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
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
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
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
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
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
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