Cathedra una monstretur The beginning comes from unity The Primacy is given to Peter that there may be shown one Church of Christ and one Chayre And in the same Treatise He that forsakes the Chayre of Peter upon which the Church is founded do's he trust that he is in the Church Secondly from his 71. Epistle Peter whom our Lord chose first and upon whom he built his Church c. Thirdly from his 40. Epistle There is one God one Christ one Church and one See by the word of our Lord founded upon S. Peter Insomuch that the Centurists famous Protestants reprove S. Cyprian for it saying Passim dicit Cyprianus supra Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam S. Cyprian often sayes that the Church is founded upon S. Peter Fourthly from that the same Centurists blame likewise S. Hierome for the like sayings who upon the 6. of S. Matthew speaking of S. Peter hath these words Secundum Metaphoram Petrae rectè dicitur ei aedificabo Ecclesiam meam superte According to the Metaphor of a Rock 't is rightly said unto him I will build my Church upon thee And in his first Book against Iovinian Inter duodecim unus eligitur ut Capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio Amongst the twelve one is chosen that a Head being establisht the occasion of Schisme might be taken away Which place of S. Hierome is alledged by Doctor Covell above cited page 107. to prove the necessity of one Head for preventing Schismes and Dissentions in the Church Finally from his 75. Epistle when speaking to Pope Damasus Beatitudini tuae saith he id est Cathedrae tuae communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio c. I am joyned in communion with your Blessednesse that is to Peter's Chayre upon that Rock I know the Church is founded Now Sir by these clear and unquestionable Texts is it not manifest that in your Sermon to the Court you cheated these Fathers out of their true meaning The seventh Demonstration Page 18. 51. If every Patriarch and Bishop be appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his then the Pope cannot be chief or Head of the whole Church But so it was appointed by the Canons of the two first General Councils Nicè and Constantinople Therefore the Bishop of Rome cannot be chief or head of the whole Church The Minor is stoutly proved first by the 6. Nicene Canon in which there is not a word of that sense The Canon is this Let the ancient custome held through Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over those Provinces because that also with the Bishop of Rome this is usual or customary that is to allow that power in the Bishop of Alexandria for if this be not the sence how could the Judges in the Council of Chalcedon inferre out of this Canon Omnem primatum all primacy in the See of Rome as we shall presently see The fifth Canon of the second Generall Council runs thus The Bishop of Constantinople must have the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome Doe not those words after the Bishop of Rome rather prove the absolute Primacy of the Roman See Secondly in the Council of Chalcedon which was the fourth Generall Act. 16. the Judges having heard the recitall of those two Canons concluded thus By what hath been deposed of every one we conceive that all Primacy and chief honour is reserved to the Arch-Bishop of old Rome What Canons I pray but those of the two first Generall Councils you have alledg'd which are so far from equallizing the Roman Bishop with the rest that they give him all Primacy that is both of Order and Jurisdiction For Primacy of Order alone is neither all Primacy nor the chief Honour Primacy of Jurisdiction exceeding it far This Primacy is farther pâ—…oved because the same Council pretending to grant the Bishop of Constantinople a Primacy over the East after the Pope of Rome according to the second Generall Council expressely addes that he should have power to order the Metropolitans in the Diocesses of the East that the Bishops chosen by the Clergy of whatsoever Metropolis of the East be presented to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople that he might either confirm or reject them as he pleased And both Theodorus Balsamon upon the Council of Sardica cap. 3. 5. and Nilus de Primatu Papae cap. 7. from those two Canons of the second and fourth Generall Councils endeavour to conclude a right in the Bishop of Constantinople to admit of appeales from all the East Wherefore your exposition out of Iustellus concerning primacy of Order alone is manifestly false and against the Text. As therefore the primacy aimed at for the Bishop of Constantinople over the East but never obtained because the Church of Rome alwayes rejected those two Canons as derogatory to the precedence of Alexandria and Antioch established by the first Council of Nice was both of Order and Jurisdiction so much more the acknowledged Primacy of the Pope over the whole Church Whereupon the Fathers of that Council writing to Pope Leo say You presided in this Assembly as the Head to the Members When therefore in the same