The Ancient Doctrine of the Church of England, Part 1 · Response to body of book · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. The ſumme of his Anſwer to Sect. 7.
1. That the imputations of ancient Haereſies are falſe.
2. That Succeſsion beſides Antiquity importeth continuance, and perpetuity without intermiſsion.
3. That Proteſtants have no ſhaddow of ſucceſsion in perſon or doctrine.
4. That Papiſts have a moſt cleare perſonall ſucceſsion, being able to ſhew 200. and odde Popes ſucceeding the other in place and office.
5. That perſonall ſucceſsion is a firme argument of ſucceſsion in faith.
IT is my promiſe in my ſeventh Section, to ſhew a deſcent of both Religions (as namely) that the Romiſh faith was derived from antient Haeretiks, and the Proteſtant faith was drawne downe from Chriſt and his Apoſtles. But (ſay you) It is one thing to prove a thing to have beene anciently taught, another to have beene ſucceſsively taught: It is true, Antiquity and Succeſſion differ; neither did I undertake to prove that thoſe Haeretikes, or your Church had a perpetuall ſucceſſion in perſon and doctrine; but for the truths ſake I have acknowledged the antiquity of your Trent faith, although deſcended from ancient Haeretikes, and I made the firſt inſtance in Latin Service, and prayer in a ſtrange tongue brought in by Pope Vitolian (as is witneſſed by Wolphius:) but you cry out, It is a moſt ſtrange abſurdity to averre fuch a knowne falſehood upon no other authority, pag. 87.then a profeſſed Haeretike.
And is he an Haeretike that ſpeaketh the truth of your Religion? What ſay you to your prime Champion Mr. Harding? He ſaith expreſly, About nine hundred yeares paſt, it is certaine the people in ſome Countries had their ſervice in an unknowne tongue, Iuel in his 3. Article, Diviſ. 1.as it ſhall be proved of our owne Country of England. Now obſerve the difference, Wolphius ſaid, the Latin Service came in after Chriſt about the yeare (666.) Mr. Harding (who wrote theſe (67.) yeares ſince) as appeares by Biſhop Iuels Epiſtle, tells us it came in (900.) yeares paſt: compute Wolphius (666.) with Mr. Hardings time of (967.) and you ſhall finde that they agree about one and the ſame time, and therefore it was neither abſurd, nor falſe, which Wolphius uttered.
Neither doe you diſprove the reaſon of Wolphius, but you make a qu…ere upon his aſſertion; During his (600.) and odd yeares) what other Lyturgies were there in the Latin Church, but Latin? And I may aſwell ſay, what were there in the Greeke Church but Greeke? But this demand maketh againſt your Service in an unknowne tongue, not againſt Wolphius, who affirmeth not that the Latin Service was not in the Latin Church before the yeare (666.) but that the Pope obtruded it upon all Churches, even there where the Latin was not underſtood, as (in England ſaith Mr. Harding) and elſewhere. For Origen tells us before that time,Orig contrd Celſum. lib. 8. the Greekes call upon God in the Greeke tongue, and the Latins in the Latin tongue, and all ſeverall Nations pray unto God, and praiſe him in their owne natur all and mother tongues, for he that is the Lord of all tongues, heareth men praying in all tongues, none otherwiſe then if it were one voice pronounced by divers tongues; for God that ruleth the whole world, is not as ſome one man, that hath gotten the Greeke or Latin, and knoweth none-other. The ancient Primitive Churches therefore taught the Doctrine in a knowne tongue, agreeable to the profeſſion at this day. But the truth is,A. 30.666 A. 1.666 T. 300.666 E. 5.666 I. 10.666 N. 50.666 O. 70.666 M. 200.666 Sed & foreign nomen ſexcentinum ſexagiata ſex, numerū habens valde veriſimile eſt quonlam veriſsimum nomen hobet vocabulum. Latini enim ſunt qui nunc regnāt, ſed non in hoc nos gloriabimur.] Irenae. l 5. cap 25. p mihi. 355. the Latin Service, and the name of the Latin Church is one of the moſt eſſentiall markes of the Roman Hierarchie. And I know not whether it were by conjecture, or by inſpiration, that Irenaeus above foureteene hundred yeares agoe, in the word Lateinos, found out the name of Antichriſt, and the number of (666.) The name Lateinos (ſaith he) conteining the number of ſix hundred ſixty ſix is very likely, becauſe the trueſt kingdome hath that name; for they are the Latines that now raigne, but (ſaith he) we will not glory in this.
You proceede to the Haeretikes Oſſem, and you ſay firſt, I am notably miſtaken in placing them towards the Apoſtles time, and withall, you have read the Chapter there twice over, and the ſecond time more attentively then the firſt, and yet you find not any ſuch word ſo cited by mee.
Firſt,Trajan, Anno 100. Bel. de ſcript Eccleſ. pag. mihi. this Sect continued till Trajans time, not an hundred yeares after the Apoſtles; and therefore it was no errour in me to place them towards the Apoſtles time: and if you pleaſe to peruſe the place a third time with your Spectacles, you ſhall find theſe words,foreign. Epiph hereſ. 19 Nemo quaerat interpretationem, ſed ſolum in oratione haec dicat; and there hee repeats a Prayer, which (if you peruſe the Greeke text) is more expreſſe. Let no man inquire after the meaning, only in his Prayer, Let him ſay ſuch words, (viz.) ſuch Hebrew words which Epiphanius there ſetteth downe. Are not theſe Heretikes (thinke you) neere kinne to them who ſay, Heare Latine Maſſe, and ſay after the Prieſt, it mattereth not whether you underſtand what hee ſaith, or not.
From Epiphanius you flie to Saint Ambroſe, and there you make a great complaint, that I put in words of my owne in the ſame Character with Saint Ambroſe, which are none of his (as namely) There were certaine Iewes amongst the Graecians, Ambr. in 1 Cor. 14.as namely, the Corinthians, who did celebrate the Divine Service, and Sacraments, which the common people underſtood not.
I confeſſe ingenuouſly, it is an errour in the print, and I ſhall willingly alter the letter, but not the words, at the next impreſſion. But I confidently profeſſe, it is agreeable to the true ſenſe and meaning of the Author; and the ſtrength of the argument is not in the words, but in the ſenſe: and therfore I may truly anſwer you with S. Auſtine, What folly is it to contend about words, Aug. Ep. 174.when there is the certainty of the thing it ſelfe?
It cannot be denied, that Ambroſe taxeth the Hebrewes, who amongſt the Corinthians, in Tractatibus & oblationibus, uſed ſometimes the Syriack, and ſometimes the Hebrew tongue, which without doubt, the Greeks underſtood not. And therefore, in his Commentarie on this place, hee gives the Hebrew to underſtand; If you meet together to edifie the Church, Ambr. in 1 Cor. 14.thoſe things muſt be delivered which the hearers underſtand: for to what purpoſe, or profit is it, that any one ſpeake a tongue which hee himſelfe onelyonly underſtands, and whereof hee that heareth can reape no fruit? And a little after; The Apoſtle ſaith, I had rather ſpeake five words in the Church, according to the Law, that I may edifie others, than any long and large diſcourſe in obſcuritie. Againe, by [Oblationibus] (which you interpret, Offrings) Saint Ambroſe cannot meane, the peoples gifts or offrings; (for there was no need of any ſpeech, much leſſe a long ſpeech at theſe offrings.) It muſt therefore follow, that either he meanes the celebration of the Sacrament, or ſome ſpirituall ſacrifices of Praiſe and Thankſgiving.
