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
then was the style of the ancient Fathers which you not seeing or not caring whom you strike at call a childish fallacy in one of the Leaâ—…ndest Cardinalls the Church ever had Nay the very Arians themselves knowing to their grief Roman and Catholick to be in the common phrase Synonima yet to disgrace Catholicks called them Romanists as you doe now Victor Bishop of â—…ica recounts that Iocundus an Arian said to King Theodoriâ—… If thou put Armogastus to death the Romanists will proclaime him a Martyr And Gregory of Tours records that Theodegâ—…lus an Arian or Pagan King seeing a Miracle done at the Font of a Catholiek Church said to himself Quia est ingeniuâ—… Romanorum this is a device of the Romans Hoc enim nomine vocitant nostrae Religionis homines For so they call men of our Religion 'T is you not we that stand in parallell with the Donatists The Roman Church is spread over the four parts of the world every where the same perfectly agreeing in Faith Sacraments and Discipline Your pretended Church is confined to a small part of Europe as the Donatists to Africa divided into many Sects condemning one another as incapable of Salvation You sought Communion with the Greek Church but were justly repuls'd and so would yet be wheresoever you tri'd there being no Church in the world except the Reformed that will joyn with you in externall communion of Sacraments Liturgies and Church Duties To make your Church swell you are forc'd now a dayes to take in most Hereticks in the world Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites Anabaptists Sacramentarians c. not remembring that famous saying gathered out of S. Austin cited by the most Learned Bishop of Chalcedon in his Treatise of Schisme Catholicks are every where and Hereticks are every where But Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks are different every wâ—…ere Consequently for want of union cannot possiâ—…ly make up one Church And if they had all the same errours in Faith they would still be Hereticks and no Church of Christ. 28. Behold a reason in brief Though the word Church taken grammatically signifie any Congregation of men yet in the sence of the holy Scriptures Fathers and ancient custome 't is restrained to the sole company of Christians united in Divine Faith Sacraments and obedience to their Pastour Divine Faith therefore being of the essentiall form that makes one a member of the Church how can Hereticks who according to S. Paul have made shipwrack touching Faith be parts of the true Church upon which score the Apostle commands Titus c. 3. to avoid an Heretick because he is subverted and condemned of himself S. Cyprian denied Novatianus to be in the Curch Quando ipse in Ecclesia non sit Optâ—…s Meleviâ—…anus against Parmenian saith that â—…raeter unam Ecclesiam Besides one Church which is the true Catholick Church the rest among Hereticks are thought to be but are not S. Hierome against the Luciferians Nulla Congregatio haeretica potest dici Ecclesia Christi No hereticall Congregation can be called a Church of Christ. Bâ—…t none so â—…xpresse foâ—… this matter as S. Austin who in his 48. Epistle speaking to the Donatists Nobiscum estis You are saith he with us in Baptisme in the Creed in the râ—…st of our Lords Sacraments In ipsa Ecclesia Catholica non estis In the Catholick Church you are not Mâ—…rk that they believed all the Aâ—…ticles of the Creed and consequently your fundamentalls Now all the Congregations in the world disagreeing from the Roman in points of Faith are 〈◊〉 Hereticks and went out of her by known erroâ—…s Therefore no Churches nor parts of the tâ—…ue Châ—…ch 29. The Egyptians Ethiopians and Abyssins not of our Communion are Eutichians holding but one Nature Will and Operation in Christ and were condemned by the fourth General Council of Chalcedon with them side part of the Armenians the â—…acobits Georgians and Copthties The Tartarian Christians under the Turk and Persian in Asia follow Nestorius condemned by the third general Council of Ephesus for holding two Persons in Christ. Yet Baxter blushes not to screw both Nestorians and Eutichians into the Protestant Church under pretence that they 〈◊〉 noâ—… in sense but only in words from the Catholick Church As if the silly Minister understood their meaning better then all the learned Fathers of the two General Councils of Ephesus and Calcedon that condemn'd and cast them out of the Church for Hereticks What will Baxter answer to that Act of Parliament under Queen Elizabeth impowering Bishops to judge any matter or cause to be heretick which by the first four General Councils or any one of them have bin determin'd to be heresies If the opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches were not heresiâ—…s as well in sense as in words what did those two general Councils