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
as held for a point of Faith in the whole Church And if S. Cyprian was confessedly deceived in holding rebaptization of Hereticks an Apostolicall Tradition and as S. Austin sayes would have submitted to a Generall Council defining the contrary why might not S. Austin be mistaken in the Traditions of Infant-Communion and if now living would humbly submit to the Council of Trent defining against it Against Transubstantiation The thirteenth Demonstration Page 23. 72. If the age of Transubstantiation may be measured by the very first date of it's definition the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may be allowed to be as old as the Lateran Council held under Pope Innocent the third somewhat more then four hundred yeares past But according to you if ye be serious and doe not trifle it 's age may be measured by the first date of it's definition Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation is but somewhat more then four hundred yeares old and was not so from the beginning 73. Sir I suppose you could not chuse but eveâ—… feel with your hands the lightnesse of this Argument together with the train of bad consequences it drawes after it For hence must necessarily follow that no point of Faith can be elder in it self then the Council that defines it Consequently the Consubstantiality of the Son the Divinity of the Holy Ghost the Unity of Person in Christ consisting with the duality of Natures and the unconfusion of Natures in one Person have no greater antiquity then the four first Generall Councils by which they were first respectively defined above 300. yeares after Christ. As if the age of Divine Mysteries revealed could not prevent their Conciliary definitions occasioned by the emergency of heresies against them For if it can why may not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation have been from the beginning as well as that of the four Mysteries above mentioned though it 's Conciliary definition be much younger 74. Nay but our Lord having said This is my Blood explaineth himself in the same breath by calling it expressely the fruit of the Vine So was Eve called Adam's Bone which then she was not but had been Aaron's Rod whil'st it was a Serpent still call'd a Rod And Angels call'd Men because they appeared like men though substantially no Men. But howsoever there still remained in the Chalice the Accidents of Wine which were truly genimen Vitis a product of the Vine that word signifying not Wine onely or necessarily but whatsoever growes of the Vine the Flowers the Leaves the Grapes c. Pag. 9. in the Margin you wrong Scotus as if he held Transubstantiation not a point of Faith before the Lateran Council whereas he onely sayes speaking of the like Definitions that it was not explicitely believed under the notion of that word till the Councils definition Quae veritas saith he etsi prius eâ—…at de fide non tamen erat prius tantum declarata Which truth though it was before matter of Faith yet it was not before so much declared Is not this to abuse Authours and Auditours The fourteenth Demonstration Making the Romanists asham'd of their Doctrine 75. When two particular Divines disagree in the manner of explaining a Mystery of Faith but agree both in the truth and Faith of the Mystery it self then all those that joyn with them in the belief of the same Mystery are made asham'd of their Doctrine But Aquinas and Bellarmin disagree in the manner of explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist and both agree in the truth and Faith of the Mystery it self Therefore all that joyn with them in the belief of the same mystery as all Romanists doe are made asham'd of their Doctrine 76. Surely this Demonstration will shame none but the owner of it A Schollar and not blush to argue so How many Mysteries doe Christians believe and yet the greatest Divines doe so clash in the explications of them that each party holds the Mystery impossible in the others opinion We all believe the blessed Trinity Now if one should argue thus The Scotists hold the Mystery impossible without a certain distinction which they call Ex natura rei betwixt the Divine essence and the three personalities or Relations The Thomists cry out against that distinction as destructive of the Mystery and importing a quaternity must therefore all Christians be ashamed of their belief of the Mystery it self because those two learned Schooles jaâ—…e in the expounding of it or rather he that makes so wise an argument 77. But in very deed S. Thomas and Bellarmin differ not about the manner of Christs being in the Sacrament as you would make your Auditours believe They both agree that Christ is there definitively all in all and all in every part of the sacred Hoste which way of existing S. Thomas calls Sacramentall Their difference is in a