You proceed from one hereſie to another, (viz) from your unknown Service, to your Tranſubſtantiation. This Doctrine I ſhewed, had his deſcent from the Heretikes, Helceſaitae, from Marcus, from the Capernaites. Touching the Helceſaitae, (you ſay) It is an hereticall fable: for thoſe Heretikes make two Chriſts, pag. 92.wee acknowledge but one, and the ſame both in heaven, and in the conſecrated Hoſt.
It is true, this particular Inſtance is cited amongſt the Tables of Theodoret; but yet you have affinitie with their Tenets, as neere as coſen Germans once removed. For as you acknowledge but one Chriſt in the heavens, and in the Hoſt, no more did thoſe Heretikes in words; for they rehearſed the Apoſtles Creed, Et in Ieſum Chriſtum, and not in Chriſtos: and as they made a two-fold Chriſt, one in heaven, another in earth; ſo likewiſe you teach, that Chriſt in the Sacrament (here on earth) is inviſible and indiviſible, but in heaven at the ſame time viſible, and with dimenſions of quantitie, and diſtinctions of Organs. And what is this, but conſequently to make two Chriſts, or at leaſt, to make contradictories true at the ſame time, of one and the ſame Chriſt, in reſpect of his humane nature to be viſible and inviſible?
Touching Marcus the Heretike, (you ſay) Hee changed the colour; but you teach, that the colour and accidents remaine, and the ſubſtance is changed.
It is true; and your opinion in this, is more abſurd than that of Marcus: for hee changed the Colour, to make the people beleeve it was true blood; and you make them beleeve it is blood, when there is neither taſt, nor colour of blood.
Laſtly, touching the Capernaites; you deny there is any likeneſſe of Doctrine. For (ſay you) the Capernaites thought they ſhould eate Christs body piece-meale, but wee receive Chriſt whole and entire, not in the forme and ſhape of fleſh, but of bread, &c.
But I pray, which of the Evangeliſts ever charged them with any ſuch conceit? The truth is, they underſtood the words of Chriſt as you doe, in a groſſe and carnall manner: and therfore Chriſt in reproving them, ſaith not, Fleſh eaten piece-meale, profiteth nothing; but abſolutely, The fleſh profiteth nothing. As touching your eating of Chriſt, whole and intire; it is all one with their eating of him by piece-meale: for there may be many differences in eating, but all eating the fleſh of Chriſt with teeth and jawes, is Caperniticall. But you neither ſee, nor taſte the fleſh of Chriſt, which they dream'd they ſhould; for you receive it, Not (ſay you) in the forme of fleſh, but of bread. I will returne you an Anſwer from a learned Divine on our ſide:B. Bilſon, in the difference between Chriſt ſubject, and unchriſtian Rebellion. pag. 748. You chaw the fleſh of Chriſt actually with your teeth, and ſwallow the ſame downe your throats, and theſe be proper actions, and right inſtruments of externall and Caperniticall eating; your eyes and your taſte be not; elſe blind men, and ſuch as by reaſon of Sickneſſe can taſte nothing, by your Divinitie can eate nothing. Since then you concurre with the Capernaites (in eating and ſwallowing) notwithſtanding you vary from them in ſight and taſte, yet your opinion eſtabliſheth a corporall eating of Chriſts fleſh, and a perverting of the meaning of Chriſts words, no leſſe than theirs did.
Let mee paralell them together with the moſt favorable conſtruction I can, yet your Church muſt have her Antiquitie and deſcent from thoſe Capernaites. For, ſuppoſe the Capernaites did beleeve that Chriſt would kill himſelfe, and give his body to be eaten; yet the Church of Rome teacheth, that Chriſt did eate his owne fleſh, a thing no leſſe barbarous (being meant litterally) than to kill himſelfe. Admit the Capernaites did beleeve that Chriſt would give his fleſh to be mangled by pieces, or by halves; yet your Churches opinion is no leſſe cruell, to beleeve that in the Sacrament, Chriſts fleſh is ſwallowed up whole at one morſell. Laſtly, let it be granted that the Capernaites did believe, that Chriſts fleſh ſhould be eaten when hee was dead; yet the opinion of the Romaniſts is more brutiſh, to imagine his fleſh to be eaten when he was alive (being a higher degree of crueltie to devoure men alive,Apertiſsimi loq…imur, corpus Chriſti veri à nobis attrectari, manducan, circumgeſtari, dentibus atteri, ſenſibiliter ſacrificari, non min… quàm ante conſecrationem panis. Alanus, lib. 3. de. Euchar. cap. 37. than when they are dead.) Sure I am, they both agree in this, that according to the letter they ſhould eate the fleſh of Chriſt, Orally, Corporally, and Subſtantially: they both agree in the ſenſible handling of his body, in devouring him with the mouth, and in grinding him with the teeth. Alanus the Romaniſt profeſſeth openly in the name of the Church, Apertiſsimi loquimur, Wee affirme plainly, the body of Chriſt is truly handled of us, carried about, ground with the teeth, and ſenſibly ſacrificed. Long before him Pope Nicholas confirmed this doctrine in a Councell at Rome, and taught it for a leſſon to Berengarius, Verum Corpus Domini noſtii Ieſu Chriſti ſenſuclitèr non ſolum in Sacramento, ſed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, ac fideliùm dentibus atteri. Grat. de con. ſecr. d. 2. c. 4.2. Ego Berengarius.to let him know the great difference betwixt Papiſt and Proteſtant in the ſame Church, I beleeve that the body of our Lord Ioſus is ſenſibly and in very deede touched with the hands of the Prieſt, and broken, and rent, and ground with the teeth of the faithfull. This confeſſion ſtands a Record in the Roman Decrees, and unleſſe you mince the words ſtrangely, you muſt needs acknowledge that you eate the fleſh of Chriſt peice-meale, and then you ſympathize in all things with your firſt Parents the Capernaites.