determin to be heresies The Abyssins reject the Council of Chalcedon to this day and admit circumcision with other ceremonies of thâ—… Iewes The Grecians with their adherents Muscovites and Russians even in S. Athanasius his Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son Of whom your Thomas Rogers upon the 39. Articles pronounced thus This discovereth all them to be impious and erre from the way of truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecian the Russians the Muscovites maintain Note that Rogers Book was perused and by the authoritâ—… of the Church of England allowed to be publick 30. Of Luther and Calvin's pretended Churches there is no doubt as holding many aged errours long since condemned by Councils and Fathers for Heresies See the Catalogues of old Heresies collected by Epiphanius Philostratus â—…sidor and S. Austin who for example having rank'd AErius â—…mongst Hereticks for denying Sacrifice and Prayer for the dead ends his Book assuring that whosoever holds any of those Hâ—…resies cannot be a Catholick Much lesse then such as hold with the Pelagians tha Children dying unbaptized may be saved with the Novatians no power in Priests to remit sins with the Manichees no externall Sacrifice or Free-will with certain Hereticks in S. Ignatius the Martyr's dayes no Reall presence with Vigilantius no single life of Priests with Iovinian no difference of merits c. 31. Whence I conclude that since all other Churches in the world disagreeing from the Roman are by sacred Antiquity held and confessed Hereticall and by consequence no Churches The Roman alone with all the Churches of her Communion is the true Church of Christ there being no other upon earth free from errours in Faith and the Roman never yet proved erroneous See 17. other parallells of Protestanâ—…s with the Donatists in Gualcerus hâ—…s Chronicon Seculo 4. 32. Heâ—…e also you have a flâ—…ng at Cardinall Peròn for his want of â—…mory as if he foâ—…got that the Preaching â—…f Châ—…ist
indeed their great disease So it was in very deed For the rot of heresie spreading amongst them how could they but perish rejecting the cure of their supream Pastour But you had recourse to the Scriptures The very Plea of all Heretiques Nolo verba quae non sunt scripta cry'd out an Arian against the Nicene Faith But you reserved to your selves what you deny'd to the whole Church the expounding of Scriptures and what passes all astonishment confessing your selves errable in the interpreting of Scripture yet in despight of all Gods Church you hammer'd out a negative Religion never known to the world before Yes to the Fathers of the Primitive Church say you Find your negative Articles in the Fathers and the matter is ended Mind onely by the way that 't will not suffice to alledge the not finding our positive Doctrines in the primitive Fathers for you do not onely not believe them as neither Turks nor Heathens do but you positively believe their opposite negatives contained expressely in your 39. Articles of Religion as Art 21. No general Council but may erre Art 22. No Purgatory no lawful invocation of Saints no respect due to holy images 28. No transubstantiation 31. No Sacrifices of Masses but blasphemous Fables c. These Negatives therefore being Articles of your Religion must not be bare non entities whereof there be many millions but verities divinely revealed otherwise unfit to be oâ—…jects of Christian Faith Consequently they must be found either in clear and uncontrovertible Scripture or in Scripture so interpreted by the primitive Fathers or in traditionary Doctrines of the same Fathers This you never being able to do 't is in vain to pretend to Fathers of the Primitive Church who never speak of your negatives revealed what ever they do of our positives 22. Sir 't is not the stile of your Progenitours to appeal to the Fathers Luther contemns them I care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Tertullians stand against me Zwinglius slights them Thou begiâ—…n'st to cry Fathers Fathers the Fathers have so delivered but I doe not aske thee Fathers nor Mothers I require the Word of God Iewel appeal'd to the first six hundred yeares but was rebuked for it by Doctor Humphrey He was over liberall c. What haue we to doe with Fathers Whitaker values them not a rush Neither think your self to have proved any thing though you bring against us the whole swarm of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voyce of man but by God himself Which is to say that though all the ancient Fathers should agree upon a Text of Scripture yet if Mr. Whitaker disagrees they are all to be rejected S. Austin will tell you that all Heresies are hatcht whil'st good Scriptures are ill understood and what in them is understood amisse is rashly and boldly asserted What greater rashnesse then for one man to pretend the true sence