A Case for the Spectacles, Response to text · 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 ancient Haeretikes, 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, duplicate page duplicate page and prayer in a strange tongue brought in by Pope Vitalian (as is witnessed by Wolphius:) but you cry out, It is a most strange absurdity to averre such 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 quaere 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. contra 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 naturall 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,Λ. 30. 666 Α. 1. 666 Τ 300. 666 Ε 5. 666 Ι 10. 666 Ν 50. 666 Ο 70. 666 Σ 200. 666 agreeable to the profession at this day. But the truth is, 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,Sed & foreign nomen sexcentinum sexaginta sex, numerū habens valde verisimile est quoniam verissimum nomen hoc habet vocabulum. Latini enim sunt qui nunc regnāt, sed non in hoc nos gloriabimur.] Irenae. l 5. cap 25. p mihi. 355. 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.
Trajan, Anno 100. Bel. de script. Eccles. pag. mihi.First, 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 he 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 loquimur, corpus Christi veri à nobis att…ectari, manducan, circumgestari, dentibus atteri, sensibiliter sa…rificari, non min…s quam anie 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 nostri Iesu Christi sensualitèr non solum in Sacramento, sed in veritate manibus Sacerdotum tractari, frangi, ac fideliùm dentibus atteri. Grat. de consecr. 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 Iesus 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 Supremacy, 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 co… stituit sedem Romanae & Apostolicae Ecclesiae 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 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 Phocas 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, and will you have it (say you) that by reason of his humility, pag. 95.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, He that humbleth himselfe shall be exalted. Matth. 20.25.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, That none of his Apostles should reigne as Lord over his Brethren: Luke 22.27.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 owne eyes, and if some Popes 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,Ioel and Harding. that is (saith he) lest the Soveraignty of honour exhibited unto him, 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 ab ultimo diacono attrectentur. Isabellicus. 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 therfore by that way of Humilitie, 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 Considerat.but Deceivers; they were not Feeders, but Beguilers; they were not Praelates, 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. And (saith Saint Austine) Whosoever they be that feed the sheepe, August. in Iohn, Tract. 123.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, then that which Antichrist professeth, Advancing himselfe above all that is worshipped, 2 Thes. 2.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 Clemangis a Doctor of Paris, Clemang. de …rrupt. Ecclesiae statu. cap. 5. & 7.about 200 years since, 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: he raised his Cardinals, as complices of his Pompe, Cap. 13.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, Cap. 3, 4, 5, 9.even from the highest Prelates to the basest hedge-Priests, 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 of 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,Celes…nus 3us. said, I have power to make Emperors, 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. Iuel, 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. This is that Servant of Servants, that termed King Henry the third,Matth. Paris, pag. 844. 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 Carpocratians (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, saith Saint Austine, was of Carpocrates Sect, Aug. de Heres. heres. 7.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, Pagani c…lunt ea quae sunt, etc. Aug. contrà Faust. l. 20. c. 5.which were Christians: For the Pagans worship things that be, 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,Gentes lignum adorant, quia Dei Imaginem putant. Ambr. in Psal. 118. Serm. 10. (as you say) the Heathen did worship the Creatures of wood, in place of the Creator: 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 obraideth 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. …rovocamus 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. contra 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, We worship the Images which we may see, Clem. Recognit. ad Iacob. lib. 5.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, Aug. in Psal. 113. Concion. 2.nor the devill, but by a Corporall figure, 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, aswel as 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, Clem. Strom. l. 3the Neighbour of the Gentiles. 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 dleighted 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, and either offereth prayers unto them, Ibid. l. 7.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. Co…operimus. 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,Bulla Pij (4) Act. 6. & Concil. Trid Sess. 13 and dispense with Articles of Faith at her pleasure? 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. There are some false Catholikes that feare not to stop the Reformation of the Church, Gerard. Lorichius de Missa publica preroganda. p. mihi.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 Ang…lorum cultu inclmati. 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 sai…h, 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, that they belong to God, and in that respect we are to put our trust in them, Orig. lib. 8. contrà Celsum.and make Oblations to them according to the Lawes, and pray unto them that they may be favourable unto us: 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, Chrys. in 1. Cor. Homil. 1.though he be an Angell, 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,Concil. Laodic. Can. 35. Anno 364. Christians ought not to forsake the Church of God, and depart aside, 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. This Canon makes so plainely against your Church doctrine,Merlin Edit. 1530. fol. 68. Crab. Edit. 1538. fol. 226. 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 Seraphins, 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 rightly 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, Whom should I finde that might reconcile me unto thee? August. lib. Confess. 10. c. 42.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 supererrorogate, and doe they not condemne the Reformed Catholikes as the Novatians did? To come neerer to you, is not the proud generation of Meritmongers derived from the Catharists? But (saith Epiphanius) whilst these men call themselves Puritans, Epiph. haeres. 59.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 corum 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 possunt, 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 sorts 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 1.2….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,Hieron. 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, Ad ornamentum regni terreni est, quod habeat Regem & Reginam &c. Bernard. de Busto part. 9. Serm. 2. Bb. Vshers answer to a challing. 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 pure 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.
Bellar. in Praef. de Eccles. Militante.Lastly, 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. And as touching the excessive honour (which you complaine of) that the Heretikes gave unto our Lady,Constituta quippe est super omnem creaturam, et quicunque Iesu c…r…at genu, matri quoque premus …upplicat, & fi…ij gloriam cum matre non tam communem iudico quam eandem. Arnold. C…rnotens. tract. de laudibus Virginis. 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,Iure Matris impera tuo dilectissimo filio, nostro Iesu Christo. Bonav. Corona. B. Mariae Virginis Operum. Tom. 6. edit. Rom. An. 1588 and in one of his Orizons prescribed to her, hee saith, O Empresse, and 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. Parifiis, 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 solus cecinisti. Quia secit mihi magna qui potens est, ego verò cano & dico. Quia tu fecisti majora ei 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 scruple 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. Chrono. 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.