philosophicall Question whether a Body can be in two places at once circumscriptively that is with all it 's locall dimensions answering to the extensive parts of the place S. Thomas holds it cannot as implying a division of the body from it self Bellermine replies with great respect to S. Thomas Haec ratio pace tanti Doctoris dixerim non est solida This reason be it spoken under favour of so great a Doctor is not solid Which having modestly shown Adde to this saith he that if a body cannot be locally in two places truly neither Sacramentally What is here to shame the Catholicks Where is Bellarmine's anger Where his revenge upon the Angelical Doctor I see nothing here but your vanity seeking at the cost of others wrong to purchase applause to your self 78. You seem likewise to be unvers'd in School affairs seeing that Bellarmine's inference in that question is common to all Schoolmen that defend the local existence of a body in two places Had your intent been to evince the impossibility of the Real Presence from the cross opinions of those two Doctors you might perhaps have argued thus According to S. Thomas Christs body cannot be locally in two places at once But according to Bellarmine if it cannot be locally it cannot be Sacramentally in two places at once Therefore according to both it can neither be locally nor Sacramentally in two places at once and consequently not at all in many Hostes. In this Paralogisme no asserter of the Real Presence will be so senseless as to grant both premises but if with S. Thomas he grant the Major with S. Thomas he will deny the Minor And if with Bellarminâ—… â—…e grant the Minor with Bellarmine he will deny the Major And so nothing will follow inconsistent with his Belief The fifteenth Demonstration Page 24. 79. If so long agoe as the time of Pope Nicholas the Second either Transubstantiation was not forged and hammered out into the shape in which we find it nor at all understood by the Pope himself then Transubstantiation as we now find it is a Novelty invented since the time of Berengarius
then was the style of the ancient Fathers which you not seeing or not caring whom you strike at call a childish fallacy in one of the Leaâ—…ndest Cardinalls the Church ever had Nay the very Arians themselves knowing to their grief Roman and Catholick to be in the common phrase Synonima yet to disgrace Catholicks called them Romanists as you doe now Victor Bishop of â—…ica recounts that Iocundus an Arian said to King Theodoriâ—… If thou put Armogastus to death the Romanists will proclaime him a Martyr And Gregory of Tours records that Theodegâ—…lus an Arian or Pagan King seeing a Miracle done at the Font of a Catholiek Church said to himself Quia est ingeniuâ—… Romanorum this is a device of the Romans Hoc enim nomine vocitant nostrae Religionis homines For so they call men of our Religion 'T is you not we that stand in parallell with the Donatists The Roman Church is spread over the four parts of the world every where the same perfectly agreeing in Faith Sacraments and Discipline Your pretended Church is confined to a small part of Europe as the Donatists to Africa divided into many Sects condemning one another as incapable of Salvation You sought Communion with the Greek Church but were justly repuls'd and so would yet be wheresoever you tri'd there being no Church in the world except the Reformed that will joyn with you in externall communion of Sacraments Liturgies and Church Duties To make your Church swell you are forc'd now a dayes to take in most Hereticks in the world Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites Anabaptists Sacramentarians c. not remembring that famous saying gathered out of S. Austin cited by the most Learned Bishop of Chalcedon in his Treatise of Schisme Catholicks are every where and Hereticks are every where But Catholicks are the same every where and Hereticks are different every wâ—…ere Consequently for want of union cannot possiâ—…ly make up one Church And if they had all the same errours in Faith they would still be Hereticks and no Church of Christ. 28. Behold a reason in brief Though the word Church taken grammatically signifie any Congregation of men yet in the sence of the holy Scriptures Fathers and ancient custome 't is restrained to the sole company of Christians united in Divine Faith Sacraments and obedience to their Pastour Divine Faith therefore being of the essentiall form that makes one a member of the Church how can Hereticks who according to S. Paul have made shipwrack touching Faith be parts of the true Church upon which score the Apostle commands Titus c. 3. to avoid an Heretick because he is subverted and condemned of himself S. Cyprian denied Novatianus to be in the Curch Quando ipse in Ecclesia non sit Optâ—…s Meleviâ—…anus against Parmenian saith that â—…raeter unam Ecclesiam Besides one Church