of Scriptures against the current of Antiquity Is it not a stupendious thing that the Bishop of Canterbury should say of King Iames at the Conference of Hampton-Court Undoubtedly his Majesty spake by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this assistance should be denied to the whole Church of Christ in her greatest and most sacred Assemblies But if you ever admit of an appeale to the Fathers 't will surely be to such an age wherein few or none treated the matter in question and then the first that mentions it in after ages must be in your judgement a brocher of Novelties though none of those times ever thought so for as what S. Iohn writ in his Gospel beyond other Canonicall Writers stay'd unwritten above threescore yeares after the Ascension till some occasion arose of leaving it upon record and yet in that interim it was doubtlesse known to the Primitive Church So why might not other Doctrines of the Apostles be kept onely by Tradition tâ—…ll some hint was given to the Fathers of ensuing ages to publish them in writing How many things passe long before they are committed to paper 23. At length you separated from our ulcers that is from the three essentials Communion in Faith Communion in Sacraments and the Ministry or Government of our Church and yet left the body or substance undestroy'd But your Perkins will tell you that 't is a notable policy of the Devil which he hath put into the heads of sundry men of this age that our Religion and the present Church of Rome are all one in substance He addes to this that we rase the foundation Be it as 't will either Salvation might have been had in the Church you left or no. If it might as you must say that left her entire in substance 't was a damnable Schisme to separate from her seeing Protestants confesse that no cause but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation If it might not then 't was no true Church nor had Christ any true Church upon earth able to save men and consequently no Church at all since that in separating from the Roman you divided from all Churches in the world as I shall shew anon and you have never yet shewed what ulcer in particular it was for which you could not escape eternal death in the whole Church of Christ before Luther 24. Here you tell us of a remarkable infirmity obvious in our Writers That they complain you have left their Church but never shew you that Iota as to which you have left the word of God or the Apostles or the uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils As if it were possible to leave the whole Church of God and not to leave the word of God so strictly commanding to hear the Church Saint Austin thought he obey'd the word of God when he obey'd the Church commending the word of God and which otherwise he would not have believed to be the word of God And can you hope to disobey the Church and not disobey the word of God so highly commending the same Church This truth hath been made to shine out as clear as the Sun at mid-day by Bellarmin Peròn Stapleton and others but obstinate blindnesse will not see it You talk of primitive times the first four Councils purest Christians but good Mr. Doctor can you demonstrate out of Scripture that all contests about faith 〈◊〉 arising in future ages were to be decided in those primitive times or in the four first Generall Councils and those decisions by unperishable or unalterable records to be all transmitted to our dayes Can you clearly shew that by Christs command his Church was onely to be heard in her younger age and ever after unheard and slighted If not your appeale to those times is but a desperate shift extorted from you by the force of our Arguments And yet at that very weapon we defie and vanquish you by your own Confessions Hath not
return to the Church How then do's this heresie so universally resisted destroy the Infallibility of the Church 64. The Donatists were but a poor crew in Africa condemned first by Melchiades Pope in a Council at Rome and then by two hundred Bishops some say six hundred at Arles in France against which heresie S. Austin fought gallantly with the Sword of the unwritten word laying this principle that Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur What is not clearly contained in Scripture or instituted by Councils and yet is held by the whole Church is to be believed to have been delivered by the Apostles 65. The Arians 't is true spread for a while by power and violence but were condemn'd by the first Council of Nice and by Iulius Pope in a Roman Council and by the Council of Sardica in Thracia and of Arimini in Italy and in many other Provinciall Councils Neither did that herefie ever reach to the breast of Pope Liberius as I have shewed before At Sirmium 't is true being call'd thither after two yeares banishment he subscribed to the first Confession of Faith in