From Tranſubſtantiation you proceede to the Popes Supiemacy, wherein you ſay,pag. 93. I am miſtaken in ſaying that Phocas gave that authority to the Biſhop of Conſtantinople. It is true this is a miſtake of the Printer, but no corruption,Rogatu Bonifacij phocas conſtituit ſedem Romanae & Apoſtolicae Eccleſie caput eſſe omnium Eccleſiarum, nam anteà Conſtantinopolitana Eccleſia ſe ſcribebat primam omnium. Vſperg. in Phoc. fol. mihi. and in the laſt Impreſſion (which you ſhould have taken you ſhall finde (Rome) for Conſtantinople: and this you might well underſtand to be an error in the print, becauſe my purpoſe was to ſhew a deſcent of the Biſhop of Romes Supremacy, not of the Biſhop of Conſtantinople: And this authority ſtands good againſt you (notwithſtanding all your exceptions) viz. that the Pope of Rome, and that the See of Rome ſhould be the head of all Churches; for before that time (ſaith Vſpergenſis) the Church of Conſtantinople did write her ſelfe chiefe of all Churches; ſo that (anteà) before that time, the Biſhop of Rome had no Supremacy: and this agrees to Pope Gregories owne confeſſion, None of my Praedeceſſors did ever uſe that prophane Title. Nullus unquam praedeceſſorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti conſuevit. Greg. ep. 36. l. 4.Nay more, you had two Biſhops of Conſtantinople, (viz.) Iohn and Cyriacus, who both ſucceſſively aſſumed the title of Vniverſall Biſhops, before ever the Biſhop of Rome had any: and thoſe Biſhops were ſuborned by Mauritius, a bloody Emperour, like unto Phocas, who at that time made Conſtantinople the chiefe place of his aboade, and by meanes of advancing the Biſhops dignity, ſought to winne the greater credit to the City. Gregory the Great, writes unto them both ſeverally, as they lived in their Sees, and doth accuſe them of Pride, of Singularity, of error, of vanity, and blaſphemy in that new title; neither doth he make claime to it himſelfe, being then Biſhop of Rome, For mine owne part (ſaith he) I ſeeke to encreaſe in vertues, and not in vanitie of titles; Greg. lib. 1. ep. 30.for if you call me univerſall Biſhop, you deny your ſelves to be that which indeede you are. And when Mauritius the Emperour did countenance the Supremacy in the Biſhop of Conſtantinople, Gregory greets him in this manner:Idem. l. 4. Indict. 13. ep. 32. p. mihi. I have received letters from my vertuous Lord, that I ſhould bee at peace with my brother and fellow Biſhop, Iohn; indeede it well beſeemeth a Religious Prince to command Biſhops in ſuch things, but this was heavy to mee, that my Soveraigne Lord did not rebuke him for his Pride. After the death of Iohn the firſt Oecumenicall cumenicall Biſhop, Cyriacus ſucceeded in the See of Conſtantinople and continued that title of Oecumenicall Biſhop by the power of the Emperour; and accordingly Pope Gregory writes againe to Mauritius, not to take part with Cyriacus, and withall writes to Cyriacus at his firſt entrance into his Biſhopricke,Idem. l. 6. ep. 28. that he would aboliſh the word of Pride, by which there was ſo great ſcandall given to the Church.
After the death of Mauritius, Phocas (who was a ſouldier and fought under the banner of Mauritius) was proclaimed Emperour by the mutineirs, who having committed many murthers and cruelties, (which Cyriacus could not approve) (for otherwiſe it is probable he might have continued the title of Oecumenicall) he called a Synod at Rome, conſiſting of (62.) Biſhops, and by vertue of his power, granted his Letters Patents to Boniface then Biſhop of Rome, whereby your Popes had the firſt authority of (Volumus & jubemus) wee will and command. And thus Phocas procured his Imperiall authority by treachery and blood; Boniface obteined his power and Supremacy by pollicy, and flattery of a bloody Emperour; and this (ſaith Platina) was magnâ cum contentione, with great contention. Neither did Boniface enjoy this Title many monthes, nor Phoeae eſcape the heavy hand of God; for he was afterwards ſlaine by Heraclius, Quo quis peccat, eo punitur.as Mauritius was by him.
From Phocas you aſcend to your firſt Progenitors, the Kings of the Gentiles, wherein I ſhewed the originall of your Papall Supremacy, not that your Popes did lineally ſucceede them, but that they did exceede them farre in Tyranny. But the Pope uſeth to stile himſelfe ſervum ſervorum Dei, the ſervant of the ſervants of God, pag. 95.and will you have it (ſay you) that by reaſon of his humility, there must not be any Superiority? Surely, no; for he that ſaid, learne of me, for I am lowly and meeke, made likewiſe this promiſe to him that would follow his leſſon,Matth. 20.25. He that humbleth himſelfe ſhall be exalted. Howſoever, it is not the title of ſervus ſervorum, that makes him Chriſts diſciple, or a univerſall Biſhop; for in that he ſucceedeth rather Canaan then Boniface: but he muſt follow Chriſts precept, and his example: his precept was,Luke 22.27. That none of his Apoſtles ſhould reigne as Lord over his Brethren: his example was, I am among you, as hee that ſerveth. Neither is it the title which he aſſumes unto himſelfe, that makes him humble; neither doe his Proſelites & followers ſo much undervalue him as a ſervant: For ſaith Gerſon, Gerſ. de poteſt. Eccleſ. conſider. 12.Fawning, deceitfull flattery, whiſpereth into the eares of eccleſiaſticall perſons, eſpecially of the Pope, in a ſhameleſſe manner, ſaying; as there is no power but of God, ſo there is none, either Temporall or Eccleſiaſticall, Imperiall, or Regall, but from the Pope, in whoſe thigh Chriſt hath written, King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, of whoſe power to diſpute is ſacrilegious boldneſſe, to whom no man may ſay, ſir, why doe you ſo? though he alter, overturne, waſte, and confound all States, rules, and poſſeſsions of men: let me be judged a lyar (ſaith he) if theſe things be not found written by them that ſeeme wiſe in their owno eyes, and if ſome Topes have not given credit to ſuch lying and flattering words. You ſee then, the Popes owne creatures and ſervants would make all other to be ſervants unto him. But it is ſtrange to ſee how many of your men would palliate, and extenuate the Popes power, and Tyrannicall uſurpation, ſometimes under the vaile and title of a ſervant, and ſometimes by a ceremony uſed at the time of his creation: your Mr. Harding witneſſeth both, and ſeconds his humility in the title of a ſervant, with his (privie) reaſon, that is (ſaith he) leſt the Soveraignty of honour exhibited unto him, Iuel and Harding.ſhould in his owne conceit lift him higher, then the degree of humane condition; to that purpoſe (ſaith he) ſeemeth the ſtoole of eaſement at his creation, to be ſet before him to temper the highneſſe of that vocation, with the baſe conſideration of humane infirmities and neceſsities. That is to ſay, that he may remember himſelfe in the midſt of all his glory to be but a man; when as in truth, it is recorded, that the Porphirie ſtoole ſerveth to put the Pope in remembrance of his virility,Vt ſedentis genitalia abuitimo diacono attrectentur …ſa bellicas. that the world may know he is no woman. Howſoever it ſeemes the title of ſervant is not ſufficient to teach him humility, without the ſtoole of eaſement; (and a ſtoole of eaſement is no ſweete badge of his humility.) But this is as common to others as to himſelfe; and therefore by that way of Hamilitie, he will not merit a Superioritie.
But (ſay you) becauſe hee muſt carry himſelfe like a Servant, muſt he not therefore feed the lambs, and ſheepe of Chriſt?] God forbid. But Saint Bernard, who otherwiſe maintained the Popes Supremacie, told us about 500 yeares ſince, that the Biſhops of Rome, as well as other Biſhops, who had the charge of Gods Church, were not Teachers, Bernard ad Eug. lib. 2. de Confiderat.but Deceivers; they were not Feeders, but Beguilers; they were not Pralates, but Pilates. And certainly, if his whole Prerogative hang upon feeding the flocke, his Superioritie will quickly come to nought: for moſt of them feed not, many are utterly ignorant, and cannot feed; others, eſpecially the later Popes, feed their flocks for their owne ends.Auguſt. in Iohn, Tract. 123. And (ſaith Saint Auſtine) Whoſoever they be that feed the ſheepe, to the end to make them theirs, and not Chriſts, they love themſelves and not Chriſt; for deſire either of glorie, or of rule, or of gaine.