which is the true Catholick Church the rest among Hereticks are thought to be but are not S. Hierome against the Luciferians Nulla Congregatio haeretica potest dici Ecclesia Christi No hereticall Congregation can be called a Church of Christ. Bâ—…t none so â—…xpresse foâ—… this matter as S. Austin who in his 48. Epistle speaking to the Donatists Nobiscum estis You are saith he with us in Baptisme in the Creed in the râ—…st of our Lords Sacraments In ipsa Ecclesia Catholica non estis In the Catholick Church you are not Mâ—…rk that they believed all the Aâ—…ticles of the Creed and consequently your fundamentalls Now all the Congregations in the world disagreeing from the Roman in points of Faith are 〈◊〉 Hereticks and went out of her by known erroâ—…s Therefore no Churches nor parts of the tâ—…ue Châ—…ch 29. The Egyptians Ethiopians and Abyssins not of our Communion are Eutichians holding but one Nature Will and Operation in Christ and were condemned by the fourth General Council of Chalcedon with them side part of the Armenians the â—…acobits Georgians and Copthties The Tartarian Christians under the Turk and Persian in Asia follow Nestorius condemned by the third general Council of Ephesus for holding two Persons in Christ. Yet Baxter blushes not to screw both Nestorians and Eutichians into the Protestant Church under pretence that they 〈◊〉 noâ—… in sense but only in words from the Catholick Church As if the silly Minister understood their meaning better then all the learned Fathers of the two General Councils of Ephesus and Calcedon that condemn'd and cast them out of the Church for Hereticks What will Baxter answer to that Act of Parliament under Queen Elizabeth impowering Bishops to judge any matter or cause to be heretick which by the first four General Councils or any one of them have bin determin'd to be heresies If the opinions of Nestorius and Eutyches were not heresiâ—…s as well in sense as in words what did those two general Councils determin to be heresies The Abyssins reject the Council of Chalcedon to this day and admit circumcision with other ceremonies of thâ—… Iewes The Grecians with their adherents Muscovites and Russians even in S. Athanasius his Creed are excluded from Salvation for denying the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son Of whom your Thomas Rogers upon the 39. Articles pronounced thus This discovereth all them to be impious and erre from the way of truth which hold and affirm that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father but not from the Son as this day the Grecian the Russians the Muscovites maintain Note that Rogers Book was perused and by the authoritâ—… of the Church of England allowed to be publick 30. Of Luther and Calvin's pretended Churches there is no doubt as holding many aged errours long since condemned by Councils and Fathers for Heresies See the Catalogues of old Heresies collected by Epiphanius Philostratus â—…sidor and S. Austin who for example having rank'd AErius â—…mongst Hereticks for denying Sacrifice and Prayer for the dead ends his Book assuring that whosoever holds any of those Hâ—…resies cannot be a Catholick Much lesse then such as hold with the Pelagians tha Children dying unbaptized may be saved with the Novatians no power in Priests to remit sins with the Manichees no externall Sacrifice or Free-will with certain Hereticks in S. Ignatius the Martyr's dayes no Reall presence with Vigilantius no single life of Priests with Iovinian no difference of merits c. 31. Whence I conclude that since all other Churches in the world disagreeing from the Roman are by sacred Antiquity held and confessed Hereticall and by consequence no Churches The Roman alone with all the Churches of her Communion is the true Church of Christ there being no other upon earth free from errours in Faith and the Roman never yet proved erroneous See 17. other parallells of Protestanâ—…s with the Donatists in Gualcerus hâ—…s Chronicon Seculo 4. 32. Heâ—…e also you have a flâ—…ng at Cardinall Peròn for his want of â—…mory as if he foâ—…got that the Preaching â—…f Châ—…ist
return to the Church How then do's this heresie so universally resisted destroy the Infallibility of the Church 64. The Donatists were but a poor crew in Africa condemned first by Melchiades Pope in a Council at Rome and then by two hundred Bishops some say six hundred at Arles in France against which heresie S. Austin fought gallantly with the Sword of the unwritten word laying this principle that Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur What is not clearly contained in Scripture or instituted by Councils and yet is held by the whole Church is to be believed to have been delivered by the Apostles 65. The Arians 't is true spread for a while by power and violence but were condemn'd by the first Council of Nice and by Iulius Pope in a Roman Council