all respects Orthodox except that the word Homoousion was left out as being new and not found in Scripture 66. Of the Millenaries there were two sorts the one held that Christ should reign after the Resurrection for a thousand yeares upon earth in all carnall pleasures of this opinion was Cerinthus and his followers and this is likely to have been condemn'd with the heresie of the Apollinarists in a Roman Council under Pope Damasus as Baronius records An. 373. against which Doctrine Dennis Bishop of Alexandria writ long before in confutation of Nepos a Bishop of AEgypt The others addicted those thousand yeares to chaste and spirituall delights and of this thought were some of the ancient Fathers but not the whole Church For many saith S. Iustin who are of the pure and pious sense of Christians doe not acknowledge that Doctrine 67. These Fathers were drawn to that opinion by Papias Bishop of Hieropolis who as Eusebius recounts said he had it from Aristion and Iohn Priests Auditors of the Apostles A doctrine unknown and rather fabulous saith Ensebius But for my part I think he took the spirituall and mysticall Trâ—…dition of the Apostles mâ—…terially according to the Letter and could not discern what they spoke in figures to sucking Children and little ones Who also by the small works he writ appeares to have been of a mean and lesse capable wit However this Chillianisme as it was never defined by any Generall Council or particular Synod or any Roman Bishop So with Cornelius à Lapide upon the twentieth of the Apocalyps I dare not say 't is an Heresie because I have neither clear Scripture nor Decrees of Councils by which it is condemn'd as Hereticall The same saith S. Hierome upon Ieremy lib. 4. Neither doe we find it in the Catalogues of old Heresies set down by S. Austin Philastrius Isidor or Guido Carmelita 'T is in Epiphanius but as relating to Cerinthus of a carnall reign 68. Communion of Infants was never held absolutely necessary by the whole Church For the ancient Fathers unanimously taught that Baptisme takes away all sin Baptisme saith S. Basil is the the death of sin the regeneration of the Soul the reconciliation of the Kingdome of Heaven Nay Orosius in his Apology S. Prosper in his ninth Answer to the French Objections and S. Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum all three Disciples of St. Austin undoubtedly maintain that Baptisme gives salvation and life everlasting Hold most firmly saith S. Fulgentius that holy Baptisme sufficeth little ones to salvation as long as their age is not capable of reason Where it is to be noted that when Infant-Communion was in use they were first Baptized then Confirmed and lastly received the holy Holy Eucharist as is gathered out of the Laoâ—…icean Counciâ—… held some time before the Council of Nice and confirmed by the Synod of Trull Inunctos etiam sacro Chrismate Divino Sacramento communicare convenit And yet both the Elibertin Council under Pope Sylvester Can. 77. and S. Hierome against the Luciferans affirm that a man dying before confirmation is saved and consequently before Communion Finally as the learned Authour of the Systeme observes neither in any of the British or English Councils nor in S. Gregory's instructions given to S. Austin the Monk is there any mention of this matter 69. As for S. Austin he often attributes a total remission of sins to Baptisme affirming exexpressely that Children when they die are either saved by Baptisme or damn'd for Original sinne Hoc Catholica fides novit This Catholick Faith knoweth And again in his 59. Epistle Infants by the Sacrament of Christian grace without doubt appertain to life everlasting and the Kingdome of Heaven Therefore that so great a Doctor may not contradict himself I say with Cardinal Peròn his meaning to be that Infants must either receive actually or in voto by vow of the Church implicitely containedin Baptisme For by Baptisme the Child is inserted into the mystical Body of Christ which mystical Body is represented by the holy Eucharist Now because Christ our Saviour said that without the eating of his flesh life is not to be had hence the Saint proves against the Pelagians thâ—… absolute necessity of Baptisme not only to enter into the Kingdome of Heaven as they granted but also to life everlasting which they deny'd For without Baptisme none can eat Christs flesh either really as in persons of due age or in voto as in Children This to have been S. Austin's mind is clearly gathered out of these ensuing words which venerable Bede upon the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. and Hugo Victorinus Lib. 2. de Sacramentis cap. 20. attributes to S. Austin None must any wise doubt that every one of the faithful is then made partaker of the Body and Bloud of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ or that he is estranged from the Communion