against the whole Church is most insolent mâ—…dnesse saith S. Austin Ep. 118. 18. You erre no lesse absurdly when you say that in the fourth Session of the Council of Trent the Roman Church is made to differ as well from her ancient and purer self as from all other Churches besides her self This is meerly begg'd and not prov'd Might not all former Hereticks have said the same of all Generall Councils that condemn'd them Did either the Council of the Apostles Act. 15. or the first four Generall ones make the Church differ from her self by reason of their Definitions or Decrees why then the Council of Trent in particular Because say you that Council defin'd many meerly humane writings and many unwritten Traditions to be of equall authority with the Scripture anathemat zing all that should not receive them The Council of Trent defined no writings to be of equall authority with the Scriptures but such as those Orthodox Fathers by the assistance of the Holy Ghost confirming ancient Tradition judged to be the Word of God nor any unwritten Traditions but such as were either immediately received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or inspired to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost and so handed down in a perpetuall succession unto them Of such Traditions the Apostle speaks 2 Thes. 2. Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or Epistle Hence it is clear saith S. Chrysostome that the Apostles delivered not all things by writing but many things also unwritten both which are worthy of equall belief Is not this the very Definition of the Council of Trent And might not all the Hereticks that ever deni'd any part of Scripture as the Cerinthians deni'd the whole New Testament but S. Matthew's Gospel the Marcionists Gnosticks Manichees all the old Testament as Luther the Epistle to the Hebrews S. Iames and the Apocalyps and all that ever denâ—…'d Apostolicall Traditions as Arius Nestorius Eutyches and other Novellers did might not I say all these have used the same plea against the Church or Councils that defined Canonicall Books or Apostolicall Traditions against them A strange objection and stranger reformation that justifies all Hereticks in the world As for the anathema hath it not ever been the Style of all Generall Councils to lay a curse upon the refusers of their Definitions And if the point of Infallibility was both believed and virtually defined by the first Generall Councils justly imposing upon mens consciences an inward assent to their Decrees of Faith upon pain of Anathema why not as well by the Council of Trent 19. But I wonder what you mean in saying that the Roman Church was made to differ from all other Churches besides her self If by the Roman Church you mean not onely the City and Diocesse of Rome but all other Churches united with that particular Church whose Bishops sate voted in the Council of Trent then you speak a Chymera there being but one true Catholick Church in the world which is the Roman that never differ'd from her self in matters of faith except you intend a Heterogenial Church patcht up of all condemn'd Sects in the world opposite one to anothre 20. Upon the premises your Reformers say you met together and concluded a Secession As if Protestants revolted not from the Pope long before the Council of Trent or the pretended new Creed as you call it But let us see the quality of those Reformers to wit your Kings your Clerâ—…y and your Layty too What Kings I pray Hen. the 8. the first broacher of the Schisme with Dalila in his â—…ap Edward the 6. a young Child and Qâ—… Elizabeth a woman fit heads to consult of Religion Yet were they all successively by Acts of Parliament either created or declar'd Supreame heads of the Church of England a Prerogative never châ—…lleng'd by any Christian Prince before The following Kings found the breach made and the Schisme completed What Clergy but Cranmer that Arch-Sycophant who according to Hâ—…story by his whispers in the Kings car was the first au thour of the Secession from the Pope and as â—…e pretended Bishop Bramhill confesses struck the nail home What Clergy but intruders when under Edward the 6. Protestantisme was establishâ—…t in England contrary to the liking of most of the true Bishops of that time And when under Qâ—…een Elizabeth all the Bishops but one were deposed and by Cambdens confession eighty Curates fifty Prebendarics fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Arch-Deacons and six Abbots lost their places when also the inferiour Clergy in a Convocation appointed by that very Queen protested against the Reformation What the Laiety too have they against all Antiquity power to define matters of Religion When Theodosius the younger sent his Ambassadour to the Council of Ephesus which was the third Generall one he writ to the Council that he sent him Ea Lege upon that condition that in questions of Religion he should have nothing to doe giving this reason It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle in businesses and consultations of the Church The same said Basil the