Council of Chalcedon it is said that the Fathers of the Church had given those priviledges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City Their meaning is not that the Cities greatnesse was the immediate cause of the Primacy For that was the being S. Peter's Successor as appeares by the Title they gave S. Leo's Epistle in their Speech to the Emperour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speech of Peter's Chayre and having read that Epistle thus acclaymed Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo And in their relation given to Saint Leo speaking of Dioscorus who had dared to excommunicate the Pope in a false Council called without the Pope's consent which never was lawfull He shewed say they malice against him to whom the custody of the Vineyard was committed The Fathers therefore meant causam causae the remote cause to wit the cause why St. Peter fixt his Seat at Rome as being the head of the Roman Empire to the end saith S. Leo that the light of truth which was revealed for the Salvation of all Nations might from the head of the world be communicated effectually to the whole Body And so the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian in a Law made six yeares before the Council of Chalcedon comprehend all the causes saying that three things establisht the See Apostolick S. Peters merit who is Prince of the Apostolicall Colledge the dignity of the City and Synodicall authority that is Divine Ecclesiasticall and Civill right 52. The strict injunction you mention of the second Generall Council laid upon Bishops not to meddle but with their own Discesse was not to hinder Hierarchy but confusion And so by setting bounds
â—…n at Ierusalem 'T is a notoâ—…ious vanity in yoâ—…â—…-men to be alwayâ—…s pecking arâ—… grâ—…ones Who denies that mâ—… mâ—…y of time other Churches might prevent 〈◊〉 Roman and in that sense pâ—…ecisely be either Mâ—…hers oâ—… Sâ—…sters her as you please The Motherhood of the Roman Church consists in her prioâ—…ity nor â—…f time but of Dignity and Jurisdictâ—…on grounded â—…pon S. Peters Pâ—…imacy who as he was Father anâ—… Head of all Bishops so the Roman Church in which by his Successours he still lâ—…veth and governeth saith S. Chrysologus is the Mother and Head of all Churches or with S. Cyprian The root and originall of the Catholick Church The Church of Caesarea began after that of Ierusalem and yet was made her Metropolitan as the first Council of Nice declared and Antioch was her Primate Even so Antioch Ierusalem and all other Churches founded before the Roman were afterwards made subject unto her For which reason Iuvenal the Bishop of Ierusalem said publickly in the Council of Ephesus that the ancient Custome and Apostolicall Tradition was that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and judged by the Roman 33. You falsifie Gildas egregiously and by misplacing his words make him say what he never dreamt of namely that Christian Religion was planted in Britany in the dayes of Tiberius Caesar about seven yeares before S. Peter came to Rome But Gildas having spoken of the extreame desolation of his Countrey caused by the Warres with the Romans which Warres beginning not under Tiberius or Caius who never Warred with the Britains but under Claudius lasted 40. yeares Interea saith he In the mean time to wit during those Warres there appeared and imparted it self to this cold Island more remote from the visible Sun then other Nâ—…tions the true and invisible Sun which in the time of Tiberius Caesar had manifested himself to the whole world I mean Christ vouchsafed to impart his Precepts c. Here Gildas onely sayes that during the Warres with Claudius the Sun of justice that manifested himself to the world by his Preaching in Ierusalem under Tiberius appeared at length to the Britains that is in the dayes of Claudius in whose second year S. Peter comming to Rome was entertained by a noble British Lady named Claudia Rufâ—…ina But when all the Jewes were banisht from Rome he took that occasion to go Preaching into France and from thence into Britany where he planted the Gospel founded Churches and ordained Priests and Deacons as Metaphrastes recounts and S. Peter himself in the time of S. Edward the Confessour revealed to a holy man so hath Alredus Rhieuallis left upon Râ—…ord 500. yeares since Whence it appeares that not S. Ioseph of Arimathea in the time of Tiberius but S. Peter in the time of Claudius founded the British Church after he had founded the Church of Rome and fixt his Seat there 34. But let us suppose Christianity to have been in Britany before St. Peter came to Rome was it then planted in the Soil upon the hills and dales of the Land or in the hearts of the Britains if in the hearts then I ask were those Britains English men or did the Saxons receive their Christianity from them Had not England as England the first newes of Christ from Rome by St. Austin the Monk whom blessed St. Gregory diâ—…ected to our Conversion And are not all English Protestants now living who