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
alone as his reason evinces For he Sacrificeth to God saith the Saint not to them because he is God's not their Priest And against Faustus the Manichaean he farther declares wherein this high invocation consists Which of the Priests saith he serving at the Altar in place of the holy Bodies ever said at any time We offer unto thee O Peter Paul Cyprian This therefore is the invocation which S. Austin denies to Saints 13. Your errour is inexcusable in deriving the Catholick Church's infallibility in matters of Faith either from Gnosticks or Disciples of Marcus whilest you might know that holy Scriptures Councils Fathers and reason convinces the contrary Quae conventio Christi Belial what relation hath Christs promises his spirit of truth abiding for ever teaching his Church all truths making it the house of the living God Pillar and Firmament of truth with the filthy errours and practises of those beastly Heretiques A Preacher of the word of God should abhorre all but especially such abominable untruths 14. Irenaeus in the Book and Chapter you quote having said that Marcus had a Devil at his elbow by whose whispers he prophesied and imparted that guilt to women fit for his purpose because his chief businesse was with Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 addes that his Disciples driving the same trade by deceipts corrupted many silly women giving themselves out for perfect men as if none upon earth neither Peter nor Paul could match them for knowledge Is not this a perfect Character of Luther and his Disciples your Reformers They had Devils at their eares by Luther's and Zwinglius's confession they lusted insatiably after women broke vowes of chastity seduced silly Virgins corrupted Nunnes and boasted of their abilities above the whole Church even the Apostles The Gospel is so copiuosly preached by us that truly in the Apostles time it was not so clear saith Martin Luther And again What arguments soever the ancient Orthodox Fathers the Schooles of Divines the authority of Councils and Popes the consent of ages and of all the Christian people can help you to lay them all aside We admit nothing but Scriptures and so that with us alone is the certain authority of interpreting what we interpret that is the sense of the Holy Ghost what others bring though they be many and great men comes from the Spirit of Satan and a distracted brain This indeed is to be Marcists and Gnosticks 15. 'T is also an affected errour to say we take our Purgâ—…tory from Origen and Tertullian doth not Bellarmin prove it out of Scripture alledging near twenty Texts so expounded by the ancient Fathers Nay doth not your own Chemnitius confesse that Dionisius the Areopagite mentions Prayer for the Dead Do's not your Doctor Fulk plainly averre that Tertullian Cyprian Austin Hierome and a great many more doe witnesse that Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles Insomuch that Zwinglius being urged with the authority of S. Chrysostome and S. Austin deriving that custome from the Apostles gives this wild answer If it be so as Austin and Chrysostome report I think the Apostles suffered some to pray for the Dead for no othor cause then to condescend to their infirmity But what if the fiâ—…st mention of Purgatory were found in Origen and Tertullian who lived in the beginning of the third age was it therefore a dreame of their own brain or an Heresie of Montanus as if he could commend nothing but errours Did not the Fathers of all ensuing ages follow that Doctrine without contradiction and the whole Church of God embrace it as comming from the Apostles Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia saith S. Austin This the universall Church observes as delivered by the Fathers 16. Thirdly you erre prodigiously in affirming that your Reformers in England discovered in the Roman Church horrible corruptions in point of practice and hideous errours in point of Doctrine and that in matter of faith too whereas hitherto no Protestant in the world hath ever been able to shew any one such errour or corruption What you can discover shall appear hereafter in your goodly demonstrations 17. You adde to that another gross errour that those blessed Reformers found by what degrees the several errours corruptions were slightly brought into the Church as well as the severall time wherein the Novelties received their birth and breeding But good Mr. Pierce how often have you Protestants been challeng'd to shew when any such Novelties against faith or manners sprung up in the Church and yet could never doe it How often have you been told that the Roman Church was once a true and pure Church Rom. 1. and that if it fell it must be either by Apostacy Heresie or Schisme Not by Apostacy because she believes in Christ If by Heresie what lawfull Council what Fathers what other Church of Christ ever censur'd or condemn'd her If by Schisme from what other true Church did she ever separate name that Church as distinct from the Roman if you can For I suppose that in a Schisme the rent or wound