Emperour to the Laiety in the seventh Generall Council 'T is not lawfull for you to treat in Ecclesiasticall Causes And long before that Iustinian If the businesse be Ecclesiasticall let no Civil Magistrate deale in such questions c. But in fine what Laiety was it but a Cromwell and such like flatterers It was generally conceived and truly as I think saith Weaver in his Monuments pag. 101. that those politick wayes for taking away the Pope's authority and suppressing religious Houses were principally devised by Cromwell And Bishop Gardner in Fox pag. 1344. saith The Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish and put away the Primacy from the Bishop of Rome 21. Yea but these Reformers did not consult flesh and bloud O no! King Henry consulted the spirit when lusting after Anne Bolen he tore himself from the Pope for refusing him the grant of a Divorce and to satisfie his avarice he seized upon all the goods of Monasteries What spirit the Protectour and Parliament under Edward the Sixth consulted whether God or Mammon let Baker tell you There you may read how divers Bishops were committed to prison for misliking the Reformation and all of them dispossessed of their Bishopricks and that which is worse the Bishopricks themselves were dispossessed of their revenues A Parliament was held wherein divers Chantries Colledges Free Chappels Fraternities and Guilds with all their Lands and goods were given to the King which being sould at a low rate enriched many and enobled some and thereby made them firm in maintaining the change thus Baker Queen Elizabeth bred up a Catholick and by a Catholick Bishop consecrated Qâ—…een consulted Eternity when to buy a Crown she sold her Religion Or expect the Church of Rome should have been their Physician which was
alone as his reason evinces For he Sacrificeth to God saith the Saint not to them because he is God's not their Priest And against Faustus the Manichaean he farther declares wherein this high invocation consists Which of the Priests saith he serving at the Altar in place of the holy Bodies ever said at any time We offer unto thee O Peter Paul Cyprian This therefore is the invocation which S. Austin denies to Saints 13. Your errour is inexcusable in deriving the Catholick Church's infallibility in matters of Faith either from Gnosticks or Disciples of Marcus whilest you might know that holy Scriptures Councils Fathers and reason convinces the contrary Quae conventio Christi Belial what relation hath Christs promises his spirit of truth abiding for ever teaching his Church all truths making it the house of the living God Pillar and Firmament of truth with the filthy errours and practises of those beastly Heretiques A Preacher of the word of God should abhorre all but especially such abominable untruths 14. Irenaeus in the Book and Chapter you quote having said that Marcus had a Devil at his elbow by whose whispers he prophesied and imparted that guilt to women fit for his purpose because his chief businesse was with Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addes that his Disciples driving the same trade by deceipts corrupted many silly women giving themselves out for perfect men as if none upon earth neither Peter nor Paul could match them for knowledge Is not this a perfect Character of Luther and his Disciples your Reformers They had Devils at their eares by Luther's and Zwinglius's confession they lusted insatiably after women broke vowes of chastity seduced silly Virgins corrupted Nunnes and boasted of their abilities above the whole Church even the Apostles The Gospel is so copiuosly preached by us that truly in the Apostles time it was not so clear saith Martin Luther And again What arguments soever the ancient Orthodox Fathers the Schooles of Divines the authority of Councils and Popes the consent of ages and of all the Christian people can help you to lay them all aside We admit nothing but Scriptures and so that with us alone is the certain authority of interpreting what we interpret that is the sense of the Holy Ghost what others bring though they be many and great men comes from the Spirit of Satan and a distracted brain This indeed is to be Marcists and Gnosticks 15. 'T is also an affected errour to say we take our Purgâ—…tory from Origen and Tertullian doth not Bellarmin prove it out of Scripture alledging near twenty Texts so expounded by the ancient Fathers Nay doth not your own Chemnitius confesse that Dionisius the Areopagite mentions Prayer for the Dead Do's not your Doctor Fulk plainly averre that Tertullian Cyprian Austin Hierome and a great many more doe witnesse that Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles Insomuch that Zwinglius being urged with the authority of S. Chrysostome and S. Austin deriving that custome from the Apostles gives this wild answer If it be so as Austin and Chrysostome report I think the Apostles suffered some to pray for the Dead for no othor cause then to condescend to their infirmity But what if the fiâ—…st mention of Purgatory were found in Origen and Tertullian who lived in the