouing it But to make all men see how small force there is in this your reason for the keeping of a priuate spirit from being the rule of faith I will frame two other syllogismes against a publick spirit or Councel and against the Pope 1. He that must be accursed for his teaching cannot be the rule of faith But a publicke spirit or Councell that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholick Church must be accursed for his teaching Therefore a publicke spirit or Councell that teacheth contrary to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church cannot be the rule of faith 2. He that must be accursed for his teaching cannot be the rule of faith But the Pope that teacheth contrarie to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church must be accursed for his teaching Therefore the Pope that teacheth contrarie to the receiued doctrine of the Catholicke Church cannot be the rule of faith Haue you not spun a faire threed thinke you to choake the Popes and the Councels authoritie withall Call your wits about you and deuise some cleanly shift for the matter or I can tel you all wil be naught For your Religion is no more able to hold vp head if the Popes authoritie be cast downe then a man that hath neuer a leg is able to stand vpright It will go the harder with you in this matter because if I grant that the Pope cannot erre you are neuer a whit the nearer for the answering of my syllogisme as you may perceiue if you will but assay to apply that point for answer to either part thereof There is no other way but to giue ouer this your first reason against a priuate spirit and to make amends for it in the second if you can A. D. §. 3. Secondly the rule of faith must be infallible plainly knowne to all sorts of men and vniuersall that is to say such as may sufficiently instruct all men in all points of faith without danger of errour as hath bene proued before But this priuate spirit is not such For first that man himselfe cannot be vnfallibly sure that he in particular is taught by the holy spirit For neither is there any promise in Scripture to assure him infallibly that he in particular is thus taught neither is there any other sufficient reason to perswade the same For suppose he haue such extraordinarie motions feelings or illustrations which he thinketh cannot come of himselfe but from some spirit yet he cannot in reason straightwayes conclude that he is thus moued and taught by the spirit of God For sure it is that euery spirit is not the Spirit of God As there is the spirit of truth so there is a spirit of errour As there is an Angell of light so there is a Prince of darknesse Yea sometimes Ipse Sathanas transfigurat se in Angelum lucis Sathan himselfe doth transfigure himselfe into an Angell of light Wherefore he had need very carefully to put in practise the aduise of Saint Iohn who saith Nolite credere omni spiritui sed probate spiritus si ex Deo sint Doe not beleeue euerie spirit but prooue and trie them whether they be of God or no. Neither doth it seeme sufficient that a priuate man trie them onely by his owne iudgement or by those motions feelings or illuminations which in his priuate conceit are conformable to Scripture because all this triall is verie vncertaine and subiect to errour by reason that our owne iudgement especially in our own matters is verie easily deceiued and that Sathan can so cunningly couer himselfe vnder the shape of a good Angell and so colour his wicked designements with pretense of good and so gild his darke and grosse errours with the glistering light of the words and seeming sense of scripture that hardly or not at all he shall be perceiued VVherefore the safest way were to trie these spirits by the touchstone of the true Pastours of the Catholicke Church who may say with S. Paul Nō ignoramus cogitationes Satanae we are not ignorant of the cogitations of Sathan and who may also say with S. Iohn Nos ex Deo sumus qui nouit Deum audit nos qui non est ex Deo non audit nos In hoc cognoscimus spiritum veritatis spiritum erroris VVe are of God he that knoweth God heareth vs he that is not of God doth not heare vs. In this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of errour Now if any will not admit this manner of trying discerning the spirit of truth from the spirit of errour but will trust their owne iudgement alone in this matter feare they may iustly nay rather they may be sure as Cassian saith that they shall worship in their thoughts the Angell of darknesse for the Angel of light to
Let vs therefore proceede in examining this discourse A. D. §. 