For a Concluſion, the Popes humilitie is no other,2 Theſ. 2. then that which Antichriſt profeſſeth, Advancing himſelfe above all that is worſhipped, or called God: no other then Diocleſian the perſecuting Emperour uſed, commanding by Proclamation,Alexander ab Alexandro. That all ſhould fall downe and kiſſe his feet. And as for his feeding of Chriſts ſheepe, Nicholaus Clemang is a Doctor of Paris, about 200 years ſince,Clemang. de corrupt. Eccleſiae ſtatu. cap. 5 & 7. complained that the Pope, Not contented with the fruits and profits of the Biſhopricke of Rome, and Saints Peters Patrimonie, though very great and royall, laid his greedy hands on other mens flocks, repleniſhed with milke and wooll, and uſurped the right of beſtowing Biſhopricks, and livings Eccleſiaſticall throughout all Chriſtendome: Cap. 13.he raiſed his Cardinals, as complices of his Pompe, from Clergy-men of low eſtate to the Peeres of Princes, and inriched them with the diſpenſations, to have and to hold offices and benefices, not two, or three, or ten, Cap. 14.or twenty, but a hundred, or two hundred, yea ſometimes foure hundred, or five hundred, or more, and thoſe not ſmall or leane ones, but even the beſt and fatteſt. Nay more, inſtead of feeding the lambes and ſheepe of Chriſt,Cap. 19, 20. Hee filled the houſe of God with dumb dogs, and evill beaſts, even from the higheſt Prelates to the baſeſt hedge-Prieſts, Cap. 3, 4, 5, 9.and all to maintaine the pride and riot of his worldly ſtate, which he hath lifted up above Kings and Emperors; and yet this man is Servus Servorum. If this man therefore muſt carry himſelfe a Servant, (as you pretend) why doth hee take upon him to be Lord Paramount? If hee be a ſervant, who ſhall be his maſter that ſhall teach him obedience? Your booke of Ceremonies tels us,Liber Cerem. 3. cap. 2. that The Pope himſelfe giveth no manner of reverence to any man alive, neither openly by ſtanding up, or by bowing downe, or by uncovering his head. Neither is hee a ſervant to the Emperour; for as ſoone as he ſeeth the Pope, he worſhippeth him with bare head, Idem, l. 1. Sect. 5. c. 3.touching the ground with his knee. Againe, when he commeth to the foot of the Popes Throne, hee kneeleth downe. Laſt of all, when hee commeth to the Popes feet, hee kiſſeth them (devoutly) in the reverence of our Saviour. This is a part o… the Emperors duty, and the greateſt Grandee upon earth muſt yield to this humble Servant of Servants. This is that Servant of Servants, that ſet the Imperiall crown upon the Emperors head, Henry the ſixt, (not with his hand, but with his foot) and caſting it off againe with the ſame foot, ſaid, I have power to make Emperors, Celeſtinus 3 us.and to unmake them againe at my pleaſure. Paſchalis 2us.This is that Servant of Servants, that ſet up the Son of the Emperor, Henry the fourth againſt his Father, and diſpoſſeſt him of his Kingdome.Adrian 2us. this is that Servant of Servants, that did correct the Emperor Frederick, for holding the left ſtirrop of his horſe, when hee ſhould have held the right.Clemens 5us. luel, pag. 379. This is that Servant of Servants, that cauſed Franciſcus Dandalus the Embaſſador of Venice, to come before him tied in iron chains, and to wallow under his Table with dogs, whilſt his Holineſſe ſate at ſupper. This is that Servant of Servants, Innocentius 3us.who cauſed King Iohn to kneele downe at his Legates feet, and offer up his crown into his hand.Matth Paris, pag. 844. This is that Servant of Servants, that termed King Henry the third, the eldeſt Son of King Iohn, the Popes vaſſall, and England his Iade. To conclude, by this Servant, Rex ſuperbiae, the King of Pride, Rex ſuperbiae in foribus eſt. Greg. l. 4 Ep. 38.(which S. Gregory foretold in his dayes to be nigh at hand) is now manifeſted to the world.
From the Popes Supremacie, you proceed to the worſhip of Images; and then you cry out,Pag. 96. Here againe the Knight giveth more ample teſtimony of his notorious naughtie dealing. Well, what is this grievous accuſation? Why, when he ſaid the Heretikes had the picture of Chriſt made, as they ſaid, by Pilat; why I ſay, could not hee have gone on with Irenaeus? Thus you.
Let mee tell you, I have omitted nothing materiall of your exceptions, nor nothing in the Authors; but if I ſhould recite at large, all the words of my Authors, which either make for us, or againſt you, I ſhould have wearied both my ſelfe and the Reader with impertinencies. Let us goe on with Irenaeus; they crowne them, and propoſe them with the Images of the Philoſophers of the world, to wit, Pythagoras, Plato, Ariſtotle, and the reſt; and uſe ſuch other obſervation towards them, as the Gentiles doe. Then you triumph before the conqueſt, in a vaunting faſhion, Doth not this anſwer you, Sir Humphrey? Doe you not here find a difference betweene their worſhip and ours? betweene Idolatry and Religion? &c. This is too too groſſe for ſuch a ſubtile Knight as you are.
To paſſe by your idle words, I muſt tell you plainly, this doth not anſwer mee. For the Carpocratrans (I confeſſe) that as they worſhipped the Images of Philoſophers, they were heatheniſh; but as they worſhipped the Images of Chriſt and his Apoſtles, I ſay, in that point of Idolatry, they are your Predeceſſors. But (ſay you) the Heretikes crowned the Philoſophers Images.] It is true; and ſo was Marcellina reckoned, and deteſted as an Heretike by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, and Saint Auſtin, for having the Images of Chriſt and Saint Paul, in her Cloſet, and ſetting Garlands on their heads, and burning Incenſe to them. Nay more, Shee her ſelfe, Aug. de Hereſ. hereſ. 7.ſaith Saint Auſtine, was of Carpocrates Sect, and worſhipped the Images of Jeſu, Paul, Homer, and Pythagoras, with bowing her ſelfe, Epiph in 80 hereſ. anaceph.] Idem, lib. 1. hereſ. 27.and burning Incenſe. Epiphanius likewiſe chargeth the whole Sect of Carpocrates, with the ſame fault. The Heretikes called Gnoſtici, beſides all this, have Images painted with colours, and ſome of gold and ſilver, which they ſay, are the Images of Jeſu; and made in the time of Pontius Pilat, when Chriſt was converſant amongst them. Iren. lib. 1. cap. 24.And ſo doth Irenaeus alſo witneſſe, they all reſtraining, and adjudging it to be Hereſie and Idolatrie, to cenſe, and bow to the Image, even of Paul, or Chriſts. But doe you not find a difference (ſay you) betweene their adoring the creature of wood and colour, in place of the creature, and our adoring the Creator repreſented by the creature?
If there be any difference in the manner of the Pagan worſhip and yours, it is in this: That the Chriſtians who know God, and ſet up an Image unto him, offend rather than the Gentiles, who know him not: and if to worſhip a creature, which is the worke of Gods hands, be flat Idolatrie, how inexcuſable is it to worſhip the worke of mens hands, and the ſhadowes of Creatures repreſented by art, and applied by mans vaine conceit to reſemble the Creatour? And in this reſpect, Saint Auſtine preferred the Pagans and Heathens before the Manichees, which were Chriſtians: For the Pagans worſhip things that be, Pagani colunt ca quae ſunt, etc. Aug. contià Fauſt. l. 20. c. 5.though they be not to be worſhipped; but you (ſaith hee) worſhip thoſe things that be not at all, but are fained by the vanitie of your deceitfull fables and tales.