beginning of the third age was it therefore a dreame of their own brain or an Heresie of Montanus as if he could commend nothing but errours Did not the Fathers of all ensuing ages follow that Doctrine without contradiction and the whole Church of God embrace it as comming from the Apostles Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia saith S. Austin This the universall Church observes as delivered by the Fathers 16. Thirdly you erre prodigiously in affirming that your Reformers in England discovered in the Roman Church horrible corruptions in point of practice and hideous errours in point of Doctrine and that in matter of faith too whereas hitherto no Protestant in the world hath ever been able to shew any one such errour or corruption What you can discover shall appear hereafter in your goodly demonstrations 17. You adde to that another gross errour that those blessed Reformers found by what degrees the several errours corruptions were slightly brought into the Church as well as the severall time wherein the Novelties received their birth and breeding But good Mr. Pierce how often have you Protestants been challeng'd to shew when any such Novelties against faith or manners sprung up in the Church and yet could never doe it How often have you been told that the Roman Church was once a true and pure Church Rom. 1. and that if it fell it must be either by Apostacy Heresie or Schisme Not by Apostacy because she believes in Christ If by Heresie what lawfull Council what Fathers what other Church of Christ ever censur'd or condemn'd her If by Schisme from what other true Church did she ever separate name that Church as distinct from the Roman if you can For I suppose that in a Schisme the rent or wound cannot be mortall to both parts least Christ should have no Church at all upon earth And because such a Church different from the Roman cannot possibly be found therefore some of your Learned Protestants ingenuously confesse it We cannot tell saith Doctor Powell by whom or at what time the enemy did sow the Papists Doctrine c. neither indeed doe we know who was the first Authour of your blasphemous opinions And Doctor Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow p. 205. answering the same question about the change of the Roman Church saith I answer my Text saith it was a mystery not revealed and therefore could not be at first openly Preached against 'T is also the confession of Doctor Whitaker in his answer to Campian that the time of the Roman change cannot easily be told And yet this pittifull shift is clearly against that renowned rule of S. Austin in his 118. Epistle and elsewhere that what is held by the Universall Church and not known when it began is to be believed as an Apostolicall Tradition By which maxime Doctor Whitgift proves against Cartwright that the names of Metropolitan Arch-Bishop c. have their originall from the Apostles ' Tâ—…s also against evident reason for if Christs Spirit of Truth abiding alwayes with the Church could permit errours in faith to creep into it unperceptibly such errours even by the principles of Christianity would be irreformable For if they were brought in so slily that their beginning could not be observed nor they perceived till they were universally received in the Church whosoever should attempt to reform them must by the principles of Christianity be held for an Heretick because he opposeth the whole Church of Christ and so were to be thrown out as a Heathen and a Publican For to dispute
all Antiquity that as S. Hierome noted the Villain Porphyrius censur'd S. Paul of sawcinesse and pride for checking S. Peter his Superiour The fourth Demonstration Page 17. 46. The next demonstration is taken also out of the Epistle to the Galatians 2. 9. where S. Paul gives an account how by Divine revelation he went up to Ierusalem to communicate his Gospel with the chief Apostles Peter Iames and Iohn because some were apt to mistrust his Doctrine as not having lived with Christ nor conferr'd with the Apostles Schollars of Christ. And that the said Apostles when they saw the grace that was given to Paul gave him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that is received them into their society of Preaching upon agreement that we saith S. Paul should goe unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision Hence is hewed out the following demonstration 47. Whosoever receiveth into the fellowship of Preaching one sent unto him by Gods appointment to conferre his Doctrine that he may not Preach in vain is either inferiour to the party sent and received or at most his equal But S. Peter did so receive S. Paul Therefore S. Peter was either inferiour to Saint Paul or at most his equal And reason good for S. Peter was one amongst the three prime Apostles sent to the Iews as Christ himself was and S. Paul to the Gentiles who though in regard of their number they were to the Iewes but as the Ocean to a River yet in many other respects being the chosen people of God had as S. Paul said to the Romans Rom. 3. 