and by the Council of Sardica in Thracia and of Arimini in Italy and in many other Provinciall Councils Neither did that herefie ever reach to the breast of Pope Liberius as I have shewed before At Sirmium 't is true being call'd thither after two yeares banishment he subscribed to the first Confession of Faith in all respects Orthodox except that the word Homoousion was left out as being new and not found in Scripture 66. Of the Millenaries there were two sorts the one held that Christ should reign after the Resurrection for a thousand yeares upon earth in all carnall pleasures of this opinion was Cerinthus and his followers and this is likely to have been condemn'd with the heresie of the Apollinarists in a Roman Council under Pope Damasus as Baronius records An. 373. against which Doctrine Dennis Bishop of Alexandria writ long before in confutation of Nepos a Bishop of AEgypt The others addicted those thousand yeares to chaste and spirituall delights and of this thought were some of the ancient Fathers but not the whole Church For many saith S. Iustin who are of the pure and pious sense of Christians doe not acknowledge that Doctrine 67. These Fathers were drawn to that opinion by Papias Bishop of Hieropolis who as Eusebius recounts said he had it from Aristion and Iohn Priests Auditors of the Apostles A doctrine unknown and rather fabulous saith Ensebius But for my part I think he took the spirituall and mysticall Trâ—…dition of the Apostles mâ—…terially according to the Letter and could not discern what they spoke in figures to sucking Children and little ones Who also by the small works he writ appeares to have been of a mean and lesse capable wit However this Chillianisme as it was never defined by any Generall Council or particular Synod or any Roman Bishop So with Cornelius à Lapide upon the twentieth of the Apocalyps I dare not say 't is an Heresie because I have neither clear Scripture nor Decrees of Councils by which it is condemn'd as Hereticall The same saith S. Hierome upon Ieremy lib. 4. Neither doe we find it in the Catalogues of old Heresies set down by S. Austin Philastrius Isidor or Guido Carmelita 'T is in Epiphanius but as relating to Cerinthus of a carnall reign 68. Communion of Infants was never held absolutely necessary by the whole Church For the ancient Fathers unanimously taught that Baptisme takes away all sin Baptisme saith S. Basil is the the death of sin the regeneration of the Soul the reconciliation of the Kingdome of Heaven Nay Orosius in his Apology S. Prosper in his ninth Answer to the French Objections and S. Fulgentius de fide ad Petrum all three Disciples of St. Austin undoubtedly maintain that Baptisme gives salvation and life everlasting Hold most firmly saith S. Fulgentius that holy Baptisme sufficeth little ones to salvation as long as their age is not capable of reason Where it is to be noted that when Infant-Communion was in use they were first Baptized then Confirmed and lastly received the holy Holy Eucharist as is gathered out of the Laoâ—…icean Counciâ—… held some time before the Council of Nice and confirmed by the Synod of Trull Inunctos etiam sacro Chrismate Divino Sacramento communicare convenit And yet both the Elibertin Council under Pope Sylvester Can. 77. and S. Hierome against the Luciferans affirm that a man dying before confirmation is saved and consequently before Communion Finally as the learned Authour of the Systeme observes neither in any of the British or English Councils nor in S. Gregory's instructions given to S. Austin the Monk is there any mention of this matter 69. As for S. Austin he often attributes a total remission of sins to Baptisme affirming exexpressely that Children when they die are either saved by Baptisme or damn'd for Original sinne Hoc Catholica fides novit This Catholick Faith knoweth And again in his 59. Epistle Infants by the Sacrament of Christian grace without doubt appertain to life everlasting and the Kingdome of Heaven Therefore that so great a Doctor may not contradict himself I say with Cardinal Peròn his meaning to be that Infants must either receive actually or in voto by vow of the Church implicitely containedin Baptisme For by Baptisme the Child is inserted into the mystical Body of Christ which mystical Body is represented by the holy Eucharist Now because Christ our Saviour said that without the eating of his flesh life is not to be had hence the Saint proves against the Pelagians thâ—… absolute necessity of Baptisme not only to enter into the Kingdome of Heaven as they granted but also to life everlasting which they deny'd For without Baptisme none can eat Christs flesh either really as in persons of due age or in voto as in Children This to have been S. Austin's mind is clearly gathered out of these ensuing words which venerable Bede upon the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. and