It is true, (as you ſay) the Heathen did worſhip the Creatures of wood, in place of the Creator: Gentes Ugnum adorant, quia Dei Imagmem putant. Ambr. in Pſal. 118. Serm. 10.but the reaſon is given by Saint Ambroſe, becauſe they thinke it to be the Image of God. And doe not you the like, when you worſhip the picture of Chriſt in wood, or any other metall,I moſt firmly avouch, that the Images of Chriſt, and the Mother of God, and other Saints are to be worſhipped. Bulla Pij (4) Act. 9. becauſe it is the picture of Chriſt? Thoſe that worſhipped the golden Calfe, knew wherof it was made: neither could there be ſuch a Calfe amongſt them, to thinke it was a true God. Tertullian up braideth the Pagans, That in their owne conſciences they knew well enough, that the Gods which they worſhipped were but men, that it was to be proved in what places they were borne, where they had lived, Tert. Apolog. cap. 10. Provocamus ad conſcientiam veſtram, &c.and left a remembrance of their workes, where they were buried: and may not the like be proved by many of your Saints which you worſhip in your Church?
If the Pagans had adored their Images for God, there had beene ſome difference betwixt you; but they could anſwer the Chriſtians, as Celſus the Philoſopher did Origen: Orig. contrà Celſum, l. 7.If the Chriſtians deny things made of wood, ſtone, braſſe, or gold, to be God, wee grant it; for otherwiſe it were a ridiculous opinion; for who but a ſtarke foole did ever account them for gods? But in concluſion, they joyne hands with you. Theſe (ſay you) are the ſervices unto the gods, or elſe certaine reſemblances of the gods. I will come neerer unto you. It is the voice of the Heathen man in Clemens, Clem. Recognit. ad Iacob. lib. 5.We worſhip the Images which we may ſee, in the honor of that God which cannot be ſeen. You may reade the like excuſe of a Heathen man in Saint Auſtine: I worſhip neither the Image, nor the devill, but by a Corporall figure, Aug. in Pſal. 113. Concion. 2.I behold the ſigne of that which I ought to worſhip. Now change but the name of Pagan into Papist, and theſe ſayings will fully agree with your men: and therefore, if it be flat Idolatry in them that know not God, the greater ſinne lyeth at your Churches doore, who joyne with Pagans and Idolaters, which otherwiſe profeſſe to know him, and worſhip him as hee ought to be worſhipped, in ſpirit and truth. The difference onelyonly betwixt you and them, is this: They worſhipped the Images of the heathen Philoſophers, aſwelas of Ieſus; and you ſay that you worſhip Images of Chriſt, and not of the Gentiles. And herein, your later error is greater than the firſt; for if you had told a Carpocratian, Thou ſhalt not covet thy Neighbours wife, (becauſe God hath forbidden it) Clemens ſaith, hee would have replied (as you doe) By thy Neighbour is underſtood, the Neighbour of the Gentiles. Clem. Strom. l. 3.And thus they excuſe their diſordered Luſt; and you to decline your Idolatrous worſhip, ſavour of one and the ſame ſpirit, and therefore (to uſe part of your owne words) This doctrine is too groſſe for ſo ſubtile a Ieſuit as you are.
To conclude, you would know how our Doctrine againſt Images, doth ſucceed the ſecond Commandement? Here you quarrell about the word Succeed, when I ſay no ſuch thing, but that it is derived; and thus you fight with a Paper-man of your owne making. And laſtly, you ſay the word Image is not in the Scripture, when as your vulgar Tranſlation in Exodus is Sculptile; and yours in Deuteronomie, Sculpta ſimilitudo; both which ſignifie, A graven Image, or the likeneſſe of any thing. Take for a Concluſion, that friendly admonition which Origen ſometimes gave to Celſus the Pagan,Communis ſenſus cogitare nos cogit, &c. Orig contra Celſum, l. 3. Common ſenſe doth will men to thinke that God is not delighted with honour of Images made by men, to repreſent his likeneſſe, or any ſignification of him: yea, who (ſaith hee) that hath his right wits, will not laugh at him, who after thoſe excellent and Philoſophicall diſputations concerning God, or the gods, doth looke to Images, Ibid. l. 7.and either offereth prayers unto them, or by the contemplation thereof, as of ſome viſible ſigne, goeth about to lift up his mind to the cogitation of God, thereby to be underſtood. And thus much may ſerve touching your Patrons, and firſt founders of Images.
From your Images, you proceed to your Communion in one kind, which I ſhewed was derived from the Manichees, &c. You to excuſe the matter, ſay, That before there were Manichees in the world, the bleſſed Sacrament was adminiſtred ſometimes in one kind, ſometimes in both. You ſay ſo, but you ſay nothing to prove it; and your ipſe dixit will hardly carry it againſt a cloud of witneſſes. For confirmation of what I ſaid, that in this point of Doctrine you ſucceed the Heretikes, hearken to Leo Biſhop of Rome; Leo, Serm. 4. de Quadrageſ.The Manichees, to cover their infidelitie, venture to be preſent at our mysteries, and ſo carry themſelves in receiving of the Sacraments for their more ſafety, that they take the body of Chriſt with an unworthy mouth: but in any wiſe, they ſhunne to drinke the blood of our Redemption, which I would have your devoutneſſe (ſpeaking to the people) learne; for by this ſacrilegious ſimulation, they may be noted by the Godly, that they may be chaſed away by the Prieſtly power. Leo (you ſee) ſpeaketh of the Manichees by name, and thoſe Lay-men alſo; and calleth the forbearing the Lords blood, a Sacrilegious ſleight. Againſt theſe Heretikes alſo, wrote another Biſhop of Rome in the ſame age,Grat. de Conſecrat. Diſt. 2. Comperimus. namely, Pope Gelaſius: We have intelligence (ſaith hee) that certaine men, receiving only a portion of the ſanctified Body, abſtain from the Cup of the ſacred blood, who, for that it appeareth they be intangled with I know not what ſuperſtition, let them either receive the whole Sacraments, or be driven from the whole; becauſe the dividing and parting of one and the ſame mystery, cannot be without grievous Sacrilege.
What thinke you of your halfe Communion, you that brag ſo much of the antiquitie of your Church? The Manichees, without doubt, were the firſt Authors of your Doctrine; and by the ſuffrages of two infallible Popes, your Sacrament is ſacrilegious. But (ſay you) as at that time the Church forbad the uſe of one kind, ſo now it forbiddeth the uſe of both, and may againe give way when it ſhall ſeeme convenient for the uſe of both kinds. Thus you.
It ſeemes you make no ſcruple to thwart the Inſtitution of Chriſt, nor the Cuſtom of the Ancient Church: but becauſe in this point your Church is branded with Sacrilege, I thinke indeed you could be content to joyne with the Proteſtants, and reſtore the Cup to the Lay-people; but I would gladly know how it can be done? Is not your Communion in one kind, publiſhed and decreed by your Pope and Councell, for an Article of Faith? And is it in your Churches power to alter, and diſpenſe with Articles of Faith at her pleaſure?Bulla Pij (4) Act. 6. & Concil. Trid Seſs. 13 Surely this Confeſſion proves, that your Church can create new Articles of Beleefe, which elſewhere you deny; or elſe this is no Article of Faith, being contrary to the practiſe of the firſt and beſt ages; and by conſequent, your infallible Pope and Councell, are guilty of Error and Sacrilege in a high degree.