3. much advantage every way above the Gentiles and chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God and therefore S. Paul himself Act. 13. 46. profess'd to the Iewes It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life Lo we turn to the Gentiles Otherwise S. Paul by calling Christ Minister Circumcisionis and himself Doctour of the Gentiles should according to you Mr. Pierce signifie some advantage of honour above Christ in the extent of his Diocesse 48. To reinforce this demonstration you may adde that since fellowship argues equality not onely all Fellowes of a Colledge are equall to their head that governs them who is likewise a Fellow but which is more we are all equal to Christ our Lord being called by God unto the fellowship of his Son Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 9. much more then was S. Paul equal with S. Peter was he not think ye especially if we add to this that S. Paul fourteen years before went up to Ierusalem to see and pay his respects to S. Peter because saith S. Ambrose 't was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Saviour had committed the charge of the Churches And Theodoret upon the first to the Galathians He went to yield to S. Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honour which was fitting And S. Chrysostome He went to see him above others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole Company And elsewhere He went to him as to one greater then himself and that not in a vulgar manner but to behold and admire him as a Personâ—…ge of great Excellency and Majesty as men goe to behold great and famous Cities The fifth Demonstration Page 17. 49. No man can have spiritual jurisdiction and a fatherly power over the Church but he must of necessity Lord it over Gods heritage and fleece the flock of Chrtst. But S. Peter was never known to Lord it over Gods heritage or fleece the flock of Christ. Therefore he had no spiritual jurisdiction or fatherly power over the Church for he rather forbids to domineer in the Clergy The Minor is granted on both sides the Major is clear of it self without proofe for if spiritual jurisdiction could stand without Lording and fleecing S. Peter might be Head of the Church though he did not Lord it over Gods heritage or fleece the flock 'T is also confirmed by instances Christ our Saviour had no jurisdiction forsooth over the Apostles because he came not to Lord it but to serve Non veni ministrari sed ministrare The Apostles had no jurisdiction over their respective Churches for the same reason Nay there is no Hierarchie in the Church as the Presbyterians contend against your Episcopal Protestants because Primates may not Lord it over Arch-Bishops nor these over Bishops nor Bishops over Curats nor Parish Priests over the People for whosoever will be great among you shall be your Minister and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be the Servant of all And if you confesse that for the good government of a Nationall Church a Hierarchy is necessary then take the judgement of Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence If it be necessary for the keeping of unity in the Church that one Arch-Bishop should be Primat over all why not as meet that for the keeping of the whole Universall Church there should be one Arch-Bishop over all Hearken to your Doctor Covell saâ—…ing to the Puritans How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastours in the world in peace and unity c. For in all Societies authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure unity and obedience Oâ—…serve Melancthon's judgement As there are some Bishops that govern divers Churches the Bishop of Rome governs all Bishops And this Canonicall policy I think no wise man doth disallow For the Monarchy of the Bishops of Rome in my judgement is profitable to this end that unity in Doctrine be preserved Wherefore we would easily assent to this Article of the Pope's Supreamacy if we did agree in other matters The sixth Demonstration Page 18. 50. If the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis equall not onely in the substance of Apostleship as power of Preaching founding Churches remitting Sins administration of Sacraments and the like but also in jurisdiction and right to govern the whole Church And if Bishops be all ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii not onely of the same merit in order to Priesthood but also of the same degree of authority over others Then S. Peter was not Head of the Church nor the Bishop of Rome his Successour in that Office But S. Cyprian sayes the first and S. Hierome the second Therefore S. Peter was not Head of the Church nor the Bishop of Rome his Successour in that Office Now whether your interpretation of these ancient holy Doctors be or be not their true meaning the Reader may evidently deduce first by what S. Cyprian addes immediately to the very words above cited and you very unhandsomely not to say maliciously conceale Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia
concerning corruptions intrenching upon fundamentalls whereof you spoke not a word before nor ever told us which they were 116. Why may not all hereticks in the world by this example pretend to let out Schisme and not to introduce it Why not stand to it as you here doe that the actual departure from the Church is indeed yours but the causal the Church's Why not that if a secession be made from the Church 't is in the very selfsame measure that the Church makes one from Christ As if there could be a just cause to depart from the Universal Church We are certain saith S. Austin that no man could justly separate from the Communion of the whole world Epist. 48. And again There is no just necessity of dividing unity lib. 2. cont Parmenia cap. II. And your pretended Arch-Bishop Laud joynes with S. Austin There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Sect. 21. pag. 139. Now Luther Calvin and all their followers separated from all the Churches in the world So Luther confesseth He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the Battell forsaken of all Praefat in 1 Tom. contra Regem Angliae And for this we have the expresse confession of Chillingworth that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catholick Church c. cap. 5. pag. 274. So Calvin it is absurd that since we have been forced to divide our selves from all the world we should now in our very beginnings disagree amongst our selves Ep 141. So Chillingworth cap. 5. pag. 237. As for external Communion of the visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it So Perkins giving the reason of the Separation for that during the space of 900. yeares the Popish Heresie spread it self over the whole world and for many hundred yeares an universall Apostacy overspread the face of the whole earth What else I pray For if every point of Faith in which we differ from Protestants as Masse praying to Saints use of Images c. be Heresie and Apostacy all the Churches in the world besides Protestants were both Hereticks and Apostates And what other sense can that insolent vaunt of Luther have in his Letter to the Strasburgians Christum a nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari We dare boast that Christ by us was first preached As if none in the whole world had a right belief of Christ before Luther This this was really the Doctrine of your first age though now in the second many of you for very shame disclaime from it and seek with Doctour Usher the first English broacher of this new Heresie in his Sermon at Wansted before King Iames An. 1624. to hook in and matriculate in your Protestant Church the Greeks Abyssines AEgyptians Iacobits though differing never so much amongst themselves and from you and holding Heresies expressely condemned in former Councils You may well affect their Communion but I am sure they will scorn yours 117. I said the first English broacher Forindeed this monster of Doctrine fell first from the Apostate Pen of Marcus Antonius de Dominis who to gratifie the Sectaries forged the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals and so made up a Church of all Sects in the world agreeing in fundamentals a Church not to be found either in Scriptures Councils Fathers nay nor any unorthodox Writings of former ages For what Christians upon earth ever taught before that salvation might stand with a voluntary disbelief of the least point of Faith known to be sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God As if the sin of incredulity consisted rather in the greatnesse of the matter revealed then in denying Gods veracity equally engaged in points noâ—… fundamentall 118. Yet still Saint Austin's words stand uncontrollable that no man can justly separate himself from the Communion of the whole world To whom your Doctour Whitaker subscribes lib. 3. cont Dureum Sect. 3. He goeâ—… from the Gospel who sayes the whole world can conspire against Christ. 119. Yea but otherwise Saint Paul had been too blame in that he said to the Corinthians Come ye out from among them and be ye separate 2 Cor. 6. 17. Very true if it were the same to separate from known Heathens and publick Idolaters of whom Saint Paul speaks who are no Church and from the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile Neither did the Church thrust you out as you say but as Saint Iohn fitly termes it ex nobis exierunt You went out from us by your wilfull errours Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo saith Saint Hierome In Epist ad Tit. cap. 3. Hereticks give sentence against themselves parting from the Church of their own accord Nay but the Church by her hostilities and excommunications departed from you Yes indeed just as the four first Generall Councils departed from the Arians Macedonians Nestorians and Eutychians by their hostilities and anathemaes and not rather as Saint Cyprian sayes of other Hereticks By being excommunicated they received their due punishment not cast out by us but they of their own accord casting out themselves and wilfully thrusting themselves out of the Church Epist. 