cannot be mortall to both parts least Christ should have no Church at all upon earth And because such a Church different from the Roman cannot possibly be found therefore some of your Learned Protestants ingenuously confesse it We cannot tell saith Doctor Powell by whom or at what time the enemy did sow the Papists Doctrine c. neither indeed doe we know who was the first Authour of your blasphemous opinions And Doctor Fulk in his Rejoynder to Bristow p. 205. answering the same question about the change of the Roman Church saith I answer my Text saith it was a mystery not revealed and therefore could not be at first openly Preached against 'T is also the confession of Doctor Whitaker in his answer to Campian that the time of the Roman change cannot easily be told And yet this pittifull shift is clearly against that renowned rule of S. Austin in his 118. Epistle and elsewhere that what is held by the Universall Church and not known when it began is to be believed as an Apostolicall Tradition By which maxime Doctor Whitgift proves against Cartwright that the names of Metropolitan Arch-Bishop c. have their originall from the Apostles ' Tâ—…s also against evident reason for if Christs Spirit of Truth abiding alwayes with the Church could permit errours in faith to creep into it unperceptibly such errours even by the principles of Christianity would be irreformable For if they were brought in so slily that their beginning could not be observed nor they perceived till they were universally received in the Church whosoever should attempt to reform them must by the principles of Christianity be held for an Heretick because he opposeth the whole Church of Christ and so were to be thrown out as a Heathen and a Publican For to dispute
Cardinal Peròn in his Reply to King Iames clearly evinc'd the Pope's Supreamacy to have been acknowldgâ—…d in the first four Councils Doe not those two Learned Books the Protestants Apology and the Progeny 〈◊〉 of Catholicks and Protestants shew undeniaâ—…ly out of your own Authours that the Roman Church remained pure for the first four hundred and forty yeares after Christ giving that reason why the Fathers of those ages Austin Epiphanius Optatus Tertullian and Irenaeus appealed against Hereticks to the succession of the Roman Bishops because saith Doctor Reynolds it was a proof of the true faith at that time And this answer of your Doctors is highly commended by Bishop Morton in the Protestants Appeale pag. 573. Doe not the same two Books farther shew from your own concessions and out of the ancient Fathers that within those 440 yeares even up to Pope Sylvester and Constantine's time and so to the Apostles there were Churches dedicated in the honour of Martyrs Relicks Pilgrimages to Hierusalem forbidding Priests to marry vowed Virginity Invocation of Saints the Primacy of the Roman Bishop the unbloody Sacrifice Reall presence Transubstantiation Confession Prayer for the Dead Fâ—…ee-will Iustification by Works Merit Tradition Purgatory Vowes Evangelicall Councils Monachisme and other Mysteries of Faith What then doe you talke as if none of our tenets or practises in which we differ from you could be trac't by sure footsteps as far as the times of the purest Christians 25. Do not you beat the ayre whilest you labour to prove those Doctrines to be novelties which your own confesse to have had a being in the very times of your appeal the times of purest Christians But if disowning your domestick witnesses you will needs draw down the birth of such pretended Novelties to the sixth age about S. Gregory the Great 's time in whose dayes Popery say yours was undeâ—… full sail then we justly expect that you demonstrate how such a presse of errours either did or could within the narrow compasse of 160. years crowd into the Church without noise or opposition of Nation City Family oâ—… single Person Especially if we consider first the reluctancy of mans nature to accept of any Doctrines so contrary to flesh and bloud as Confession fasting Celibate in the Clergy Beâ—…ef of the Real Presence c. Secondly the perpetual vigilancy of the Pastours Christ left in his Church to watch upon the walls of Ierusalem day and night which duty thâ—… Pastours of those dayes complyed with so exactly that from the year 327. till the year 680. they held against heresies newly rising six General Councils whereof one was call'd only nine years before the said interval as the Council of Ephesus two during the very space of the 160. years to wit that of Calcedon and the second of Constantinople the last fourscore yeares after How is it imaginable that none of these Councils meeting so frequently to suppresse errours should take notice of so many new Doctrines you object if in truth they had been Novelties Thirdly that those Doctrines stole not into the Roman Church alone but spread through all the Christian Churches then extant in the world both East and West with all which S. Gregory held communion as may be seen in his Epistles Can the wit of man conceive such â—…ilfull obstinate dead silence in all Churches at the starting