1. Hitherto I haue shewed that the rule of faith which all men ought to seeke that by it they may learne true faith is the doctrine of the Church of Christ and that this Church doth continue and is alwayes visible that is to say such as may be found out and knowne Now the greatest question is sith there are diuers companies of them that beleeue in Christ euery one of which challenge to themselues the title of the true Church how euery man may come to know assuredly and in particular which companie is indeed the true visible Church of Christ whose doctrine we must in all points beleeue and follow To this question I answer that euery companie which hath the name of Christians or which challenge to themselues the name of the Church are not alwayes the true Church For of heretickes we may well say as S. Austin doth Non quia Ecclesiae Christi videntur habere nomen idcirco pertinent ad eius consecrationem They doe not therefore pertaine to the consecration of the Church of Christ because they seeme to carry the name of the Church of Christ. For as the same S. Austin saith in another place heretickes are onely whited ouer with the name of Christians when indeed Si haeretici sunt as Tertullian sayth Christiani esse non possunt If they be heretickes the cannot be true Christians The reason whereof the same Tertullian insinuateth to be because they follow not that faith which came from Christ to his Apostles and Disciples and which was deliuered by them from hand to hand to our forefathers and so to vs but they follow that faith which they chose to themselues of which election or choise the name of hereticke and heresie did arise A. W. Hitherto you haue laboured to proue the maior of your maine syllogisme propounded in your preface namely that the faith which the authoritie of the true Catholick Church commends vnto vs is to be held for the true faith What successe you haue had in this proofe let them say that haue compared your arguments and my answers together Now you are to proceed to the proofe of your maine assumption that they onely are the true Church which make profession of the Romane faith Your syllogisme is thus framed They onely are the true Church to whom the certaine marks by which the Church is to be knowne belong But they that professe the Romane faith are they to whom those markes belong Therefore they onely that professe the Romane faith are the true Church The proposition or maior of this Syllogisme is not exprest by you but necessarily implied in this thirteenth Chapter where you say that the way to discerne which is the true Church is first to set downe which be the certain marks whereby all men may easily know the Church The assumption or minor you endeuour to proue in the fiue Chapters following by a Syllogisme thus concluded They onely who are one holy Catholicke Apostolicke Church are they to whom the certaine markes of the true Church belong But they that professe the Romane religion are they who are one holy Catholicke Apostolicke Church Therefore they onely that professe the Romane faith are they to whom the certaine markes of the true Church belong Your proposition or maior is in the two next Chapters your assumption or minor in the sixteenth In handling the proposition first you labour to disproue the markes of a true church which we assigne and that in Chapt. 14. then you assay to propound and confirme other of your owne as we shall see hereafter if God will when we come to Chap. 15. Whereas you expound what you meane by a visible Church viz. such a one as may be found out and knowne you straighten the question and auow that which no man denieth For the question betwixt vs is not whether the Church may be found out or no but whether it be so visible and famous a congregation that it may at all times be knowne of all men If this be not that you should proue what will become of your grand reason that therefore there must alwayes be a knowne Church the doctrine whereof euery must rest vpon in all matters of faith because otherwise it cannot be vniuersally true that God will haue all men to be saued It is indeed a matter worth the enquiring which companies of them that professe Christian Religion are the true Churches of Christ For that all are not it is apparent by your Antichristian Synagogue and that all true Christians are bound as much as lieth in them to become members of some true church of Christ it is manifest because else they cannot ordinarily performe the duties of his true outward worship which are no where done but in his true churches If the choise of any doctrine not receiued from Christ be sufficient to make men heretickes and churches hereticall what may the world thinke of your synagogue which is not ashamed openly to professe that she holdeth many points of doctrine which haue not proofe out of the written word of God For whereas to shift off the matter you come in with deliuerie of I know not what from hand to hand by the Apostles and your forefathers who sees not that this conceit of yours both condemneth the Scriptures of insufficiencie and maketh the reports of men the rule of the true faith and openeth a wide gate to let in all deuices of mans corruption What auailes it to know that all doctrine is heresie which comes not from our Sauiour Christ if we must beleeue that all came from him which your Pope and his Councell tell vs they haue receiued by tradition why should we not rather hearken to your Occham who truly affirmed that heresy is an opinion chosen by a man contrary to the holy Scripture Surely there is great cause to suspect them of heresie who refuse to make triall of their doctrine by Scripture whatsoeuer they talke of tradition from the Apostles by their forefathers A. D. §. 2. The way therefore to discerne which is the true Church is irst to set downe which be the certaine markes by which all men may easily know the Church and then to examine to whom these markes doe agree The which that I may the better performe in the Chapter following here I thinke good first briefly to note what belongeth to the nature of a good and sufficient marke Note therefore that two things are required in euery sufficient marke The first is that it be not common to many but proper and onely agreeing to the thing whereof it is a marke As for example it is no good marke whereby to know any particular man to say he hath two hands or two eares because this is common to many and therefore no sufficient note or marke whereby one may be distinguished or knowne from all other But a marke whereby we may discerne