For a concluſiō of this point, you ſay the words, Drinke yee all of this, (from whence we draw our ſucceſſion in Doctrine) were ſpoken to the Apoſtles, and in them to Prieſts, not to the Laitie.
By this reaſon who ſeeth not, but you may aſwell take the Bread from the Lay people as the Cup, for that alſo was given onelyonly to the Apoſtles? but if the Cup were proper for the Prieſts onelyonly, why doe you deny it to your Non-conficient Prieſts? doe they ſtand in the place of Lay people? Nay more, were not all Non-conficients at the time of Chriſts Inſtitution? what ſtrange ſhifts and evaſions hath your Church, to uphold the Novelty of your faith? I will give you but one teſtimony of Antiquity: There is (ſaith St. Chryſoſtome) where the Priests differ nothing from the people, Chryſ. 18. in 2. Corinth.as when we muſt receive the dreadfull myſteries; for it is not here, as it was in the old Law, where the Prieſt eates one part, and the people another, neither was it lawfull for the people to be partaker of thoſe things of which the Prieſt was; but now it is not ſo, but rather one Body is propoſed to all, and one Cup (to all.)
To paſſe by innumerable authorities of the Ancients, which you know are full in our behalfe, I will ſhut up this haereticall point of doctrine (for ſuch is the foundation of it) with a teſtimony of your owne ſide.Gerard. Lorichius de Miſſa publica proroganda. p. mihi. There are ſome falſe Catholikes that feare not to ſtop the Reformation of the Church, what they can; theſe ſpare no blaſphemy, leſt that other part of the Sacrament ſhould be reſtored to the Lay people: for (ſay they) Chriſt ſpake, drinke yee all of this, onelyonly to the Apoſtles; but the words of the Maſſe be theſe, Take and eate yee all of this: Here I would know of them whether this were ſpoken onelyonly to the Apoſtles: then muſt lay men abſtaine likewiſe from the Element of bread; which to ſay, is an haereſie, yea, a peſtilent and deteſtable blaſphemy. It is therefore conſequent that both theſe words. (Eate yee, Drinke yee) were ſpoken to the whole Church.
Thus your Ancient Biſhop of Rome termed your halfe Communion a Sacriledge, and this latter Author of your owne, termes it an haereſie, and a peſtilent Blaſphemy; and this may ſerve to prove your deſcent from the Haeretikes the Manichees in this point.
From your halfe Communion, you proceede to your Invocation of Angels, which I derived from the Haeretikes Angelici; and for anſwer to them, you ſay, they were Haeretikes ſwarving from the rule of the Catholike faith by exceſſe, that is, honouring Angels more then their due.
And this is your very caſe, for you doe not onelyonly honour them, but religiouſly worſhip them, and call upon them. I will compare your worſhip with theirs, and let the Reader judge, if you be not the children of thoſe haereticall Authors called Angelici. St. Auſtin ſaith,Angelici in Angelorum cultu inclinati. Aug. de haereſ. c. 35. Angelici vocati quia Angelos colunt. Iſid. Orig. in l. 8. c. 5. Rhem. Annot. in Apoc. 19. Sect. 4. that thoſe haeretikes were inclined to the worſhip of Angels; or as Iſidore noteth, they were called Angelici, becauſe they did worſhip Angels. The one ſaith, they were but inclined to worſhip, the other ſaith, they did worſhip. On the other ſide you teach, that there is a religious reverence, honour, and adoration, which is not to be denied to Angels, nay more, you make it a point of Faith, and have decreed that the Saints and Angels reigning with Chriſt are to be worſhipped and prayed unto. Art. 8. in Bulla Pij. 4.Thus whereas the ancient Haeretikes were but inclined to adoration, your men have made it a doctrinall determination flatly to adore them; and whereas they did worſhip them with a religious honour, (as a cuſtome learned from the Heathen Philoſophers) you receive it as a Dogmaticall reſolution of your Faith, delivered by your Trent Fathers; and ſurely in this if there be any exceſſe in the worſhip, it is in your ſelves.
Againe, thoſe Haeretikes learned their leſſon from the Gentiles; For Celſus the Philoſopher had ſaid of the Angels,Orig. lib. 8. contrà Celſum. that they belong to God, and in that reſpect we are to put our truſt in them, and make Oblations to them according to the Lawes, and pray unto them that they may be favourable untous: And is not this your very doctrine? and yet theſe men (ſay you) ſwerve from the rule of the Catholike faith. Obſerve then what was the Chatholike doctrine of thoſe times; Origen returnes his anſwer in the name of all true beleevers,Idem Ibid. Away with Celſus councell, ſaying, that we muſt pray to Angels, and let us not ſo much as afford any little audience to it. Againe, St. Chryſoſtome was living in the fourth age, when Apoſtrophes began to be uſed to Saints and Angels, yet hee telleth us, it was the Devills doing to draw men unto the calling upon Angels; Theſe (ſaith hee) be the inchantments of the Devils, though he be an Angell, Chryſ. in 1. Cor. Homil. 1.though an Archangell, though they be Cherubins, endure it not; For, neither will thoſe powers themſelves admit it, but reject it, when they ſee their Lord diſhonored; I have favoured thee, ſaith he, and have ſaid, call upon me; and doſt thou diſhonour him with calling upon others? This agrees with the doctrine of Theodoret, ſhewing,Theod. in Coloſſ. 3. that the Synod of Laodicea following that rule, made a Law, that they ſhould not pray unto Angels, nor forſake our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: and accordingly, they decreed it with a curſe, Chriſtians ought not to forſake the Church of God, and depart aſide, Concil. Lao. dic. Can. 35. Anno 364.and invocate Angels, and make meetings, which are things forbidden. If any man therefore be found to give himſelfe to this priuie Idolatry, let him be accurſed. Merlin Edit. 1530. fol. 68. Crab Edit. 1538. fol. 216.This Canon makes ſo plainely againſt your Church doctrine, that both Merlin and Crabbe (as I have ſhewed) have turned the word Angelos into Angulos, and ſo by tranſpoſition of a letter, ſay, we muſt not leave the Church of God, and have recourſe to (Angles) or corners.Heiron. Epiſt. ad Riparium. And St. Heirom at the ſame time oppoſed Vigilantius, and profeſſeth of himſelfe and the Catholike Chriſtians of his time, Wee doe not adore or worſhip the Reliques of Martyrs, no nor the Sunne, nor Moone, nor Angels, nor Archangels, nor Cherubins, nor Se raphins, nor any name that is named in this world, or in the world to come, leſt we ſhould ſerve the creature, rather then the Creator, who is bleſſed for ever, You ſee then, by theſe few obſervations, that you are righth deſcended from the Haeretikes in this point, and accordingly you have ſwerved (with them) from the Catholike faith by exceſſe; Wherefore I will conclude this Invocation, with that memorable paſſage of St. Auſtin, Auguſt. lib. Confeſſ. 10. c. 42.Whom ſhould I finde that might reconcile me unto thee? ſhould I have gone unto the Angels, with what prayer? with what Sacraments? Many endeavouring to returne unto thee, and not being able to doe it by themſelves, as I heare, have tried theſe things, and have fallen into the deſire of curious viſions, and were accounted worthy of illuſions.