40. So that if the Devil drive you out as you confesse you were your own selfe-Devils and not the Church which excommunicated you 120. Yet I acknowledge with Saint Austin that every Christian who is excommunicated is delivered up to Satan but how to wit because the Devil is out of the Church as Christ is in the Church and by this he is as it were delivered to the Devil who is removed from the Communion of the Church whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated whom he pronounceth to be delivered to Satan In this sense we grant that the holy Church by excommunication thrust out Protestants as the Apostle did the incestuous Corinthian after he had first by that detestable sin given the cause to be expell'd The excommunication was the punishment not the crime You were once under the spirituall government of the Roman Church believed her Doctrine avowed her practises Of your own private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or election you renounc'd her authority disbelieved her Doctrine cast out her practises Behold Schisme at your door that is a voluntary recession from the former Authority Faith and Discipline of the Church for nine hundred yeares acknowledged in the Land The anathema following was both just as thundring the offenders and wholly necessary to preserve the innocent from your contagion 121. To what you cite in the Margin against Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh Baronius hath fully answer'd Anno Domini 1076. 1077. showing out of approved Authours of the same age that William Bishop of Mastrecht the chief
time of the Apostles constantly taught that there is a Purgatory Secondly that Bellarmine could not give an older instance then Origen and Tertullian a most palpable untruth for Bellarmine in his tenth Chapter cited by your self expressely alledges for Purgatory S. Clement the Roman and S. Dennis both Coetaneans to the Aposâ—…les and though in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Bellarmine seems to doubt of that work of S. Clement yet he constantly defends S. Dennis's books Perhaps because these two were never noted of errour you skipt them over to fasten upon Origen and Tertullian thinking to discredit their authority by advancing their lapses But sweet sir have Origen and Tertullian forfeited their credit since the conference of Divines at Hampton Court before King Iames there Dr. Reynolds scrupling at the use of the Crosse the Dean of Westminster saith Baker shewed out of Tertullian Cyprian Origen and others that in their time it was used And this the King judged antiquity enough to warrant the continuance of it still Was Tertullian no Montanist when in your third Page he is cited to your purpose and is he one now in your eight Page when Bellarmine cites him to ours nay and shall be Orthodox again in your thirty one page when he is fancied to make against us Is Origen in your eighth page not onely an Heretick but an Arch-Heretick and therefore of no authority when he is brought by Bellarmin for Purgatory but will be Orthodox anon when in your 27. page you call for him against prayers in an unknown tongue Yet this very fetch proves Purgatory the more for if their Doctrine of Purgatory had been erroneous or heretical the Fathers and Councils that spared them not for other heresies would questionlesse have censur'd them for that which never any one did Thirdly that the Cardinal having boasted of all the Ancients both Greek and Latin down from the Apostles could not make it good but by recourse to the Heathens as Plato Gorgias Cicero Virgil as if those Heathens were alledged in the same Chapter as holy Fathers of Christian times to prove the doctrine of Purgatory from the Apostles albeit they lived long before the Apostles dayes Yet not to be taken tripping in your margin you cite also Bellarmin's 2d Chapter which nothing concerns either Authorities of Fathers or the age of Purgatory In this Chapter the Cardinal relating divers errours about Purgatory alledges S. Austin who in his 31. book of the City of God the 13. chap. affirms it to have been the Platonicks opinion that all punishments after death were but purging pains and to that effect S. Austin cites Virgil. To this Bellarmin replies that in Plato's works as in his Dialogues intituled Phaedon Gorgias 3. sorts of men are sentenc'd after death the first to the Elysian Fields the second whose sins are curable to temporary pains the third of sins incurable to eternal Afterwards in the 11. chapter amongst other proofs drawn from reason Bellarmin sayes that Purgatory was the sence of all Nations Iewes Mahometans Gentils both Philosophers Poets and proves it out of the Macchabees Alcaron Plato Cicero Virgil. Finally to prevent your cavils he concludes that things wherein all Nations agree can hardly spring but from the light of Nature whil'st other inventions forged by men will ever alter as Nations are divers In all this discourse where is there any recourse to Heathens to make up the antiquity of Purgatory from the Apostles In the margin you bid us see Bellarmin contradicted by the Romanists themselves and then you cite a work of Polydor Virgil corrupted and Printed at Basil