call themseves a Christian Church the off-spring of those first converted Saxons what hideous ingratitude is it then to smother the memory of so incomparable a benefit by still prating of old Britany whose faith whencesoever it sprung up first lasted not but Paganisme overgrowing it perisht in a short space root and branch till Pope Eleutherius replanted it durably yet so as it never spread thence to us English so great was the Britains hatred to the Saxons for usurping their Kingdome I conclude therefore with the two Roâ—…al testimonies of our Kings the first of Henry the 8. professing that all the Churches of the Faithful much more England acknowledge and reverence the most holy See of Rome for their Mother The second of King Iames of gloâ—…ous memory in the summe of the Conference before Majestie affirming that the Roman Church was once the Mother Churche let Sir Edward Cook â—…e the Appendix We do not deâ—…y saith he but that Rome was the Mother Church and had thirty two Virginal Martyrs of her Popes a row 35. Thus having gone over the undemonstrable principles of your Sermon asserting much and proving nothing I come now to your pretended demonstrations But first I must mind you that in case you should demonstrate as you promise the Novelty of our pretentions and evince the antiquity of your own yet to the maâ—… truth or falsity of Religion by your own confession 't were but a Topick reaching no farther then a mere probability which may in it self be as well false as true For in your third page you cite and approve the principle of Vincentius Lirinensis who say you to prove the truth of any Doctrine argues the case from a threefold Topick the universality the consent and the antiquity of tradition wherefore in your opinion not only universality of place wherein a Doctrine is believed or the consent of Fathers that believe and teach the same but also antiquity of time though from the beginning when it is believed is but a bare Topick And yet God knows this very Rule is your open condemnation Since it is impossible for you or all the Protestants in the world to shew that any one point of Doctrine wherein you differ from the Roman Church was ever believed not only in all places at all times or by all the Fathers but not so much as any one place at any one time or by any one Father nay or by any one person before Luther except perhaps by some such as were noted and condemned for Hereticks Doctor Pierce's Engagement to domonstrate the Novelties of the Roman Church Page 6. and 7. We cannot better put them to shame then by demonstrating the Novelties of their pretensions whil'st at the same time we evince the sacred antiquity of our own Thus you 36. Who can but wonder that a Doctor understanding what a demonstration is should esteem the flourishes of a Pulpit demonstrations and then blunder out nothing but old arguments which have been answered a hundred times over If you say the sence of Scripture on your side is evident Our men ten to one more in number equall in Learning not to say more and as upright in conscience doe averre the contrary And the conâ—…st it self destroyes your assertion For whence I pray arises this very controversie amongst men of equall abilities to judge a right but from the obscurity of Scripture Did ever men in their right wits having their eyes open dispute whether the Sun shin'd at mid-day To Demonstrations from universall
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.
professedly and at large teaches the contrary assigning out of the Canons three other causes as Sodomy heresie or tempting to any grievous sinne in cap. 5. Matth. vers 32. which you also quote and so could not misse of seeing your imposture In the text you cite out of Maldonat he speakes only of a perpetual divorce which was the present question and asserts with our Saviour that if a man so recedes from his Wife except the cause of Fornication commits adultery though he marry no other because if his wife commits it 't will be imputed to the husband as dismissing her unduly 105. The judgement of Chemnitius a fierce Protestant we value not in this matter The Scriptures he quotes are only effects of the conjugall tye not the knot it self which consists in the mutual right of each party to the other not in the actual exercise of that right which may be hindred many wayes Else if upon businesse the husband be long absent in a forraign Countrey he dissolves the bond of wedlock which to assert is ridiculous 106. But now good Doctour you little think that throwing stones at randome with Diogenes his Boy you have hit your Father Does not Luther your grand Patriarch allow of a Divorce not only temporary but perpetual even with leave to marry again for many other causes then fornication The first is in case the wife be froward refusing conjugal right Si non vult uxor veniat ancilla c. If the wife will not let the maid come put away Vasthi take Hester Serm. de Matrim The second if the husband perswade the wife or the wife the husband to any sinne The third if a rich woman marry a poor man and her friends disapprove the match The fourth if the wife brawle and scold and will not live peaceably in 1 Cor. 7. Ann. 1554. lib. de causis Matrim Ann. 1530. 