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
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
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
Cathedra una monstretur The beginning comes from unity The Primacy is given to Peter that there may be shown one Church of Christ and one Chayre And in the same Treatise He that forsakes the Chayre of Peter upon which the Church is founded do's he trust that he is in the Church Secondly from his 71. Epistle Peter whom our Lord chose first and upon whom he built his Church c. Thirdly from his 40. Epistle There is one God one Christ one Church and one See by the word of our Lord founded upon S. Peter Insomuch that the Centurists famous Protestants reprove S. Cyprian for it saying Passim dicit Cyprianus supra Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam S. Cyprian often sayes that the Church is founded upon S. Peter Fourthly from that the same Centurists blame likewise S. Hierome for the like sayings who upon the 6. of S. Matthew speaking of S. Peter hath these words Secundum Metaphoram Petrae rectè dicitur ei aedificabo Ecclesiam meam superte According to the Metaphor of a Rock 't is rightly said unto him I will build my Church upon thee And in his first Book against Iovinian Inter duodecim unus eligitur ut Capite constituto Schismatis tolleretur occasio Amongst the twelve one is chosen that a Head being establisht the occasion of Schisme might be taken away Which place of S. Hierome is alledged by Doctor Covell above cited page 107. to prove the necessity of one Head for preventing Schismes and Dissentions in the Church Finally from his 75. Epistle when speaking to Pope Damasus Beatitudini tuae saith he id est Cathedrae tuae communione consocior super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam scio c. I am joyned in communion with your Blessednesse that is to Peter's Chayre upon that Rock I know the Church is founded Now Sir by these clear and unquestionable Texts is it not manifest that in your Sermon to the Court you cheated these Fathers out of their true meaning The seventh Demonstration Page 18. 51. If every Patriarch and Bishop be appointed to be chief in his proper Diocesse as the Bishop of Rome is the chief in his then the Pope cannot be chief or Head of the whole Church But so it was appointed by the Canons of the two first General Councils Nicè and Constantinople Therefore the Bishop of Rome cannot be chief or head of the whole Church The Minor is stoutly proved first by the 6. Nicene Canon in which there is not a word of that sense The Canon is this Let the ancient custome held through Egypt Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over those Provinces because that also with the Bishop of Rome this is usual or customary that is to allow that power in the Bishop of Alexandria for if this be not the sence how could the Judges in the Council of Chalcedon inferre out of this Canon Omnem primatum all primacy in the See of Rome as we shall presently see The fifth Canon of the second Generall Council runs thus The Bishop of Constantinople must have the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome because it is new Rome Doe not those words after the Bishop of Rome rather prove the absolute Primacy of the Roman See Secondly in the Council of Chalcedon which was the fourth Generall Act. 16. the Judges having heard the recitall of those two Canons concluded thus By what hath been deposed of every one we conceive that all Primacy and chief honour is reserved to the Arch-Bishop of old Rome What Canons I pray but those of the two first Generall Councils you have alledg'd which are so far from equallizing the Roman Bishop with the rest that they give him all Primacy that is both of Order and Jurisdiction For Primacy of Order alone is neither all Primacy nor the chief Honour Primacy of Jurisdiction exceeding it far This Primacy is farther pâ—…oved because the same Council pretending to grant the Bishop of Constantinople a Primacy over the East after the Pope of Rome according to the second Generall Council expressely addes that he should have power to order the Metropolitans in the Diocesses of the East that the Bishops chosen by the Clergy of whatsoever Metropolis of the East be presented to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople that he might either confirm or reject them as he pleased And both Theodorus Balsamon upon the Council of Sardica cap. 3. 5. and Nilus de Primatu Papae cap. 7. from those two Canons of the second and fourth Generall Councils endeavour to conclude a right in the Bishop of Constantinople to admit of appeales from all the East Wherefore your exposition out of Iustellus concerning primacy of Order alone is manifestly false and against the Text. As therefore the primacy aimed at for the Bishop of Constantinople over the East but never obtained because the Church of Rome alwayes rejected those two Canons as derogatory to the precedence of Alexandria and Antioch established by the first Council of Nice was both of Order and Jurisdiction so much more the acknowledged Primacy of the Pope over the whole Church Whereupon the Fathers of that Council writing to Pope Leo say You presided in this Assembly as the Head to the Members When therefore in the same Council of Chalcedon it is said that the Fathers of the Church had given those priviledges to the See of old Rome because it was the Imperiall City Their meaning is not that the Cities greatnesse was the immediate cause of the Primacy For that was the being S. Peter's Successor as appeares by the Title they gave S. Leo's Epistle in their Speech to the Emperour 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the speech of Peter's Chayre and having read that Epistle thus acclaymed Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo And in their relation given to Saint Leo speaking of Dioscorus who had dared to excommunicate the Pope in a false Council called without the Pope's consent which never was lawfull He shewed say they malice against him to whom the custody of the Vineyard was committed The Fathers therefore meant causam causae the remote cause to wit the cause why St. Peter fixt his Seat at Rome as being the head of the Roman Empire to the end saith S. Leo that the light of truth which was revealed for the Salvation of all Nations might from the head of the world be communicated effectually to the whole Body And so the Emperours Theodosius and Valentinian in a Law made six yeares before the Council of Chalcedon comprehend all the causes saying that three things establisht the See Apostolick S. Peters merit who is Prince of the Apostolicall Colledge the dignity of the City and Synodicall authority that is Divine Ecclesiasticall and Civill right 52. The strict injunction you mention of the second Generall Council laid upon Bishops not to meddle but with their own Discesse was not to hinder Hierarchy but confusion And so by setting bounds
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