amongst the Sectaries and forbidden by the Church Roffensis only intends that the name and nature of Purgatory was but very seldome mentioned amongst the ancientest Grecians But for the thing it self he sayes expâ—…essely Art 37. Whereas Purgatory is affirmed by so many both Greek and Latin Fathers 't is not likely but that the truth of it was made clear unto them by some sufficient proof Thomas ex Albiis neither denies Purgatory nor the Authority of Fathers but onely the manner of purging Soules before the Resurrection Suarez in the place you quote hath not a word of this matter And whether they contradict Bellarmin or no they all contradict you and assert Purgatory 11. Not content with abusing Bellarmin you treat the great S. Austin himself most unworthily perswading your Auditours that he denied Invocation of Saints to have been in his dayes A thing so manifestly false that Protestants themselves acknowledge the contrary I confesse saith Doctor Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristow page 5. that Ambrose Austin and Hâ—…erome held invocation of Saints And Mr. Brightman after he had named Athanasius Basiâ—… Chrysostome Nazianzen Ambrose Hierome Austin he rebukes them as in words condemning Idolatry but indeed establishing it by invocation of Saints Lastly Chemnitius alledgeth S. Austin craving S. Cyprian's prayers adjuvet itaque nos in orationibus and then excuses him saying these things did S. Austen without Scripture yielding to the time and custome But let us hear S. Austin himself giving the reason why Christians did willingly bury their dearest friends near the Martyrs Tombes dum recolunt saith he whil'st they call to mind where the bodies of those that are dear to them are laid they with their prayers commend them to the same Saints as it were to Patrons c. And in his 33. Sermon de diversis he relates how a Woman had recourse to S. Stephen for her Son newly dead praying Holy Martyr restore me my Son Let any one read S. Austin's eight Chapter of the 22. Book de Civitate Dei and if obstinacy doth not blind him he will be convinc'd of S. Austin's mind But you Sir to colour the cheat cite his words in Latine omitting what is most material Take his whole Text as it lies The Saint therefore to shew that Christians do not honour the Martyrs of God as the Heathens did their gods who were but dead men as Hercules and Romulus speaks thus They the Heathens built Temples erected Altars appointed Priests and offered Sacrifices to these their Gods But we build no Temples to our Martyrs as to Gods but Monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God Nor do we set up Altars there whereon to Sacrifice to the Martyrs we offer Sacrifice to the one God both of Martyrs and ours at which Sacrifice as men of God who in confessing him overcame the world they are nominated in their due place and order yet are they not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth for he Sacrificeth to God not to them although at their Monuments because he is God's not their Priest By this Text intirely cited is it not evident that S. Austin in those words Yet are they not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth which you quote and there make a stop meaneth a Religious invocation due to God
liberties and exemptions of the Gallican Church which still acknowledges the Pope's supremacy and the publish'd confessions of Popish writers touching the Papal usurpations and right of Kings put together by Goldastus an heretick prov'd by Gretser to be a lying knave but never denying the Roman Bishops to succeed S. Peter in the spiritual government of the Church will not be able to deny that the Supremacy of the Pope hath this Lying against it that it was not so from the beginning But I must tell you with holy S. Leo that whosoever denieth the Supream Authority of the Roman Bishop cannot deminish the power thereof but puffed up with the spirit of pride plungeth himself headlong into Hell What then have these ten so well contrived Ratiocinations demonstrated nothing at all yes Sir they have demonstrated that you are still guilty of Schisme for disturbing the See Apostolicks quiet possession of Supremacy in England without a demonstration that it was usurpt For'tis evident from our solutions that you have not demonstrated such an usurpation And t is no lesse evident that an authority of so high a concern for the peace and unity of the Church so long a knowledged and obey'd in this Kingdome as of Christ's institution could not without open Schisme be cast out except it had been demonstratively proved an usurpation Against the Infallibility of the Catholick or Roman Church The eleventh Demonstration Page 22. No Church can be infallible to wit as well incapable of errour as not erroneous except it hath that infallibility which is one of Gods peculiar incommunicable Attributes For where there is not omniscience there must be ignorance in part and where ignorance is there may be errour But no Church can have that incommunicable Attribute Therefore no Church can be infallible much lesse the Roman A high and massy discourse As if there were no difference betwixt an intrinsecal infallibility proper to the nature of an infinite Being essentially identify'd with Omniscience and an infallibilility extrinsecally communicated relying upon the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by the word of God Had Moyses and the Prophets Gods incommunicable Attribute were the Apostles Omniscient And yet were they not infallible in what they preach'd assisted by the spirit of God was not S. Paul as well incapable of teaching the Church errours as not erroneous whilest he said to the Thessalonians 1. 