up of so many false Doctrines in so short a space especially all the Fathers holding Novelties in Doctrine for Errours 26. But here comes in a childish fallacy even of our greatest Gyants in dispute that they shut up the Church in Rome as the Donatists in Africa and then call it the Catholick Church not formally but causally faith Cardinal Peròn If Cardinal Peròn were but a Child 't were no great shame to slip into a fallacy but for a Preacher of the Court to deceive his Royal Auditory cannot be excused from an Imposture Doth Cardinall Peròn shut up the Church in the Citty of Rome even causally Doth he not distinguish two acceptions of the Roman Church The first signifies all the Orthodox Churches of the world united in faiâ—…h and charity with the Roman Bishop as with their Head and Supreame Governour under Christ. And in this sence according to Antiquity the Catholick Church not causally but formally is styled the Roman Church as all Nations under the Roman Emperour and not the City and Territories of Rome alone were called the Roman Empire All the twelve Tribes of Israel the Jewish Church and all Nations under the Patriarch of Constantinople the Greck Church as the Muscovites and Russians though not Grecians by birth In this notion S. Austin himâ—…elf saith that against the Pelagians not onely the Councils of Bishops and the See Apostolâ—…ck but also Univer sam Romanam Ecclesiam the whole Roman Church and the whole Roman Empire were most justly â—…ncens'd Now because the Bishop of the Roman Diocesse as Pope that is as S. Peter's Successoâ—… and Vicar of Christ is the head â—…f all Bâ—…shops and by him all Churches are preserved in unity therefore that particular Chuâ—…ch of the Râ—…man Diocesse is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches whence in a second acception the Roman Church is not improperly callâ—…d the Catholick Church not formally but causally in regaâ—…d of that unity she infuseth into the Catholick Church knitting all the Members thereof in one Body under one supreame Head What ere you think this was the sence of the ancient Fathers Tertullian speaking of Marcion who had offered money to the Roman Church saith Marcion gave his money to the Catholick Church which was rejected both it and himself when he fell into Heresie S. Cyprian speaks thus to Antorianus You writ that I should send a Copy of the Letters to Cornelius Pope to the end that he might understand that â—…ou communicate with him that is to say with â—…he Catholick Church S. Cyprian also wâ—…ites to Cornelius It seemed good to us thâ—…t Letters should be sent to all our Colle gues aâ—… Româ—… that they should firmly embrace yâ—…ur Commâ—…ion â—…at is to say the Catholick Church And S. Ambrose in his Funerall Oration upon the death of his Brother Satyrus writes that Satyrus comming to Sardinia then infected with the Heresie of the Lucifâ—…rians called for the Bishop enquired of him Utrumnam cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est cum Romanâ—… Ecclesia conveniret Whether he 〈◊〉 iâ—… communion wâ—…h the Catholick Bishops that is with the Church of Rome And â—…ohn Patriarch of Constantinople writes in these words to Pope Hormisâ—… 1000. yeares past We promise hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries the names of those that have separated themselves from the Catholick Church that is to say who agree not fully with the See Apostolick Note that in all these places I have cited the words that is or that is to say are not mine but the Authours cited 27. This
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
present It pleased all that Bishops Priests and Deacons abstain from Wives that what the Apostles taught and was observed by antiquity we also observe And S. Hierome Epist. 50. The Apostles were either Virgins or after marriage continent Bishops Priests and Deacons are chosen either Virgins or Widows or surely after Priesthood eternally chast Therefore Priests may in imitation of the Apostles marry and the forbidding was not from the beginning Especially if we consider how S. Paul exhorts even Lay men to forbear the use of their Wives for a time that they may give themselves to Prayer and attend to the Lord without distraction 1 Cor. 7. 35. He that is without a Wife is careful of the things that pertain to our Lord how to please God But he that is with a wife is careful of things that pertain to the world vers 32. Should not Priests whose calling is above the world be in a state most capable of pleasing God What sort of mâ—…n be Souldiers to God but Biâ—…hops and Priests as Timothy was to whom St. Paul sayes No man being a Souldier to God intangleth himself in the affaires of this life that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a Souldier What affaires more secular then Wife and Children who more entangled then Ministers that of their Benefices enjoyable onely for their lives in place of complying with their duties must provide for Wife and Children Again 98. S. Paul asserts his liberty to carry about with him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Sister a Woman as well as the rest of the Apostles c. that is to maintain him of her substance or have a care of his Temporals as our Saviour had been relieved whilesâ—… he preached This meaning is clear both by the Apostles design there exprest of living upon his Trade to burden no body and by the interpretation of Greek and Latine Fathers who living so near the Apostles time are rather to be credited then Luther and his Broode pleading for Wives Why do you against the sense of antiquity turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a Wife the word especiallly without an article importing a woman whether Wife or no Wife else 1 Cor. 7. 