From your Angell-like or Angelicall predeceſſors, you proceede to the Cathari or Puritans. Theſe were Novations (ſay you) who out of pride and ſelfe conceits, as if they were more cleane and holy, did condemne Catholikes. And doe not your Cloiſter Monkes ſo conceive of themſelves, who beleeve they doe more then God commanded, and that they can ſupererrogate; and doe they not condemne the Reformed Catholikes as the Novatians did? To come neerer to you, is not the proud generation of Merit-mongers derived from the Cathariſts? Epiph. haereſ. 59.But (ſaith Epiphanius) whilſt theſe men call themſelves Puritans, by this very ground they prove themſelves to be impure; for whoſoever pronounceth himſelfe to be pure, doth therein abſolutely condemne himſelfe to be impure.
Againe, touching your Predeceſſors, who for bad Marriage, I cited (out of Epiphanius, and St. Austin) the Haeretikes Tatiani, and the Manichees; But ſay you, That they did diſallow it, eſpecially in Prieſts, I doe not finde it in Epiphanius. It is true, neither did I cite him for it, but I cited Saint Auſtin in the Margent, which you wittingly omitted.Aug. ep. 74. Yet both Authors declare the Haeretikes to bee founders of your doctrine.Continentiam viro hic praedicat, nuptias autem ſcortationem & corruptionem putat. Epiph. haereſ. 46. & 47. p. mihi 93.95. Auditores eorum ex carnibus veſcuntur, & ſi voluerint uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui vocantur electi. Aug. ep. 74. Qui cum uxore exercent carnale commercium in carne ſunt & Deo placere non peſſunt, ſancti eſſe non poſſunt. Diſt. 82. cap. Propoſuiſti. Epiphanius ſhewes that the Tatiani had two proper markes of your Church; for their firſt Leader, Tatianus accounted of Marriage, as whoredome and corruption, and forbad the eating of meates. St. Auſtin likewiſe tells us that the Manichees did permit their hearers to eate fleſh, to uſe husbandry, and to marry wives, but thoſe which were called Elect, did uſe none of thoſe things. Now if thoſe Elect were not the hearers, they muſt needs be their Teachers, and conſequently their Prieſts; And thus you have two forts of Haeretikes to defend your Monaſticke life, the one (viz.) the Tatiani, who agree with Pope Innocent, ſaying, They which live in the fleſh cannot pleaſe God, neither can they be holy. The other (viz.) the Manichees who permit Marriage to all, but to their Prieſts.
Laſtly, touching the Collyridian Haeretikes, ſo called from the Collyrides or cakes which certaine women uſed to offer to the bleſſed Virgin; I ſay againe, they were your firſt Leaders, and particularly for this reaſon, which you alledge to excuſe your ſelves, Becauſe they did exceede the meaſure of honor due to our bleſſed Lady. Pag. 99.And as touching the Antidico-Marianitae (with which haereſie you charge us) they were ſuch who out of malice to the bleſſed Virgin, being puffed up with pride or envy (ſaith Epiphanius) would poſſeſſe men,Epiph. haereſ. 78 p. mihi. 244. that after the birth of our Saviour, Ioſeph knew Marie, which never Proteſtant to my knowledge, ever taught, or thought. Therefore by way of prevention, you put this as a ſcandall upon our Church, to excuſe your owne; But the truth is, we aſcribe honour of preheminence unto that glorious perſon, before all other veſſells of bleſſedneſſe; we proclaime it with the Angel Gabriel that ſhe was highly favoured, and bleſſed among women; Luke 1.28.but withall we teſtifie with Epiphanius, Chriſt ſaid unto her, woman, what have I to doe with thee? my hower is not yet come; leſt any man ſhould thinke our Lady was of greater excellency, Epiph. l. 3. haereſ. 79. contr. Collyridianos.he called her woman, as it were prophecying of the kinds and ſects of haereſies that were to come into the world; leſt any man having too great an opinion of that Holy Saint, ſhould fall into this haereſie and into the dotage of the ſame. And as touching her perpetuall virginity, that golden ſaying of St. Hierome againſt Helvidius we unfainedly profeſſe and teſtifie with heart and voice,Hleron. contrà Helvidium. That God was borne of a Virgin, we beleeve becauſe we reade it; That Mary had Matrimoniall company with her husband after her delivery, we doe not beleeve, becauſe we reade it not. And to make good my aſſertion, that you tread in the ſteps of thoſe haeretikes, which did exceede the meaſure of honor due unto our Lady, firſt looke upon Epiphanius, who oppoſeth this haereſie, he tells us, Although Mary be beautifull, Epiph. l. 3. haereſ. 79.and holy, and honourable, yet is ſhee not to be adored; For theſe women worſhipping St. Mary, renew againe the Sacrifice of Wine mingled in the honour of the Goddeſſe Fortune, and prepare a Table for the Devill, and not for God, as it is written in the Scriptures, Their women boult flower, and their children gather ſticks to make fine Cakes, in the honour of the Queene of Heaven. Therefore let ſuch women be rebuked by the Prophet Ieremie, and let them no more trouble the world, and let them not ſay, we worſhip the Queene of Heaven.
Here we ſee, the words which were ſpoken of the Heatheniſh Idolls, were applied by Epiphanius unto the Mother of Chriſt, not to deface the bleſſed Virgin, but to declare the fond errors of the Haeretikes. Now let us compare this doctrine with yours. Bernardinus de Buſto, Adornamentum regni terreni eſt, quod habeat Regem & Reginam &c. Bernard. de Buſto part 9. Serm 2. Bb. Vſhers anſwer to a shalling. p. mihi. (437.)who was living almoſt 200. yeares ſince, tells us, That it is for an ornament of an earthly Kingdome, that it ſhould have both a King and a Queene, and therefore when any King hath not a wife, his ſubjects often requeſt him to take one. Hereupon the eternall King and Omnipotent Emperour minding to adorne the Kingdome of Heaven above, did frame the Bleſſed Virgin, to the end that he might make her the Lady and Empreſſe of his Kingdome and Empire, that the Prophecy of David may be verified, ſaying unto her in the Pſalme, upon thy right hand did ſit the Queene in clothing of Gold. He tells us further, that your Pope Sixtus the fourth, granted an Indulgence of twelve thouſand yeares for every time, that a man in the ſtate of grace ſhould repeate this ſhort Salutation of the Virgin, Haile moſt holy Mary, the Mother of God (the Queene of Heaven) the Gate of Paradiſe, the Lady of the world; thou art a ſingular and p…re Virgin, thou didſt receive Chriſt without ſinne, thou didſt beare the Creator and Saviour of the world: Deliver mee from all evill, and pray for my ſinnes. Amen.
Looke upon Gregory the Great, printed at Antwerpe, Apud Iohannem Keerbergium. 1615. Tom. 1. p. mihi 490.Anno 1615. and there you ſhall find the Miter of Pope Sylveſter the firſt, who was living Anno 314. with the picture of the bleſſed Virgin, and Chriſt in her armes, figured with this Motto, Ave Regina Coeli; Haile Queene of Heaven. And this was in the ſame age, wherein Epiphanius complaines of the womens cuſtome in his dayes, Wee worſhip the Queene of Heaven.