2. 13. Ye received the word of God which ye heard from us ye received it not as the word of man but as it is in truth the word of God And again Since you seek a proofe of Christ speaking in me 2 Cor. 13 3. Was not the humanity of Christ incapable of errour and sin as it was govern'd by his Divinity and could not teach errours and yet it was not identify'd with the increated Omniscience of God nor with the incommunicable Attribute of infallibility What mean some Protestant Doctours when they grant the Universal Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls Cannot God preserve from errour as well in not-fundamentals taken in your sense as Fundamentalls If so that Church so preserved upon Gods promise will be infallible in the sense intended by the Roman Church and then what is become of your demonstration drawn from the impossibility of the thing Surely S. Cyprian had a better opinion of the Roman Church when he said Lib. 1. Epist. 3. The Romans are they whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbelief can have no accesse S. Ierome had the same sentiment when speaking to Ruffinus Know thou saith he that the Roman Faith commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fenced by S. Paul's authority it cannot be altered though an Angel should teach otherwise 60. You and yours on the other side denying the Church to be infallible argue Christ of improvidence in not furnishing his Church with undoubtable meanes to compose differences in matters of Faith and preserve unity The Church of Tyranny in obliging men upon pain of damnation to believe her definitions that may be false and the whole Body of Christians of unsettledness in belief as relying upon nothing not subject to errour whether Fathers Councils Church or Scriptures expounded by them If I should say that any one at his pleasure I may resist the Councils I should say well saith Luther expressely against St. Austin's belief in his first Book against the Donanatists chap. 7. who speaking of the rebaptization of those that had been baptized by Hereticks he sayes The obscurity of this question compell'd men of great authority to stagger a long while untill that in a full Council of the whole world it was firmly decreed what was most wholsomly to be held all doubts removed Which he could never have said had he held the Church errable in her Generall Councils Say what you please all your certainty of Faith is finally resolved into the private spirit though you cannot endure to be told so The twelfth Demonstration 61. The Tenet of Infallibility upon earth cannot be true if errours in Faith spring up in the Church But Novatianisme was hatcht at Rome Donatisme spread over the West Arianisme over the East Chilianisme infected the primitive Fathers without contradictionâ—… and the Church of God in S. Austin's and Innocent the third's opinion held the necessity of Infant-communicating which the Council of Trent declared against Therefore the Tenet of Infallibility upon earth cannot be true 62. A sturdy argument indeed if one held every single person of the Church to be infallible Mean while it proves as well that the Church even under the Apostles time was not infallible for that in their time sprung up the Heresies of Simon Magus Diâ—…rephes Cerinthians Ebion Nicolaitans c. and yet the Apostles in their Council at Ierusalem could freely say It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Was not this Council by the assistance of the Holy Ghost inerrable notwithstanding those Heresies How then doe Heresies prove the Fallibility of Generall Councils lawfully called to beat them down would not such a Principle argue the Fallibility of Christ because his Doctrine was opposed by the Jewes 63. Novatianisme though hatcht at Rome yet the Egge was laid in Africa and this no Authour denies For Novatus after a Schisme raised against St. Cyprian coming to Rome joyned with Novatianus a Roman Priest against Pope Cornelius and both together sowed the heresie held first by Montanus and Tertullian that such as were faln should not be readmitted into the Church after repentance This heresie was presently resisted by Cornelius in a Council held at Rome of threescore Bishops in Africa by S. Cyprian in a Synod of forty two Bishops at Antioch in a Provincial Council And Eusebius addes that every where through all Provinces the Bishops met against that errour Finally the first Council of Nice offered peace to the Novatians if renouncing their heresie they would