'T is good for a man not to touch 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 why translate you a Woman and not a Wife The Fathers are St. Chrysostome Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact Tertullian S. Ambrose S. Ierome S. Austin cited by Bellarmin Only Clemens Alexandrinus expounds the Text of the Apostle Wives but adds that being Wives yet lived continent and were in place of Sisters 99. The sixth Canon of the Apostles only orders that Bishops and Priests 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do not turn off their Wives after Priesthood leaving them to the wide world without means to subsist in a handsome way but rather to provide for them carefully yet abstaining from carnal acquaintance This sense is rightly deduced from the 27. Canon ordering thus praecipimus we command that if any promoted to the Clergy will marry they be Lectors or singers only and the same is meant of lesser orders Again 100. Saint Paul saith 1 Timoth. 3. 2. and Tit. 1. 6. that a Bishop may be a Husband of one Wife Sir your own Bible reads A Bishop must be blamelesse the Husband of one Wife In which words there is neither command nor counsel to have or use a Wife Otherwise no man wifelesse could be made Bishop without disobeying the Apostles command or counsel Yet the words by their tenour sound a precept but of what that a Bishop may be a husband of one wife that 's a permission never dream't of by S. Paul not a precept Is it then that he must not have or have had two wives together that 's a Law common to all Christians If you say not two wives together before his Conversion then it follows that when S. Paul 1 Tim. 5. 9. advises to take a Widow of threescore having been the wife of one man he means not of two men at once which was never lawful amongst either Iewes or Gentiles The true sense therefore is that a Bishop must not be bigamus or have had more then one wife before he be made Bishop And this exposition is wholly consonant to the holy Fathers Councils and practice of the Church Therefore Priests may have wives and the contrary was not from the beginning Nay according to S. Paul 1 Tim. 4. 3. 'T is the doctrine of Devils because Saturninus the Gnosticks Manicheans and other hereticks forbid all men both Clergy and Layety to marry the use of marriage coming à malo Deo from an ill God or the Devil as they taught 101. The Fable of Paphnutius his pleading in the Nicene Council that Priests if married before their Ordination might use their wives after Priesthood hath been long since exploded by Baronius Bellarmine the Protestants Apology and others as being reported by lying Authours and clearly against the 3. Canon of the same Synod forbidding Priests to have any women in their houses but Mother Grandmother Sister or Aunt who are above all suspition not a word of a Wife which certainly would have had women servants to attend her Yet that very Fable makes against all Ministers that marry after Ordination and worthily for before Luther there is no authentical example of its lawfulnesse in the whole world Against Divorce for other causes then Adultery The twentieth Demonstration Page 29. 102. Our Savour Christ from the beginning confined the liberty of a perpetual Divorce for of this he was askt to the sole cause of fornication by reason that fornication is properly and per se or of its own nature most opposite to the contract of marriage violating the faith and right given to one another But according to the Council of Trent a Divorce from bed and board not perpetual but for a certain or uncertain time till the cause be removed may be made for many causes besides fornication to wit imminent danger of Soul or Body from either party Therefore the doctrine of the Council of Trent was not from the beginning No 103. Because forsooth 't was not from the beginning that our Lord promised an hundred-fold to him who for his name should leave his Wife Matth. 19. 27. and Luke 18. 29. 'T was not from the beginning that if an eye scandalize us that is according to S. Hierome persons never so dear as Wives c. should tempt us very dangerously against faith or the Law of God we were bid to pull it out and cast it from us Mat. 5. 29. 104. Do's Maldonat averre such a separation though not for Adultery to be against the Law of Christ Sir you most unconscionably slander Maldonat and abuse your Auditours upon perswasion that he contradicts the Council of Trent in holding sequestration from bed and board not perpetual but temporary for any cause whatsoever but fornication to be opposite to the Law of Christ. Whereas Maldonat