Hugo Victorinus Lib. 2. de Sacramentis cap. 20. attributes to S. Austin None must any wise doubt that every one of the faithful is then made partaker of the Body and Bloud of Christ when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ or that he is estranged from the Communion of that bread although before he eates that bread and drinks that Cup he departs this life in the union of Christs Body 7. The â—…ame may be said of Pope Innocent the first who in his Epistle to the Fathers of the Melevitan Council rather insinuates that Baptisme it self is the eating of Christs Body Neither do's Maldonat say that Infant-communion was either believed necessary or practised by the whole Church but onely that S. Austin held it as of Faith and as the Tenet of the whole Church Nor do's Maldonat deny that this very thought concerning Faith and the whole Church was St. Austin's private opinion 71. Whence it followes that albeit the practice in some parts of the Church might have lasted six hundred yeares yet neither in the whole Church nor
concerning corruptions intrenching upon fundamentalls whereof you spoke not a word before nor ever told us which they were 116. Why may not all hereticks in the world by this example pretend to let out Schisme and not to introduce it Why not stand to it as you here doe that the actual departure from the Church is indeed yours but the causal the Church's Why not that if a secession be made from the Church 't is in the very selfsame measure that the Church makes one from Christ As if there could be a just cause to depart from the Universal Church We are certain saith S. Austin that no man could justly separate from the Communion of the whole world Epist. 48. And again There is no just necessity of dividing unity lib. 2. cont Parmenia cap. II. And your pretended Arch-Bishop Laud joynes with S. Austin There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Sect. 21. pag. 139. Now Luther Calvin and all their followers separated from all the Churches in the world So Luther confesseth He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the Battell forsaken of all Praefat in 1 Tom. contra Regem Angliae And for this we have the expresse confession of Chillingworth that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catholick Church c. cap. 5. pag. 274. So Calvin it is absurd that since we have been forced to divide our selves from all the world we should now in our very beginnings disagree amongst our selves Ep 141. So Chillingworth cap. 5. pag. 237. As for external Communion of the visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it So Perkins giving the reason of the Separation for that during the space of 900. yeares the Popish Heresie spread it self over the whole world and for many hundred yeares an universall Apostacy overspread the face of the whole earth What else I pray For if every point of Faith in which we differ from Protestants as Masse praying to Saints use of Images c. be Heresie and Apostacy all the Churches in the world besides Protestants were both Hereticks and Apostates And what other sense can that insolent vaunt of Luther have in his Letter to the Strasburgians Christum a nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari We dare boast that Christ by us was first preached As if none in the whole world had a right belief of Christ before Luther This this was really the Doctrine of your first age though now in the second many of you for very shame disclaime from it and seek with Doctour Usher the first English broacher of this new Heresie in his Sermon at Wansted before King Iames An. 1624. to hook in and matriculate in your Protestant Church the Greeks Abyssines AEgyptians Iacobits though differing never so much amongst themselves and from you and holding Heresies expressely condemned in former Councils You may well affect their Communion but I am sure they will scorn yours 117. I said the first English broacher Forindeed this monster of Doctrine fell first from the Apostate Pen of Marcus Antonius de Dominis who to gratifie the Sectaries forged the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals and so made up a Church of all Sects in the world agreeing in fundamentals a Church not to be found either in Scriptures Councils Fathers nay nor any unorthodox Writings of former ages For what Christians upon earth ever taught before that salvation might stand with a voluntary disbelief of the least point of Faith known to be sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God As if the sin of incredulity consisted rather in the greatnesse of the matter revealed then in denying Gods veracity equally engaged in points noâ—… fundamentall 118. Yet still Saint Austin's words stand uncontrollable that no man can justly separate himself from the Communion of the whole world To whom your Doctour Whitaker subscribes lib. 3. cont Dureum Sect. 3. He goeâ—… from the Gospel who sayes the whole world can conspire against Christ. 