liberties and exemptions of the Gallican Church which still acknowledges the Pope's supremacy and the publish'd confessions of Popish writers touching the Papal usurpations and right of Kings put together by Goldastus an heretick prov'd by Gretser to be a lying knave but never denying the Roman Bishops to succeed S. Peter in the spiritual government of the Church will not be able to deny that the Supremacy of the Pope hath this Lying against it that it was not so from the beginning But I must tell you with holy S. Leo that whosoever denieth the Supream Authority of the Roman Bishop cannot deminish the power thereof but puffed up with the spirit of pride plungeth himself headlong into Hell What then have these ten so well contrived Ratiocinations demonstrated nothing at all yes Sir they have demonstrated that you are still guilty of Schisme for disturbing the See Apostolicks quiet possession of Supremacy in England without a demonstration that it was usurpt For'tis evident from our solutions that you have not demonstrated such an usurpation And t is no lesse evident that an authority of so high a concern for the peace and unity of the Church so long a knowledged and obey'd in this Kingdome as of Christ's institution could not without open Schisme be cast out except it had been demonstratively proved an usurpation Against the Infallibility of the Catholick or Roman Church The eleventh Demonstration Page 22. No Church can be infallible to wit as well incapable of errour as not erroneous except it hath that infallibility which is one of Gods peculiar incommunicable Attributes For where there is not omniscience there must be ignorance in part and where ignorance is there may be errour But no Church can have that incommunicable Attribute Therefore no Church can be infallible much lesse the Roman A high and massy discourse As if there were no difference betwixt an intrinsecal infallibility proper to the nature of an infinite Being essentially identify'd with Omniscience and an infallibilility extrinsecally communicated relying upon the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost promised by the word of God Had Moyses and the Prophets Gods incommunicable Attribute were the Apostles Omniscient And yet were they not infallible in what they preach'd assisted by the spirit of God was not S. Paul as well incapable of teaching the Church errours as not erroneous whilest he said to the Thessalonians 1. 2. 13. Ye received the word of God which ye heard from us ye received it not as the word of man but as it is in truth the word of God And again Since you seek a proofe of Christ speaking in me 2 Cor. 13 3. Was not the humanity of Christ incapable of errour and sin as it was govern'd by his Divinity and could not teach errours and yet it was not identify'd with the increated Omniscience of God nor with the incommunicable Attribute of infallibility What mean some Protestant Doctours when they grant the Universal Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls Cannot God preserve from errour as well in not-fundamentals taken in your sense as Fundamentalls If so that Church so preserved upon Gods promise will be infallible in the sense intended by the Roman Church and then what is become of your demonstration drawn from the impossibility of the thing Surely S. Cyprian had a better opinion of the Roman Church when he said Lib. 1. Epist. 3. The Romans are they whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle and to whom misbelief can have no accesse S. Ierome had the same sentiment when speaking to Ruffinus Know thou saith he that the Roman Faith commended by the voice of the Apostle admitteth no such delusions and that being fenced by S. Paul's authority it cannot be altered though an Angel should teach otherwise 60. You and yours on the other side denying the Church to be infallible argue Christ of improvidence in not furnishing his Church with undoubtable meanes to compose differences in matters of Faith and preserve unity The Church of Tyranny in obliging men upon pain of damnation to believe her definitions that may be false and the whole Body of Christians of unsettledness in belief as relying upon nothing not subject to errour whether Fathers Councils Church or Scriptures expounded by them If I should say that any one at his pleasure I may resist the Councils I should say well saith Luther expressely against St. Austin's belief in his first Book against the Donanatists chap. 7. who speaking of the rebaptization of those that had been baptized by Hereticks he sayes The obscurity of this question compell'd men of great authority to stagger a long while untill that in a full Council of the whole world it was firmly decreed what was most wholsomly to be held all doubts removed Which he could never have said had he held the Church errable in her Generall Councils Say what you please all your certainty of Faith is finally resolved into the private spirit though you cannot endure to be told so The twelfth Demonstration 61. The Tenet of Infallibility upon earth cannot be true if errours in Faith spring up in the Church But Novatianisme was hatcht at Rome Donatisme spread over the West Arianisme over the East Chilianisme infected the primitive Fathers without contradictionâ—… and the Church of God in S. Austin's and Innocent the third's opinion held the necessity of Infant-communicating which the Council of Trent declared against Therefore the Tenet of Infallibility upon earth cannot be true 62. A sturdy argument indeed if one held every single person of the Church to be infallible Mean while it proves as well that the Church even under the Apostles time was not infallible for that in their time sprung up the Heresies of Simon Magus Diâ—…rephes Cerinthians Ebion Nicolaitans c. and yet the Apostles in their Council at Ierusalem could freely say It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us Was not this Council by the assistance of the Holy Ghost inerrable notwithstanding those Heresies How then doe Heresies prove the Fallibility of Generall Councils lawfully called to beat them down would not such a Principle argue the Fallibility of Christ because his Doctrine was opposed by the Jewes 63. Novatianisme though hatcht at Rome yet the Egge was laid in Africa and this no Authour denies For Novatus after a Schisme raised against St. Cyprian coming to Rome joyned with Novatianus a Roman Priest against Pope Cornelius and both together sowed the heresie held first by Montanus and Tertullian that such as were faln should not be readmitted into the Church after repentance This heresie was presently resisted by Cornelius in a Council held at Rome of threescore Bishops in Africa by S. Cyprian in a Synod of forty two Bishops at Antioch in a Provincial Council And Eusebius addes that every where through all Provinces the Bishops met against that errour Finally the first Council of Nice offered peace to the Novatians if renouncing their heresie they would
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
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
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
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
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