Laſtly,Bellar. in Praef. de Eccleſ. Militante. Bellarmine himſelfe doth terme her (Regina Coeli) the Queene of Heaven: which attribute is rebuked, and forbidden by Hieremie, ſaith that ancient Father, and in his dayes condemned for a Hereſie.Conſtituta quippe est ſuper omnem creaturam, et quicueque Ieſu curuat genu, matriquoque primus ſupplicat, & filij gloriam cum matre non tam communem i… di…o quam eandem. Arnold. Carnotenſ. tract. de laudibus Virginis. And as touching the exceſſive honour (which you complaine of) that the Heretikes gave unto our Lady, I verily beleeve, if your Churches Magnificats be compared with theirs, they will be found to exceed them farre. For firſt, the ſame Author teſtifies, That ſhee is conſtituted over every Creature; and whoſoever boweth his knee unto JESVS, doth fall downe alſo, and ſupplicate unto his Mother, ſo that the glory of the Son may be judged not ſo much, to be common with the Mother, as to be the very ſame.
Neither are your men contented to make her the Queene of Heaven, and to make her equall to him, whom ſhe her ſelfe termed her Saviour and Redeemer; but your Schooleman Bonaventure goes in a high ſtraine, and in one of his Orizons preſcribed to her, hee ſaith, O Empreſſe, Iure Matris impera tuo dilectiſs…mo filio, noſtro Ieſu Chriſto. Bonav. Corona. B. Mariae Virginis Operum. Tom. 6. edit. Rom. An. 1588and our moſt kind Lady, by the authority of a Mother, command thy moſt beloved Son, our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, (or as wee may reade in the 15th Pſalme of your Ladies Pſalter) Incline the countenance of thy Son upon us, compell him by thy prayers, to have merciemercy upon us ſinners. But that which is moſt remarkable, the Pſalmes of David, which were wholly framed and dedicated to the honour of our Lord, E tranverſo, are all applied to the name and honour of our Lady: as for Inſtance;Pſalter Bonav. edit. Partſiis. An. 1596. Pſal. 15.31.56.71.94. Preſerve mee ô Lady, for in thee have I put my truſt. Bleſſed are they whoſe hearts doe love thee, ô Virgin Mary, their ſinnes by thee ſhall mercifully be waſhed away. Have merciemercy upon mee, ô Lady, have merciemercy upon mee, becauſe my heart is prepared to ſearch out thy will, and in the ſhadow of thy wings will I rest. Give the King thy Iudgements, ô Lord, and thy merciemercy to the Queene his Mother. O come let us ſing unto our Lady, let us make a joyfull noiſe to Mary our Queene, that brings ſalvation. And for a concluſion, Let every ſpirit, Pſal. 150.or every thing that hath breath, praiſe our Lady.
After all theſe, and many ſuch like paſſages of exceſſive honour, attributed to our Lady, your Bernardinus at laſt concludes: Truly, if it be lawfull to ſpeake it, thou in ſome reſpect didſt greater things to God, then God himſelfe did to thee and to all mankind. Volo ergo ego dicere quod tu ex humilitate reticuiſti. Tu enim folus ceciniſti. Quia fecit mihi magna qui potens eſt, ego verò cano & dico. Quia tu feciſti majora ci qui potens eſt. Bernardin. de Buſt. Martial. part. 6. Serm. 2. memb. 3.I will therefore ſpeake that, which out of thy humility thou haſt paſt in ſilence. For thou onelyonly didſt ſing, Hee that is mighty hath done to mee great things; but I doe ſing and ſay, That thou haſt done greater things to him that is mighty.
Now I appeale to your ſelfe, and to all your fellow-Jeſuites, whether your Hyperdulia to the bleſſed Virgin be not tranſcendent, or (to uſe your owne words) doth not exceed the meaſure of honour due unto our Lady? And conſequently, whether in this particular, upon your owne confeſſion, you are not deſcended from the Collyridian Heretikes, your firſt parents?
This is ſo apparently true, that you know no way to free your ſelves from the guilt of Hereſie, but by waving the queſtion, telling us, The line ſhould be drawne along by a continued ſucceſsion, from the beginning to the end: whereas I told you at firſt, I did not undertake to prove that thoſe Heretikes, or your Church, had a perpetuall ſucceſſion in perſon and doctrine; but to ſhew, How neere affinity you have with their adulterate iſſue. (For thoſe were my very words;) and thereupon I concluded, that you had no ſucceſſion in perſon and doctrine: but let us heare your anſwer? This is ſo falſe, and ſo apparently falſe, as that it is not to be doubted, but hee that ſhall averre it, will make no ſoruple of any lie, how lewd ſoever. Thus you.
Good words, and found proofes would better become men of your profeſſion. If you affirme that you have a Lineall Succeſſion, the proofe lyes on your ſide: and when I ſhall ſee it as plainly proved, as ſpoken, I ſhall readily confeſſe my error, till then, let me tell you, it is not your Catalogue of Popes, which you ſay are ſold, and printed at London, that can make a firme agreement of ſucceſſion in Faith. For by that reaſon, our Queene Elizabeth of bleſſed memorie, ſucceeded Queene Mary in Faith; and conſequently, our Faith muſt be good by your owne confeſſion. By that reaſon, Ahaz and Manaſſes, that ſhut up the doore of the Temple, ſucceeded David in the Faith. By that reaſon, Pope Liberius the Arrian, ſucceeded Iulius a Catholike Biſhop, in the Faith. By that reaſon, your Cardinall Poole ſucceeded Biſhop Cranmer our Proteſtant Martyr, in the Faith. This (moſt firme Argument) therefore (as you call it) is but weake and infirme; and accordingly it was reſolved by Saint Ambroſe, and the ancient Fathers,Ambr. de Poenit. cap. They have not the ſucceſsion of Peter, that want the faith of Peter.
In fine, if for no other cauſe, yet for this alone, your ſucceſſion in Faith is interrupted, becauſe you your ſelfe confeſſe, that ſome Articles which are received as points of Faith in your Church, are different from thoſe which were received in the Primitive Churches; and therefore want ſucceſſion in the true doctrine. And that you may yet farther know there was an interruption of the true Faith in ſucceeding Ages,Genebr. Chrone. lib. 4. your owne Genebrard confeſſeth, that there were fifty Popes ſucceeding one another, rather Apoſtaticall, than Apoſtolicall. Cardinall Bellarmine in his Chronologie, tels us of ſix and twentie Schiſmes in the Papacie, wherein it was queſtionable betwixt the Popes and Antipopes, who were the true ſucceſſors of Peter. Your Cardinall Baronius tels us, that baſe Harlots beare all the ſway at Rome,Baron. An. 912. and gave Biſhopricks at their pleaſures, and intruded their Paramours into Peters chaire, falſe Popes, whoſe names are written in the Catalogue of Popes, onelyonly to note and deſigne the times. It is not then your Catalogue of Popes (which you ſo much brag of) that can free you from Hereſie, or make good your ſucceſſion in the Faith: and therefore I will conclude as I firſt began; The pedigree of the Romiſh Faith is drawne downe from the ancient Heretikes, and the Proteſtant Faith from Chriſt and his Apoſtles.