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
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
wit that when there is no Pope at all the Catholick Church hath then no Head Therefore c. What! no Head at all At least it retaineth an invisible head which is as much as Protestants allow the Church It follows only good Sir that in the interval the Church as Universal hath no visible head a thing nothing strange in Politick Bodies Elective Princes as the German Emperour and the King of Polonia be they not in Civil Government Heads of their Princedomes If they de the Princedome wants a Head till another be chosen Is this a mystery God govern'd his Church three hundred yeares without a Generall Council may he not govern it a short space without a Pope especially all other Bishops and inferiour Pastors remaining still in full possâ—…ssion of their authority over their severall Flocks and knowing their duty by former definitions of Popes and Councils interpreting the word of God Yea but when there are many Popes the Church is a monster with many heads True if with many Popes acknowledged and accepted of by the Universall Church or declared by a Generall Council which is impossible Otherwise in order to the Faithfull many Popes no Pope In the interim 't is enough for them to stick to their known Doctrine believing in generall him to be Pope who is Canonically chosen without determining any in particular But what if the Pope be hereticall hath not the Catholick Church such a Head which makes her deserve to be beheaded A dainty conceit Are not the Bishops of England in your opinion the immediate Heads of their respective Diocesses what if one amongst them should turn Arian would not the crime lie upon the Diocesse and make her deserve to be beheaded no doubt if you may be believed And to come nearer your example you once made Henry the 8th supreame head of the Church of England If holding the Primacy he had faln into Heresie durst you have said that the glish Church had such a Head as made her deserve to be beheaded Doe not you see whether this poysonous Doctrine leads The tenth Demonstration Page 21. 55. Some Popes even by the confession of Papists have err'd as private Doctors onely not as Universall Pastours of the Church never defining heresie or commanding hereticall doctrine to be submitted unto as to Divine truths Therefore no Pope is Head of the Church Nay the most zealous and partiall asserters of their Supreamacy confesse that Popes have been Hereticks and Heathens too either by denying the Godhead of the Son as Liberius or lifting him above the other two Persons as Iohn the 22. or sacrificing to Idols as Marcellinus or being rejected by the Church for the crime of Heresie as Anastasius the second Therefore in the opinion of those zealous asserters of the Pope's Supreamacy the Pope is not supreame Head of the Church For to what end are those mens authorities alledged if not to knock down the Pope's Headship with our own Clubs 56. Good God what a heap of subtilties are here mass'd up with much more craft if not malice then ingenuity One onely Pope subscribed to S. Athanasius's banishment communicated outwardly with the Arians for fear of torments but never subscribed to the Heresie it self never taught maintained or defined it Insomuch that not onely Soorates Sozomen and Theodoret but also S. Athanasius himself in his two Apologies expressely say he was no Heretick Therefore Popes have denied the Divinity of Christ. One onely Pope is without any ground accused by Stella as holding the Son greater then the Father and the Holy Ghost No other Writer in the world besides Stella ever charging him with such an errour no not Calvin himself though he wanted not spleen enough to impose upon him most wrongfully the mortality of the Soule Therefore Popes have lifted up the Son above the Father and the Holy Ghost One onely Pope not for want of faith but feaâ—…ing the cruell Emperours indignation let fall a gram or two of Incense to the Idols as S. Peter denied Christ for fear of the Jâ—…wes but soon after repenting with Peter died a glorious Martyr Therefore Popes have been Heathens by sacrificing to Idols and a totall Apostacy from Faith One sole Pope was grievously slandered by the Schismaticks adhering to Laurence the Antipopâ—… as if he had communicated with Photinus an Arian Deacon and would have reinserted the namâ—… of Acacius a furious Arian amongst the holy Bishops commemorated in the sacâ—…ed Mysteries And these slanders once blown abroad by those Schismaticks were too inconsiderately saith Baronius registred in the Popes lives Therefore Popes have been rejected by the Church for heresie Did ever Stella Platâ—…ina or Onuphrius say so Do they inferre out of the supposed fall of these few Popes amongst 234. others that either the Popes were not supream Governours of the Church or that therefore the Roman Church erred in Faith Do they not expressely assert the