107. Calvin in his Institutions huggs the same doctrine of Divorce with liberty to take another wife in case one marry without the consent of Parents if a Whore instead of a Virgin if either party be absent a year or will not keep home after three moneths warning lib. 4. cap. 19. And in the Genevian Canons pag. 29 32 40 41. If a husband shall be absent let his wife cause him to be called by the publick Cryer avd if he come not within the time limited the Minister shall licence his wife to take another husband 108. But to come nearer home Martin Bucer a Reader of Divinity in Cambridge under Edward the 6. whom Calvin stiles the most faithfull Doctour of Christs Church The whole University of Cambridge A Man most holy and truly Divine Doctour Whitgift A Reverend Learned painfull and sound Father And Sr. Iohn Cheek Quo majorem vix universus Orbis caperet greater then whom the universall world scarce held 109. Hic vir hic est This is the man that professedly argues against your exposition of Christs words to wit that as there is at this day like hardnesse of heart so the distressed Wives ought to be relieved no lesse now then in times past that the Magistrate now hath no lesse authority in this matter then Moyses had and at this day ought to use the same Neither is it to be believed saith he that Christ would forbid any thing of that which his Father commanded but he commanded the hard of heart that if they would not use their Wives with Nuptiall equity they should then procure a Bill of Divorce and marry again Out of this principle he deduces many particular cases as of parting one from another Theft Homicide Lunacy c. in which Divorce with freedome to re-marry may be lawfull in Matth. 19. fol. 147. de Regno Christi lib. 2. cap. 26. 27. 28. 37. 40. 42. 110. And I am credibly informed that even in England Divorce and second Marriage is granted for Frigidity though contracted after Marriage in pre-contracts where no consummation was and in case either party turnes Catholick However what more common in the whole Island then Divorce from Bed and Board allow'd in certain Cases besides Fornication by the Canons of your Church Where then is the onely Council of Trents heynous offence 111. By these therefore and many more corruptions in point of practice and doctrine too which were no deviations from what had been from the beginning but wrongfully imposed upon the whole Church united with their Head the Roman Bishop and never confess'd by the learned'st or unlearned'st Sons of the same Church in their publick Writings the sensuall part of the Christian world was moved to look for a deformation 112. What if Stapleton laments the vices of some Popes who sate upon the Chayre of Peter as the Scribes and Pharisees upon the Chayre of Moyses Did he therefore acknowledge that corruption of manners either in the whole Church subject to that See or that it was ever approved by the Church S. Austin in 166. Epistle will tell you that Christ hath placed in the Chayre of Unity the Doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of wholsome Doctrine in which Chayre even ill men are enforced to speak good things 113. Now because page 31. you ingenuously confesse that corruption of manners in point of practice cannot justifie a separation from the Roman Church and so your Sermon is to no other purpose stuff'd with such pretended corruptions but to spit your venome at the Roman See I pass over what you say of that kinde in the same page and come to your Demonstrations from corruption of Doctrine to evince the lawfulnesse of your Separation But first I must note that this objecting humour Tertullian observed in the Hereticks of his dayes and stopt their mouthes with telling them they were Vitia conversationis non praedicationis Faults of manners not of Doctrine St. Austin discovered the same in the Donatists who had with wicked fury separated themselves from the Roman Church and thus takes up the Heretick Petilian Why dost thou call the See Apostolick the Chayre of Pestilence c. If we listed to retort what a large field opens it self in the lives of your Patriarchs Luther Calvin Beza Zwinglius and others even from your own Concessions Of corruption of Doctrine in matter of Faith The xxi Demonstration Page 30. 114. If the Roman Church's corruptions of Doctrine and that in matters of Faith corruptions intrenching on fundamentalls have been shewed in the former Demonstrations then the Schisme is the Roman Church's who gave the cause of Separation not the Protestants who did but separate when the cause was given But the said corruptions of Doctrine have been shewed in the former Demonstrations Therefore the Schisme is the Roman Church's c. 115. No question if those corruptions of Doctrine have been really demonstrated in which appeares not the least glimpse of evidence no nor of probability neither much lesse