119. Yea but otherwise Saint Paul had been too blame in that he said to the Corinthians Come ye out from among them and be ye separate 2 Cor. 6. 17. Very true if it were the same to separate from known Heathens and publick Idolaters of whom Saint Paul speaks who are no Church and from the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile Neither did the Church thrust you out as you say but as Saint Iohn fitly termes it ex nobis exierunt You went out from us by your wilfull errours Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo saith Saint Hierome In Epist ad Tit. cap. 3. Hereticks give sentence against themselves parting from the Church of their own accord Nay but the Church by her hostilities and excommunications departed from you Yes indeed just as the four first Generall Councils departed from the Arians Macedonians Nestorians and Eutychians by their hostilities and anathemaes and not rather as Saint Cyprian sayes of other Hereticks By being excommunicated they received their due punishment not cast out by us but they of their own accord casting out themselves and wilfully thrusting themselves out of the Church Epist. 40. So that if the Devil drive you out as you confesse you were your own selfe-Devils and not the Church which excommunicated you 120. Yet I acknowledge with Saint Austin that every Christian who is excommunicated is delivered up to Satan but how to wit because the Devil is out of the Church as Christ is in the Church and by this he is as it were delivered to the Devil who is removed from the Communion of the Church whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated whom he pronounceth to be delivered to Satan In this sense we grant that the holy Church by excommunication thrust out Protestants as the Apostle did the incestuous Corinthian after he had first by that detestable sin given the cause to be expell'd The excommunication was the punishment not the crime You were once under the spirituall government of the Roman Church believed her Doctrine avowed her practises Of your own private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or election you renounc'd her authority disbelieved her Doctrine cast out her practises Behold Schisme at your door that is a voluntary recession from the former Authority Faith and Discipline of the Church for nine hundred yeares acknowledged in the Land The anathema following was both just as thundring the offenders and wholly necessary to preserve the innocent from your contagion 121. To what you cite in the Margin against Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh Baronius hath fully answer'd Anno Domini 1076. 1077. showing out of approved Authours of the same age that William Bishop of Mastrecht the chief
against the whole Church is most insolent mâ—…dnesse saith S. Austin Ep. 118. 18. You erre no lesse absurdly when you say that in the fourth Session of the Council of Trent the Roman Church is made to differ as well from her ancient and purer self as from all other Churches besides her self This is meerly begg'd and not prov'd Might not all former Hereticks have said the same of all Generall Councils that condemn'd them Did either the Council of the Apostles Act. 15. or the first four Generall ones make the Church differ from her self by reason of their Definitions or Decrees why then the Council of Trent in particular Because say you that Council defin'd many meerly humane writings and many unwritten Traditions to be of equall authority with the Scripture anathemat zing all that should not receive them The Council of Trent defined no writings to be of equall authority with the Scriptures but such as those Orthodox Fathers by the assistance of the Holy Ghost confirming ancient Tradition judged to be the Word of God nor any unwritten Traditions but such as were either immediately received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or inspired to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost and so handed down in a perpetuall succession unto them Of such Traditions the Apostle speaks 2 Thes. 2. Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or Epistle Hence it is clear saith S. Chrysostome that the Apostles delivered not all things by writing but many things also unwritten both which are worthy of equall belief Is not this the very Definition of the Council of Trent And might not all the Hereticks that ever deni'd any part of Scripture as the Cerinthians deni'd the whole New Testament but S. Matthew's Gospel the Marcionists Gnosticks Manichees all the old Testament as Luther the Epistle to the Hebrews S. Iames and the Apocalyps and all that ever denâ—…'d Apostolicall Traditions as Arius Nestorius Eutyches and other Novellers did might not I say all these have used the same plea against the Church or Councils that defined Canonicall Books or Apostolicall Traditions against them A strange objection and stranger reformation that justifies all Hereticks in the world As for the anathema hath it not ever been the Style of all Generall Councils to lay a curse upon the refusers of their Definitions And if the point of Infallibility was both believed and virtually defined by the first Generall Councils justly imposing upon mens consciences an inward assent to their Decrees of Faith upon pain of Anathema why not as well by the Council of Trent 19. But I wonder what you mean in saying that the Roman Church was made to differ from all other Churches besides her self If by the Roman Church you mean not onely the City and Diocesse of Rome but all other Churches united with that particular Church whose Bishops sate voted in the Council of Trent then you speak a Chymera there being but one true Catholick Church in the world which is the Roman that never differ'd from her self in matters of faith except you intend a Heterogenial Church patcht up of all condemn'd Sects in the world opposite one to anothre 20. Upon the premises your Reformers say you met together and concluded a Secession As if Protestants revolted not from the Pope long before the Council of Trent or the pretended new Creed as you call it But let us see the quality of those Reformers to wit your Kings your Clerâ—…y and your Layty too What Kings I pray Hen. the 8. the first broacher of the Schisme with Dalila in his â—…ap Edward the 6. a young Child and Qâ—… Elizabeth a woman fit heads to consult of Religion Yet were they all successively by Acts of Parliament either created or declar'd Supreame heads of the Church of England a Prerogative never châ—…lleng'd by any Christian Prince before The following Kings found the breach made and the Schisme completed What Clergy but Cranmer that Arch-Sycophant who according to Hâ—…story by his whispers in the Kings car was the first au thour of the Secession from the Pope and as â—…e pretended Bishop Bramhill confesses struck the nail home What Clergy but intruders when under Edward the 6. Protestantisme was establishâ—…t in England contrary to the liking of most of the true Bishops of that time And when under Qâ—…een Elizabeth all the Bishops but one were deposed and by Cambdens confession eighty Curates fifty Prebendarics fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Arch-Deacons and six Abbots lost their places when also the inferiour Clergy in a Convocation appointed by that very Queen protested against the Reformation What the Laiety too have they against all Antiquity power to define matters of Religion When Theodosius the younger sent his Ambassadour to the Council of Ephesus which was the third Generall one he writ to the Council that he sent him Ea Lege upon that condition that in questions of Religion he should have nothing to doe giving this reason It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle in businesses and consultations of the Church The same said Basil the Emperour to the Laiety in the seventh Generall Council 'T is not lawfull for you to treat in Ecclesiasticall Causes And long before that Iustinian If the businesse be Ecclesiasticall let no Civil Magistrate deale in such questions c. But in fine what Laiety was it but a Cromwell and such like flatterers It was generally conceived and truly as I think saith Weaver in his Monuments pag. 101. that those politick wayes for taking away the Pope's authority and suppressing religious Houses were principally devised by Cromwell And Bishop Gardner in Fox pag. 1344. saith The Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish and put away the Primacy from the Bishop of Rome 21. Yea but these Reformers did not consult flesh and bloud O no! King Henry consulted the spirit when lusting after Anne Bolen he tore himself from the Pope for refusing him the grant of a Divorce and to satisfie his avarice he seized upon all the goods of Monasteries What spirit the Protectour and Parliament under Edward the Sixth consulted whether God or Mammon let Baker tell you There you may read how divers Bishops were committed to prison for misliking the Reformation and all of them dispossessed of their Bishopricks and that which is worse the Bishopricks themselves were dispossessed of their revenues A Parliament was held wherein divers Chantries Colledges Free Chappels Fraternities and Guilds with all their Lands and goods were given to the King which being sould at a low rate enriched many and enobled some and thereby made them firm in maintaining the change thus Baker Queen Elizabeth bred up a Catholick and by a Catholick Bishop consecrated Qâ—…een consulted Eternity when to buy a Crown she sold her Religion Or expect the Church of Rome should have been their Physician which was