of that bread although before he eates that bread and drinks that Cup he departs this life in the union of Christs Body 7. The â—…ame may be said of Pope Innocent the first who in his Epistle to the Fathers of the Melevitan Council rather insinuates that Baptisme it self is the eating of Christs Body Neither do's Maldonat say that Infant-communion was either believed necessary or practised by the whole Church but onely that S. Austin held it as of Faith and as the Tenet of the whole Church Nor do's Maldonat deny that this very thought concerning Faith and the whole Church was St. Austin's private opinion 71. Whence it followes that albeit the practice in some parts of the Church might have lasted six hundred yeares yet neither in the whole Church nor
But the first is true because the submission of Berengarius satisfied the Roman Council of 113. Bishops without Transubstantiation Therefore the Second A masculine proofe That in the time of Nicholas the second Transubstantiation was not hammer'd out as it is now believed we easily grant because it is as ancient as the time of Christs last Supper But that Pope Nicholas did not understand the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a meere forgery indeed without a syllable of proofe Berengarius was held an Heretick for denying not the word but what is signified by Transubstantiation in that quality written against by the prime Divines of those dayes In so much that Fox confesseth that about the year of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted heresy and in that number was put one Berengarius who lived about the year 1060. that is 200. years before the Council of Lateran And Ioachim Camerarius in his Book Intituled Historiae Narratio pag. 161. Transubstantionis dogma de evanescentia panis post annum 850. tanquam in quieta posessione mansit usque ad Berengarii tempora annum Christi 1050. The doctrine of Transubstantiation of the vanishing of the Bread after the year 850. remained as it were in quiet possession untill the time of Berengarius and the â—…ear of Christ 1050 80. This Berengarius twice recanted his errour first in a Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second anno Dom. 1059. in which recantation there is not a word of Consubstantiation for there he acknowledgeth that after Consecration the Bread and Wine are not only a Sacrament in regard of the species remaining but also the true Body and Bloud of Christ our Saviour into which the substance of Bread and Wine is changed for the substance of Bread and Wine remaining cannot identically be affirmed of the Body and Bloud of Christ. 81. This to have been Berengarius his meaning is evident by the words of his second recantation under Pope Gregory the seventh Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor panem vinum quae ponuntur in Altari per mysterium sacrae Orationis verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram propriam vivificam carnem sanguinem Iesu Christi Domini nostri post Consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi quod natum est de Virgine c. I Berengarius do believe with my heart and onfesse with my mouth that the Bread and Wine that are put upon the Altar by the Mystery of the holy prayer the words of our Redeemer are substantially converted into the true proper and vivifying Flesh and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Lord and that after Consecration are the true Body of Christ that was borne of the Virgin 82. Note that he sayes the Bread and Wine are substantially converted into the true Body and Bloud of Christ which Conversion the Council of Lateran 136. years after exprest by the word Transubstantiation So false it is that the Doctrine it self began only then The Council of Lateran was the greatest that ever was held in the Church of God whereat were besides the Pope the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Ierusalem in person the two of Alexandria and Antioch by their Substitutes the first being hindered by sicknesse the second by the Turk 70. Metropolitans or Primates 400. Bishops 800. Abbots Priors The Embassadours of the two Emperours of the East and West and of the Kings of England France Arragon and Huâ—… 83. Now that so many â—…ed grave and judicious men of several Nations from all parts of the Church should unanimously conspire to forge a Novelty no man contradicting nay that after the Canons of this Council publish'd all Christians in the world should come to their respective Churches and fall down to adore upon their knees what they before believed to be only Bread and Wine and a meer figure of Christs Body and Bloud as Protestants do is a most desperate phansie 84. Truly the ancient Fathers sayings in this matter are so plain using the words Transmutation Transelementation Transfaction Creation and the like that divers Learned Protestants