contrary And that those Popes err'd as private persons only and not as Heads of the Church Doth not Stella in the very same place adde immediately Sed in quantâ—… est câ—…put Ecclesia nullâ—…s errare potest But as he the Pope is Head of the Church he can in no wise erre and that the Churches of Alexandria Antioch and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith â—…t the Church of Rome never 57. As for S. Hilary he was not so desperately rash as to judge the whole Church except France to be really turn'd Arian For neither Liberius nor S. Servatins with sundry other Bishops did ever subscribe to the heretical Confession of the Arians made at Arimini though many of the Orthodox Bishops did partly compelled by fear of torments partly deluded by the Arians perswading them that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was omitted because it was not in Scripture Hence it is that S. Basil coetanean to S. Hilary in his 293. Epistle writes thus 'T was fitting you should understand that by the grace of God there be very many that maintain the Orthodox Faith delivered by the Nicene Fathers according to the rule of piety and that you are not left alone in the East For truly the whole West conspires unanimously with you Nay your Doctor Boughen in his Answer to T. B. confesses that when Arianisme prevailed ' at Rome the Catholick Church was visible at Alexandria in Sardinia in France and other places Wherefore S. Hilary by those words à caeteris extra Gallias from the rest out of France and inter nos tantùm amongst us alone intended only to extoll the constant Faith of his Country for not communicating with the Arians who were spread over many other parts of Europe Otherwise he saying expressely in the same Treatise Episcopos Orientales stare sanos that the Bishops of the East stood sound would have expressely contradicted himself 58. For the rest of this your Instance I can only say in your words that whosoever shall read at large the many
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
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
some exercise of the Popes power not the power it self prove the right of particular Nations to reform themselves in matters of Faith as you pretend to have done in England though you cloak them now under the name of corruptions 127. Hath not the Church ever laid claim to the spiritual government even with the exclusion of secular Princes and reserved to her self as her own inheritance from Christ the power of managing concerns of Religion Hath it ever been heard since the beginning of the world saith S. Athanasius that the judgements of the Church did take their force from the Emperour And the renowned Doctour S. Ambrose to Valentinian the younger When have you ever heard most Clement Emperour that Lay-men did judge of Bishops in matters of Faith 128. 'T is then an intollerable abuse to throng and wrest Authours against their meaning as if they favoured your unjustifiable Schisme in recounting the deeds of a few Christian Princes who even then sound in faith stuck fast to the Roman Church by whose Concession we do not deny but Princes may sometimes exercise Ecclesiastical jurisdiction without hurting the Popes Supremacy 129. You need not put an If to the matter If Sacriledge and Rebellion when you speak of your Reformers violent courses 'T is too too patent to the world that the pretended Reformation came in like a cruel Tyrant waded in bloud and cut her way through the very bowels of her mother the Catholick Church trampling over Crownes profaning Churches destroying Altars violating Vowes and every where tearing the peace of Christianity Read Ierusalem and Babel or the Image of both Churches and you shall see this verifi'd to the full A goodly Brat of Reformation not to be born but of such Parents 130. Nay but the Court of Rome trod upon Crownes and Scepters An hyperbole fetcht from the hornes of the Moon When where what Crownes and Scepters At least the Roman Church made decrees with a non obstante to Apostolical Constitutions not excepting even the Commandements of Christ. You would perswade your Auditours that by Apostolical Constitutions the Pope means Constitutions made by the Apostles themselves no more good Sir then by Litterae Apostolicae are understood Letters penn'd by the Apostles He meanes Constitutions made by Bishops of the Sâ—… Apostolick his predecessours to whom he being equal in power may upon occasion repeale their Decrees as one Parliament can repeale the Acts of another That of the non exception of Christs Commandements is an empty phansie never dream't of by the Pope Was Christs institution of the Eucharist under both kindes a command to the Layety for both kindes I have told you before that your grand Patriarch Luther contradicts you 131. The Imperiall Edict at Wormes to set the Church in her wonted posture you call a cruell Edict But Sir you cannot but know that of late there was a pack of men who attempted to reform you crying out down with Lawn Sleeves down with set Prayers down with Steeple-houses And in effect much of this was