Church was not termed Catholicke because of the communion that one Church hath with another throughout the whole world but because it obserueth all the commandements and sacraments of God To make short the reason of the title Catholicke attributed to the Church in the iudgement both of Greek and Latin writers is first the vniuersall dispersion of the church through all part of the world The Church saith Cyril of Ierusalem is Catholick because it is spred all ouer the world It is called Catholicke saith Austin because it is dispersed through the whole world See brethren quoth the same Austin in another place how the vniuersality of the Church spred ouer the whole world is commended The Church saith he is called Catholick because it is vniuersally perfect and failes in nothing and is spred ouer the whole world Where though he seeme to acknowledge the Donatists interpretation yet he addes the other as more principall And in the conference betwixt the Catholiks and Donatists the true Christians proued themselues to be Catholicks and so rightly called because they held communion with the Church spred ouer the face of the earth This is that vnitie which accordingly was implied in the title of the Catholick Church signifying an agreement in matters of faith which was betwixt the seueral true Churches in all places Hitherto may we reasonably refer that of Pacianus who saith that Catholicke is euery where one The vnitie is signified in that so many seuerall congregations make but one church in regard of that one faith which is cōmon to all the vniuersalnesse of this church in the particular assemblies is noted to vs by the word Catholik The Fathers in the Nicene councell thought good to expresse that vnitie by professing to beleeue one Church to which they added also Catholicke So saith Alexander Patriarch of Alexandria who was in the time of that Councell We acknowledge one onely Catholicke and Apostolicke Church So Theodoret afterward There is one Church scattered ouer sea and land wherefore we pray saying For the holy and onely Catholicke and Apostolicke Church And in another place Paul saith he nameth many churches not by any diuision of spirit but seuered by distance of place It appeareth then that by Catholicknes the vniuersalnesse of the Churches being in all places is signified But what was the reason why this title was added to the church In all likelihood it was first deuised and applied to the Church to signifie the breach of the partition wall which sometimes stood betwixt the Iewes and Gentils till by our Sauiours death it was cast downe This I speake vpon this supposition that the word Catholicke was as ancient in the Church as the time of the Apostles But if it were brought in afterward as I could easily perswade my self but for reuerence of other mens iudgments we may verie wel assent to Pacianus who writes of it in this maner When after the Apostles times heresies sprung vp and men wēt about to pul in peeces the doue of God that same Queen the Church by diuersity of names as euery seueral heresie had a proper name did not the Apostolicke people they that followed the doctrine of the Apostles require a sirname for themselues whereby they might make difference of such as remained vncorrupted with heresie lest the error of some should rent in peeces the vnspotted virgin of God Was it not meet that the principall head the true Church should haue a proper name to be knowne by It appeareth by these words that the reason of the name Catholick was at the first that there might be a title to distinguish sound Christians and true Churches from hereticks hereticall assemblies To which purpose that he might auow the vse of this name he signifieth that it had before bene vsed by Cyprian And afterward he affirmeth directly that the true Christian people are diuided from the hereticall when they are called Catholicke But you will perhaps demaund why Catholicke should be applied to make this distinction The reason thereof as I thinke is this The Gospell by the preaching of the Apostles was spred farre neere ouer the face of the earth accordingly diuers Churches in diuers places established all which agreed in the vnitie of the same faith and doctrine But Sathan who is alwaies watching to sow cockle and darnell among the wheat stirred vp here and there certaine peruerse and trouble some men who set abroach errors to corrupt the truth of Doctrine Now these teachers being discouered that there might be a difference of name betwixt true Christians and them for the name of christian was common to both so that euerie man might learne by the verie name to auoid the heretickes it was thought meete by the learned and carefull gouernours of the seuerall Churches that hereticks should be called by some speciall name either of their author or of some point of error which they held and the true professors should haue the title of Catholicks because they maintained the truth of that doctrine which was