themselves cited in the Protestants Apology confesse a far greater antiquity of Transubstantiation then the Council of Lateran There you shall read that Gregory the great and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation that Chrysostome doth seem to confirm Transubstantiation that Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation that in Cyprian there are many things that seem to affirm Transubstantiation that Damascen taught Transubstantiation The reason is clear because those expressions of the Fathers import some reall change not in the species or outward accidents of the Bread and Wine which still remain and appear the same therefore in the inward substance rightly termed Transubstantiation Those words of Berengarius in your Margin taken out of Floriacensis if truly cited speak no intrinsecall impâ—…ession upon Christs Body but onely an extrinsecall denomination derived from the outward formes of Bread as S. Chrysostome exprest himself Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him So Abraham was truly said to see touch and entertain Angels for the shape they appear'd in Against the denying the Cup to the Laiety The sixteenth Demonstration 85. Whatsoever our Saviour Christ in the institution of the Eucharist commanded all his Apostles to doe was likewise a command to all Christians But our Saviour commanded all his Apostles to drink of that Cup he had newly Consecrated Therefore to drink of that Cup newly Consecrated was a command to all Christians Therefore the withdrawing the Cup from the Laiety neither was nor could be from the beginning 86. The Argument to conclude must run thus and yet it halts extreamly of one Leg for our Lord by those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drink you all of it intended onely that all the twelve Apostles then present should drink of that individuall Cup he had blessed without powring in and consecrating more Wine This intention of Christ is manifest for he said not onely drink you all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but having consecrated the Cup he said Drink ye all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it Secondly out of St. Mark who addes and they all drank of it Could all present and future Christians drink of that individuall Cup Thirdly out of St. Luke Take this divide it amongst your selves Were all Christians commanded to take that very Cup and divide it amongst themselves Fourthly Christ said to his Apostles take eat and divide Were all Christians commanded to take both kindes with their own hands as Priests doe 87. True it is that St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. mentions both kinds and exhorts to receive not unworthily but commands not both kinds nay rather insinuates an indifferency when he maketh this inference wherefore whosoever shall eat of this Bread or drink this Cup of our Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord.
So that to receive either unworthily is to be guilty of both because in either you receive both Hence the Apostle addes presently He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgement to himself not discerning our Lords Body Why but because that in receiving the Body under the form of Bread alone you receive also the Blood which is not separated from Christs living Body It was therefore so from the beginning For Christ our Lord Ioan. 6. five times promiseth life everlasting to the Bread of life not mentioning the Cup in those Texts Himself according to divers Fathers gave the Sacrament in one kind to the two Disciples in Emaus The Apostles practis'd the same in breaking Bread without naming the Cup and in your principles a negative argument from Scripture is valid The Primitive Church communicated the Sick under the form of Bread alone S. Ambrose dying received in one kind The Eremits carried the Sacrament to the Desart in clean Corporalls or Linnen called Dominicalia there to receive it fasting the Christians of AEgypt kept it in their Houses Satyrus Saint Ambrose his Brother took an Hoste with him in a Box about his neck to receive it at Sea To sucking Children the Cup was onely given in S. Cyprian's dayes And in the Greek Church they were wont to consecrate the Eucharist onely upon Saturdayes and Sundayes to be received the other dayes in the week during Lent Now in those hot Countreys the consecrated Wine could not be kept so long And it is most evident from Antiquity that the Eucharist was kept under the form of Bread to be distributed as occasion served Insomuch that we find amongst the Lawes of Charles the great 800. yeares ago Presbyter semper Eucharistiam habeat paratam c. Let the Priest alwayes have the Eucharist ready that if any be sick or a Child infirm he may give them the Sacrament that they may not die without Communion Well then seeing neither Christ our Lord in the