done By providence the wheele turn'd Acts and Edicts were publisht to re-establish what you call a Church in her former state What would you think of such that should now protest against those Acts as cruell because they crosse their work of Reformation 132. When I hear you for a farewell offer us peace upon condition of being cleansed of our defilements me thinks I hear an Arian a Pelagian a Donatist say the same to the Catholick Church of their dayes and in the mean while we laugh in our sleeves But who can endure to hear you say the Spouse of Christ is defiled Christ has no Church that is not holy and if holy undefiled The staines the spots the defilements stick upon you that left her The Church is for ever tota pulchra all faire and as her blessed Bridegroom tells her Macula non est in te there is no spot in thee 133. Now Sir by what hath hitherto been said you may peradventure have seen if passion interest or self-conceit doe not blinde you that you neither spoak like a Preacher nor demonstrated like a Schollar 'T is the office of a Preacher to teach move and delight to teach sacred verities move to holinesse of life and delight with the fair descriptions of Christian duties and rewards You taught indeed but what Falsities and Errours you sent not a word to the heart nor moved to ought but hatred of truth and persecution of innocents at least you endeavoured it If you delighted any 't was very likely your self or such as love vanity and seek lyes not your best and wisest Auditours As to your demonstrative faculty I appeale to any unpartiall judge whether a few scraps or texts of Scripture torn from their Context taken upon the credit of the bare Letter devested of circumstances wrackt and wrested to the sense of every wilde fancy can ever aspire to rigorous evidence the sole essence of demonstration Much lesse then a heap of quotations some falsifi'd others of open enemies or suspected friends none at all precisely to the matter in question Wherefore 't was great weaknesse in you if not worse then weaknesse first to boast of demonstrations against us in your Sermon and then to cover the shame of your non-performance tell your Reader in the Dedicatory that your marginal citations are the evidence and warrant of all the rest And why because forsooth we cannot witâ—… honour or safety contradict the publick Confessions of our ablest Hyperaspistae A pretty piece of Pedantry Hyperaspistae Are all your Demonstrations shrunk up to a few quotations of unclassical Authours As if Polydor Virgil and Erasmus two Grammarians Thuanus a Lawyer Cassander a prohibited Authour and such like Riffe-Raffe were the stoutest Champions of Gods Church But let us suppose they were indeed of the ablest Pens do's the Catholick Faith depend upon single mens opinions Are Catholicks obliged upon their honour to defend every particular Doctor 's abberrations Cannot we be safe in Conscience if we stand immoveably to the Scriptures expounded by the Church and the Desinitions of Generall Councils as the infallible rule of our Faith but we must of necessity allow of every private man's sayings If so then think in what a pittifull case you are by declaiming against the Novelties of the Roman Church for the antiquity of whose Doctrines a world of prime Protestant Writers apologize in the Protestants Apology And truly you that acknowledge no publick infallible authority to decide matters of Faith â—…s we doe must rely much upon your private Doctors of whom notwithstanding Mr. Chillingworth gives this censure in his ninth Motive to be a Catholick The Protestant Cause is now and ever hath been from the beginning maintained with grosse falsifications and calumnies whereof their prime Controversie-Writers are notoriously and in a high degree guilty In this judgement he still persevered even after his return to Protestants For answering his
own motives he retracts it not but sayes onely that Iliacos intra muros peccatur extra Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants We approve as just his imputation of falsity and calumny laid upon Protestants but deny his parity as most false till it be proved Now for a farewell tell me in good earnest for the Novelty of what point of our Faith have you quoted truly any one of our ablest Hyperaspistae as you arepleas'd to call them In what leafe page line or margin may we find him you confesse pag. 31. that Corruptions in point of practice cannot justifie a separation Well then amongst the eleven points you object as Novelties let us set aside the Celibacy of the Clergy the Communion under one kind the Scriptures and publick Service in an unknown Tongue for these concern practice and are dispensible by the Church There remain eight other Doctrines of Faith direct me now to one approved Catholick Authour cited in your Sermon clearly testifying that the Pope's Supreamacy the Churche's Infallibility Transubstantiation Sacrifice of the Masse Purgatory Worship of Images Invocation of Saints and the lawfulnesse of a Tempory Divorce for other causes besides Fornication are all or any of them really and truly