generally professed by the Churches of God In this sense Pacianus saith that Christian was his name and Catholicke his sirname Hee that shall aduisedly consider the vse of the word in Cyprian shall perceiue that Catholicke is opposed by him to schisme and heresie and that said by him to be done against the Catholicke Church which is done contrarie to the practise of the seuerall Churches in all countries So Clemens saith that heresies labour to rend the Church in peeces and he calleth the Church Catholicke because of the vnitie of one faith generally receiued as may be gathered out of him though indeed the chiefe thing which he respecteth in the vnitie of the Church is that All the elect are made partakers of one and the same saluation according to the couenant of God which in all ages hath bene one and the same Wherin he seemes to apply the terme Catholicke to time but the reason of the name by the generall and constant iudgement of the ancient writers is rather the generality of the Church professing the same doctrine in all places Therefore your great Bishop Melchior Canus expounding this title saith that the Church is called Catholicke because in euery country people and nation sexe and condition it is spred farre and neere And by this difference saith he afterward it is distinguished not onely from the Synagogue or Iewish Church but also from the conuenticles of hereticks So doth your catechisme of Trent set out by Pius Quintus vnderstand Catholicke The Church is called Catholicke because it is spred in the light of one faith from the East to the West receiuing men of all sorts be they Soythians or Barbarians bond or free male or female Then followeth the vniuersalitie of time containing all the faithfull which haue bene from Adam euen till this day or shall be hereafter till the
right to it and then frame such arguments otherwise any man of neuer so little iudgment may find more cause to pity or disdaine your proofe or presumption then to stagger at the force of your reason All things in the Scripture were indeed writtē for our learning and therfore belong to vs so far as the general doctrine reacheth the particular circumstances are alike Wherefore I grant your proposition not because of any succession which could not be in those Scribes and Pharises being of diuers tribes and as your Genebrard saith hauing thrust themselues into the chaire of Moses being empty but because they expoūded the law of Moses among the Iewes as the Ministers of Christ do the Gospell at this day to the Christians Ere I answer to your Assumption I must speake a word of your translation haue sitten The Greeke indeed is so but as Vatablus noteth the praeter tense is put for the present tense Therefore Pagnine doubteth not so to translate it sedent sit Which must needs be our Sauiours meaning For how were it agreeable to reason that he should charge vs to heare the Scribes and the Pharises because they did sometimes sit vpon Moses chaire if now they sit beside it It is our Sauiours purpose to signifie that the expositions of the former Pharisies and of those that taught in his time were not to be reiected or rather it is al one as if he had said do sit But let vs reade the place which way we list it is all one to your minor which I denie To the proofe of it out of the text I answer First the sitting vpon Moses chaire signifieth not succession but teaching the law of Moses For Moses calling was altogether extraordinarie from God both for gouerning and teaching In the former Iosua and the Iudges succeeded him till the people were wearie of Gods ruling of them The other part of his office was to be discharged ordinarily by the Priests and Leuits That ye may teach the children of Israel all the statutes which the Lord hath commaunded them by the hand of Moses The Priests lips should preserue knowledge and they should seeke the Law at his mouth Ieshua and Bani c. and the Leuites caused the people to vnderstand the law And they read in the booke of the Law of God distinctly and gaue the sense and caused them to vnderstand the reading It was one thing to succeed Aaron another to sit on Moses chaire The chaire of Moses saith Cyril signifieth power of doctrine They sit in Moses chaire saith Origen which interprete Moses sayings well and according to reason And a little after The Scribes and Pharises sit naughtily vpon Moses chaire they sat wel that well vnderstood the law What is the meaning of that saith Ambrose The Scribes sat but because letters are written whereupon the Scribes in Greeke are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 following the interpretation of the letter not the sense of the spirit And afterward Therefore they teaching those things that Moses wrote c. So doth Theophylact expound it They that sit in Moses chaire that is that teach the things that are in the law And immediately before They that exhort to euill life do not then teach out of Moses chaire nor out of the Law Therefore to sit vpon Moses chaire is nothing else but to haue authoritie to expound Moses Law as he himselfe did expound it So the Ministers of the Gospell may be said to sit vpon the Apostles chaire because they haue authority to interpret the Gospel which the Apostles themselues preached Secondly I denie that our Sauiour commanded the Iewes or doth now charge vs to beleeue whatsoeuer they that haue authority