Institution of the Eucharist nor S. Paul in declaring it excepted any sort of persons as Sick Ermits Children Sea-passengers or Christians in persecution yet the Church from all antiquity had power to administer it to such in one kinde and it was ever thought sufficient to salvation that is a whole Sacrament not a Half-Communion as you tearm it You must then either demonstrate out of Scripture the Churches restraint to these alone or confesse her practice towards all to be justifiable Finally Luther himself confesseth that Christus hac de re nihil unquam praecepit Christ never commanded any thing in this matter And Melanchthon held it a thing indifferent Against restraining the holy Scriptures from the common people The seventeenth Demonstration Page 26. 88. If Hebrew to the Iewes was the mother tongue and in that 't was read weekly before the people If the new Testament was first written in Greek because a tongue most known to the Eastern world and if after some hundreds of years it was translated into a few other tongues for the use of the common people then the restraining it from the common people was not from the beginning But the Antecedent supposition is true Therefore the Consequent 89. Yea but in our Saviours time Syriack was and had been 14. Generations before the mother tongue of the Iewes who lost the Hebrew in the long captivity of Babylon in so much that Esdras reading the Law to them was forced to use interpreters The New Testament was in Greck and as S. Ierome sayes read only in Greek all the East over though most of the Eastern Nations had a different Language as it appears by the Acts of the Apostles Ch. 2. How have we heard each man in our own language wherein we were born Parthians and Medians and Elamites and those that inhabit Mesopotamia Iewry and Capadocia Pontus and Asia Phrygia and Phamphilia Egypt and the parts of Lybia that is about Cyrene and strangers of Rome Iewes also and Proselytes Cretensians and Arabians We have heard them speak in our own tongue 90. Moreover S. Matthew writ his Gospel for the Iewes in Hebrew or in Greek not Syriack their vulgar tongue nor is it known that ever the old Testament was by order of the Iewish Church turn'd into Syriack S. Mark writ in Greek at Rome and for the Romans whose vulgar language was Latin so did S. Paul his Epistle to the Romans in Greek also to the Galathians and yet their vulgar was a kind of German Language they have a proper tongue almost the same as those of Trevers saith S. Hierome upon that Epistle lib. 2. in his Preface And if the new Testament 400. years after was translated into some very few other tongues what is that to the beginning were not the common people from the beginning restrained from it at least those 400. years and in those Nations where Hebrew Greek or Latine were not the vulgar tongues And was it then translated by order of the Churches into Hebrew Greek or Latine or put into the hands of the common people as of necessary use or commanded to be read in those new traductions upon that score 91. Neither is it true that the Roman Church keeps the Scripture from the People 'T is at this day extant in all vulgar Languages of Europe and permitted to be read by the Layety with leave of their Pastours who are to judge into whose hands the sword of the Scripture which is the woâ—…d of God is fit to be put Which rule had it been observed in England when after fifteen hundred years the Bible except perhaps the Psalmes was under Henry the 8th translated into English out of Latine so many mad Sects would never have risen in it Against publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue The eighteenth Demonstration Page 27. 92. What is scandalously opposite to the plain sense of Scripture was not from the beginning But the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the common people is scandalously opposite to the plaine sense of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. Therefore the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the Common people was not from the beginning 93. The Minor is undenyable because you asâ—…rt it but not a word of proofe which to make good you must demonstrate first that the Apostle by preferring the gift of prophecy before unknown tongues in the Church the only intent of that Chapter speakes of tongues in the publick service and administration of Sacraments proper to Pastours and not rather and solely of tongues in mutual conferences when the first Christians met for edification to communicate with one another their miraculous gifts as inspired Canticles Prophecies Tongues and other graces imparted above Nature both to men and women in those dayes In which assemblies the Corinthians seem to have committed some disorders turning Gods gifts especially that of tongues which was the least
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