in their own notions abstracting from the words they are signified by a meer Novelty and not revealed from the beginning This I am sure you can never doe But if you could that mans or mens authority must by your own confession be the evidence and warrant of all the rest that is of what ever you assert in your whole Sermon This then supposed can you possibly perswade any rationall man that the particular authority of one or more private Doctors how able soever is a rigorous evidence convincing the whole Roman Church of errour in Faith and such an evidence as will in the eyes of God and Man justifie a Separation from that Mother Church though thousands of others no less able assert and believe the contrary If this be evidently impossible for you to do as certainly it is Dagloriam Deo and confess the rashness of your engagement to demonstrate our Novelties and return with speed to the House of God that Firmament and Pillar of Truth the Roman Church from which you can never demonstrate any just cause to depart 'T is the hearty wish of Your humble Servant I. S. ERRATA PAge 3. line 10. for Vrbanus read Ioannes line ultima for The Pontif r. Of the Pontific p. 11. l. 22. for Martyr restore r. Martyr Restore p. 13. l. 11. for guilt r. Gift p. 15. l. 12. for slightly r. slily p. 19. l. 24. for Bromhill r. Bramâ—…all p. 33. l. 17. in the margin Statut. 1. Elisab p. 34. l. 11. for Philostratus r. Philastrius p. 53. l. 19. for honour is r. Honour according to the Canons is p. 55. l. 6. for malice r. his malice p. 61. l. 2. for de r. be p. 69. l. 19. blot out Time p. 71. l. ult in the margin â—…or Ed. r. Eccl. p. 93. l. 20. in the margin for Paulus Sixtus r. Paulus Quintus In the Dedicatory for Iune 1. r. Aug. 1. Genes 3. Genes 4. a Synopâ—…is Contro p 76. b Papisto mastix pag. 19â—… c Reformed Catholick pag. 616. Edit 1616. in Folio d In lib. Apologet p. 192. a Vnum tamen audâ—…cter conscientia teâ—…e profiteor quia nusquam honeâ—…iores Clericos vidi quam in Romana Ecclesia aut qui magis avâ—…ritiam deteâ—…arentur b Quâ—… à vestra doctrina dissentit aut Hâ—…reticus aâ—…t Schismaticus est b 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉 cuâ—… timeâ—…s pedâ—…m Sen. â—…n vita Iacobi Regis Cum a tot Patribus tam Graecis quà m Latinis Purgatorium affirmetur non est verisimile quin ejus veritas per idoneas probationas illis claruisset a Apocalip c. 14. p. 382. b Part 3. examin pag. 197. edit 1â—…14 Lib 5. Cont. Donatistas cap. 1. c De cura pro mort cap. 4. d Tomo 10. edit Parisiensi anno 1635. e Lib. 22. 〈◊〉 Civit. Dei cap. 10. f Lib. 20. cap. â—…1 g Ioan. 14. h 1 Tim. 3. i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * De Missae privatâ—… Tom. 7. fol. 443. †Tom. 2. lib. de Euchar fol. 249. k Tom. 7. Serm. de Evcrs Hierâ—…lalem l Lib. de Servo arbitrio contra Erasmunâ—… edie prior m Exami part 3. pag. 90. Edit 1614. n Against Purgat p. 302. o Tomo 1. Epicher de cau Missae fol. 186. p De verbis Apostoli c. 34. †Omnes baereses exierunt ab illa tâ—…quam sarmenta inutilia recisa de vite sed ilia manet in sua radice in sua vite S. Aug. de Symb. ad Catechu lib. 1. c. 5. q Considerat of the Papists Supplication p. 43. s Respons ad Rat. 7. Cam 〈◊〉 t Defence c. p. 351. Sess. 4. Quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae auâ—… ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sanctâ—… dictanâ—…e quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque pervenerant Upon that place Baker in Henr. 8. pag. 4â—… in Edward 〈◊〉 pâ—…g 73 in Eliz. p. 113. Godwin iâ—…â—…a 〈◊〉 Parker iâ—…em a Of Sâ—…hisme p. 44. b In vita Elizab. pag. anno 1559. Iullers Ch. Hist. Centur. 16. p. 55. 56. c Epist. ad Synod Ephes. d 7. Concil Gene. e Iustinia Câ—…it 123. In Edw. 6. pag. 73. f Hilariâ—… lib contr Constant. g Cont. Henricum Octavum tom 2. f. 344 p. 2. h In explan art 4. edit 1581. Tiguri i In vita Iuelli p. 212. k Cont. Sander p. 9. 2. l Neque eniâ—… nate sunt haereses nâ—…si dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene quod in iis non bene intelligitur temerè audacter asseritâ—…r Tract 18. in Ioann m Pâ—…aker in vita Iacobi n In his Dedicatory of the reformed Catholick o Dr Potter Sect. 3. pag. 73. 〈◊〉 cap. 8. Dr. Laâ—…d Sect. 26. p Câ—…rt Epist. fundameâ—…ti c. 3. 4. q Tract 1. Sect. 3. 1 Lib. 1. c. 5. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pag. 442. See the Centurists 〈◊〉 Centur. 6. verbo Gregorius in Indice Hâ—…spin 〈◊〉 Sâ—…cram lib. 2. pag. 157. Dr. Humphrey Iesuit part 2. 〈◊〉 5. where he sayes that Gregory and Austin brought into England the whole Chaos of Popish superstition a Lib 2. de peccato Originali c. 17. b Contra Marcion lib. 4. c. 4. c Lib. 4. Epist. 2. d Ibidem Epist. 45. ad corâ—…lium e Tomo 〈◊〉 Concil edit 〈◊〉 iâ—…ter epist. Hormisâ—… f Lib 2. de peâ—…see Vandal g Dâ—… gloria Martyr l. 1. c. 25. h See the 4. Catalogues in the eâ—…d of the Protestant Apology Coccius Tom. 1. l. 8. art 4. 7. 8. c. i See Ieremias Patriarch of Constantinople his Answer to the Lutherans k Lib 4. contra Cresconium c. 61. See 〈◊〉 Austin lib. dâ—… Pastorib cap. 8. to the same purpose l Epist. 76. ad 〈◊〉