to the other Patriarchs and omitting the Roman they shewed their respects to that See as to the Head of all without limit 'T is also false that the Council of Chalcedon decreed to the Bishop of Constantinople an equality of priviledges with the Church of Rome For besides the nullity of that surreptitious Canon evidently prov'd by Cardinal Peròn to in his reply to K. Iames wholy rejected by S. Leo those Fathers meerly renew'd the fifth Decree of the second Generall Council which as we have seen above intended onely the second place of dignity to the Bishop of Constantinople as is insinuated in the Canon even as it lies by the words immediately following which you craftlly suppresse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as being the second after the Roman And Zonaras though a Greek Schismatick discoursing of the sense of these words concludes thus from hence it appeares manifestly that the preposition after signifies submission and inferiority Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 equall priviledges were afterwards foisted into the Decree by the practice of Anatolius to encrease his power The Fathers of that Council never own'd them for when they besought Pope Leo to confirm their Canon they mentioned to him no equall priviledges but onely said We have confirmed the Rule of the 150 Fathers assembled at Constantinople that after your Apostolicall See that of Constaninople should have the second place Meaning thereby that as the Bishop of Rome had the Primacy absolutely and without restraint over all Patriarchs so the Bishop of Constantinople should have it next after him over all the Patriarchs Iustinian the Emperour some seventy yeares after gives the same sence to that Canon saying that as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelacy so the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople new Rome should have the second place after the See Apostolick of old Rome and be preferred before all the other Sees Novell 131. and long after Iustinian the Emperour Basilius the younger and Eustathius Patriarch of Constantinople consulting of a re-union with the Latines desired that it might be lawfull for them to obtain with the consent of the Pope that the Church of Constantinople might be call'd Universal in the compass thereof as the Pope of Rome was in the compass of the whole world Finally Nilus writing against the Roman Church confesseth a We are not separated from peace for attributing to our selves the Primacy or for refusing to hold the second place after the principality of Rome For we never contested for Primacy with the Roman Church Good Sir where is now your equality of priviledges The eighth Demonstration Page 19 and 20. 13. Every Pope that refuseth the sole Title of Universal Bishop denies the Primacy of power to govâ—…rn the whole Church But Pope Gregory the Great refused the sole Title of Universal Bishop nay utterly condemn'd it Therefore he deny'd the Primacy of power to govern the whole Church The Major doth so glitter that it cannot be seen For first let the Title be never so true may not a Bishop out of modesty lay it aside but he must needs disown the power it signifies were not the Apostles Masters of the world in regard of their Doctrine and yet our Lord taught them not to affect that Title Be not call'd Masters Matth. 23. 10. Secondly when a Title hath a double notion and may for the litteral one be used in an ill sense may it not be refused without denying what it imports in the best interpretation St. Gregory then considering that the Title of Universal Bishop in a strict Grammatical sense imports Unum in multis one in many and soâ—… might ambitiously be usurped as if there were but one true Bishop in the world If there be one saith he that is Universal Bishop the other are Bishops no more he utterly rejected it in himself and condemned it in Iohn the Bishop of Constantinople But did he therefore deny or reject the Primacy did he not instance in S. Peter himself Totius Ecclesiae principatus ei committitur tamen universalis Episcopus non vocatur The principallity of the whole Church is committed unto him and yet he is not called Universal Bishop Doth he not in sundry places of his works acknowledge this Primacy in himself nay and practise it too over the very Church of Constantinople Quis dubitat who doubts saith he that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the See Apostolick In so much that the Protestants Friccius Carion Peter Martyr Osiander and the Centurists cited by Mr. Breerly in the Protestants Apologie shew out of S. Gregory these particulars That the Roman Church appointed her watch over the whole world That the Apostolick See is the head of all Churches That the Bishop of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolick See That S. Gregory challenged to himself power to command Arch-Bishops to ordain or depose Bishops This and much more is testify'd by the Protestants above cited to which our Doctor Sanders addes many other texts that all Bishops if any fault be found in them are subject to the See Apostolick that she is the head of Faith and of all the faithfull members That all those things are false that are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Rom. â—…n Church That to return from Schisme to the Catholick Church is to return to the Communion of the Bishop of Rome that they are preverse men who refuse to obey the command of the See Apostolick These and divers other Texts of S. Gregory's works so evidently convince his acknowledgement of the Popes Supremacy that who should deny it merely for what S. Gregory writ against the name of Universal Bishop seems to me saith Doctor Sanders either to have cast off all understanding or sense of man or else to have put on the obstinate perversenesse of the Deuil To decline such a censure Calvin chose rather to confesse that there is no speech in S. Gregory's writings in which he more proudly boasts of the amplitude of his Primacy then this I know not what Bishop is not subject to the See Apostolick when he is found in a fault The ninth Demonstration Page 20. 54. Pope Gregory argues thus against the Title of Universal Bishop if any one were Universal Bishop that is one immediate Bishop over all Diocesses so that other Bishops were only his Deputies there would by consequence be a failing of the universal Church upon the failing of such à Bishop because there would be no true Bishop to govern the Universal Church An argument say you ad homines not easily to be answered Hence is framed this mighty demonstration against the Pope's Headship If the Pope is Head of the Catholick Church then the Catholick Church must be the Body of the Pope because the Head and the Body are the Relative and Correlative and being such they are convertible in obliquo The Consequence unavoidably following is hugely absurd to
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