to teach vs deliuer or to do whatsoeuer they enioyne This is apparent because himselfe refuteth condemneth their interpretations and doctrines many times as Mat. 5. In many points of which that one is most cleare Ye haue heard that it hath bene said thou shalt loue thy neighbour hate thine enemie but I say vnto you loue your enemies c. In vaine do they worship me teaching for doctrines mens traditions And in the same place he calleth them blinde leaders of the blind and addeth further that if the blinde lead the blinde both fall into the ditch Now can any man be so impious I might say blasphemous as to say that our Sauiour commaunded the Iewes to take such a course as should certainely bring them to destruction Nay rather he warneth them to take heed of their doctrine Take heed and beware he doubleth his admonition to make them more carefull of the leauen of the Pharises And what was this leauen The doctrine of the Pharises saith the Euangelist But what need we go out of this chapter for the point in question Doth he not afterwards call them blinde guides vers 16. 24. fooles blind vers 17. 19 Doth he not in the same places condemne and confute their absurd and lewde doctrine of swearing A man would wonder that euer any man professing himselfe a scholler or teacher should bring such miserable proofes in matters of so great weight But alasse we must beare with you you bring such as you haue if you knew any better we should be sure to haue them But these serue to deceiue your deuoted followers who wilfully shut their eies against the truth The iudgements of God are past searching out and his mercie in opening our eies to see your grossnesse greater then we are able to conceiue Well yet perhaps you haue some colour from antiquitie to countenance your exposition withall You quote Austin what None but Austin in a matter of so great doubt But let vs see why you quote him If to prooue that the Pharisies were to be heard and obeyed in all things there is no such word in his sentence alledged by you For he saith no more then we grant that Our Sauiour prouided before hand that we should not refuse good doctrine because it was deliuered by wicked men Indeed that was the verie purpose of our Sauiour and to that doth Austin apply it otherwhere according to the true sense of it What saith he else but heare the voice of the sheepheard though by hirelings such as Austin in that place saith the Pharifies and Scribes were and such as our Sauiour proueth them to be by their hypocrisie ambition couetousnesse The Apostle sheweth saith Austin in an other place that men without charitie may teach somewhat that is wholsome of such our Lord speaketh They sit vpon Moses chaire c. Whereupon also the Apostle speaking of enuious and malitious men yet such as preached saluation by Christ saith Whether by occasion or in truth Christ be preached Ireioice And in a third place He that speaketh wisely and eloquently but liueth wickedly teacheth many that are desirous
so many Bishops of their faction Vincentius acknowledgeth a succession continued though secretly from Simon Magus to Priscilian Let vs see ' now whether you bring any better reason for your selues then you haue done against vs 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 Tertullian thought it sufficient to proue the hereticks not to be Apostolicke that their doctrine agreed not with the Apostles And Ambrose truly affirmed that they haue not the inheritance of Peter which haue not the faith of Peter He saith 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 haue the name but the other hath the truth of succession Therefore Irenaeus saith plainly that those Bishops onely are to be obeyed who together with succession haue the truth But of this I spake before Chap. 15. Where there is no beginning what continuance or successiō 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 vpon by auncient writers Since that time you haue 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 vs 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 some 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 We 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 Irenaeus for that expounds himselfe where he saith that the Apostles first preached the Gospell and afterward by the will of God deliuered it to vs 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 Austin 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 Austin sheweth otherwhere they wold haue their word to be takē as you now would haue 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 onely for shew of authoritie Concerning that speech of Athanasius be not so iniurious either to him or your selues as to presse his testimony to so leud a purpose Would you haue 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 onely 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 giue your owne cause Is there no other marke of the Church but succession Then by Bellarmines iudgement there is none at all who allowes it not as a certaine light to shew vs 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 Irenaeus 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 vpon the beginning of this succession in the Apostles as vpon 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 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 vs 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