of the Roman Châ—…ch in his dayes Your faith is renowned in the whole world Rom. 1. 5. By this Rule forsooth so appli'd all heresies and usurpations in both Lawes may be dispatcht For though there is hardly any of them in the Church which may not truly pretend to some great antiquity even farre beyond the Reformation Yet because they are not so old as the old man much lesse as the old Serpent therefore they are convinc'd to be heresies and usurpations Loe how under the weight of this ponderous application lie crush'd for ever all the modern ancient errours and corruptions not onely of Disciplinarians Anabaptists Socinians Solifidians Raâ—…ters Millinarians Reprobatarians but most of all the Pontificians for they like Mahometans have a grand compound of severall erronrs and corruptions pretending indeed to some great antiquity yet bundled up in a new Creed the Articles whereof though as old as the new Law yet not reaching to the dayes of the old Serpent they make up a young Symbol not passing the age of the Council of Trent 6. Page 6. You fasten this Quotation upon our Learned Countryman Ioannes Sarisburiensis The Roman Church shewes her self towards others rather a Step-Mother then a Mother There sit in her Scribes and Pharisees but how sincerely the whole Chapter will discover In which the Authour having related how in a conference with Adrian the fourth at Benevent in Italy the Pope askt him familiarly what men thought of the Roman Church I saith he using a holy freedome laid open the evils that in divers Provinces I had heard For as it was said by many the Roman Church which is the Mother of all Churches shewes herself towards others rather a Step-Mother then a Mother There sit in her Scribes and Pharisees But then as to his own particular observation he solemnly professeth in these words Yet one thing upon the testimony of my conscience I boldly professe that I saw no where more honest Clergy and who more detested avarice then in the Roman Church and in relation to the Pope's authority thus He that dissents from your Doctrine is either an Heretick or a Schismatick Is not this very unhandâ—…ome dealing in a Preacher first to omit wilfully those words As it was said by many and then to impose upon an Authour what he only rehearseth out of other mens mouthes secondly to skip over the words which is the Mother of all Churches wherein appeares the judgement of Nations as to the Primacy of the Roman Church Thirdly to conceale the Authour 's own words by which he expressely declares a quite contrary sence to what you wrongfully charge him with Good Reader Crimine ab uno Disce omnes 7. From your eight page till the sixteenth you seem like Euclid in his First Book to speak principles undemonstrable or with Pythagoras to exact your Auditors assent without reason upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said it 〈◊〉 you assert but prove not that the point of Infallibility is the great Palladium of the Conclave as if the meeting and shutting up of the Cardinals to chuse a Pope the usuall notion of a Roman Conclave were the same as the whole Catholick Roman Church or the guift of infallibility in defining matters of Faith were proper to the Cardinals without a Pope A profound Erudition Secondly you assert without proofe that the learned Members of the Roman Church swallow glibly so many errours because they swallow this first that she cannot erre 8. Like men in fear you strike first knowing the blow to be unavoidable from us that Protestants chop up so many errours because they first devour this that notwithstanding all Christs promises the infallibility of the Apostles and the necessity of that gift to preserve her from errours yet the whole Church of Christ even in her greatest representatives can erre Thirdly you assert without ground that the point of Infallibility is an old Article of a new Creed Sir there is no such Creed extant in the Roman Church A profession of Faith I admit was appointed in a Bull by Pius quartus to be sworn to by Pastours of Souls and Professours of Learning only But if that be a new Creed much more will your thirty nine Articles make up a new Creed stuft with so many modern negatives and unto which not all but some amongst you were by your Statutes to subscribe But howsoever In your S. article you receive and believe 3. Creeds the Apostles Creed Nice Creed and that of S. Athanasius Now I ask these two last are they new Creeds or no if new ones then the Church has power to make new Creeds if not why should the Churches Declarations be call'd new Creeds rather now then in those former times Fourthly you assert quite gratis that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partisans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith As if to declare explicitely to the faithful such verities as are contain'd implicitely or virtually in the written word of God or what traditionary Doctrines are truely Divine coming down from the Apostles by never interrupted succession of practice and belief were to make new Articles of Faith Did the Council of Nice make new Articles of Faith when it declared the Celebration of Easter or the validity of Baptisme ministred by Heretiques or the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father what the Council of Constantinople and St. Athanasius adde in their Creeds by way of declaration to the Apostles Creed doth it speak new Articles of Faith There was a time when some Canonical Books were not de fide obligante of necessary belief as the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of St. Iames c. are they now after the Churches acceptation new Articles of Faith And yet be those justly anathematized who deny any one of the aforesaid points so declared Why then might not the Council of Trent upon occasion of emergent heresies declare anew what was to be held about the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images and the like and yet no more in contempt of the Apostles denunciation Gal. 1. 8. then the definitions of former General Councils When did the Church forfeit the power of defining St. Paul's anathema strikes at you Protestants who adde your negative articles contrary to the word of God not at the Church which declares what is truly revealed in it 9. What you say here about the time when the denial of Marriage to Priests began of the date of Transubstantiation halfe-Communion publick prayer in an unknown tongue and the Popes Supremacy shall be answered in your demonstratons 10. You abuse very disingenuously the learned Cardinal Bellarmine in saying first that he boasted of the antiquity of Purgatory where as in the places you quote there is not a syllable of that humour only this modest expression We do not find the beginning of this doctrine but all the Ancients both Greek and Latine from the very
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
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
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