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
time of the Apostles constantly taught that there is a Purgatory Secondly that Bellarmine could not give an older instance then Origen and Tertullian a most palpable untruth for Bellarmine in his tenth Chapter cited by your self expressely alledges for Purgatory S. Clement the Roman and S. Dennis both Coetaneans to the Aposâ—…les and though in his Book De Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis Bellarmine seems to doubt of that work of S. Clement yet he constantly defends S. Dennis's books Perhaps because these two were never noted of errour you skipt them over to fasten upon Origen and Tertullian thinking to discredit their authority by advancing their lapses But sweet sir have Origen and Tertullian forfeited their credit since the conference of Divines at Hampton Court before King Iames there Dr. Reynolds scrupling at the use of the Crosse the Dean of Westminster saith Baker shewed out of Tertullian Cyprian Origen and others that in their time it was used And this the King judged antiquity enough to warrant the continuance of it still Was Tertullian no Montanist when in your third Page he is cited to your purpose and is he one now in your eight Page when Bellarmine cites him to ours nay and shall be Orthodox again in your thirty one page when he is fancied to make against us Is Origen in your eighth page not onely an Heretick but an Arch-Heretick and therefore of no authority when he is brought by Bellarmin for Purgatory but will be Orthodox anon when in your 27. page you call for him against prayers in an unknown tongue Yet this very fetch proves Purgatory the more for if their Doctrine of Purgatory had been erroneous or heretical the Fathers and Councils that spared them not for other heresies would questionlesse have censur'd them for that which never any one did Thirdly that the Cardinal having boasted of all the Ancients both Greek and Latin down from the Apostles could not make it good but by recourse to the Heathens as Plato Gorgias Cicero Virgil as if those Heathens were alledged in the same Chapter as holy Fathers of Christian times to prove the doctrine of Purgatory from the Apostles albeit they lived long before the Apostles dayes Yet not to be taken tripping in your margin you cite also Bellarmin's 2d Chapter which nothing concerns either Authorities of Fathers or the age of Purgatory In this Chapter the Cardinal relating divers errours about Purgatory alledges S. Austin who in his 31. book of the City of God the 13. chap. affirms it to have been the Platonicks opinion that all punishments after death were but purging pains and to that effect S. Austin cites Virgil. To this Bellarmin replies that in Plato's works as in his Dialogues intituled Phaedon Gorgias 3. sorts of men are sentenc'd after death the first to the Elysian Fields the second whose sins are curable to temporary pains the third of sins incurable to eternal Afterwards in the 11. chapter amongst other proofs drawn from reason Bellarmin sayes that Purgatory was the sence of all Nations Iewes Mahometans Gentils both Philosophers Poets and proves it out of the Macchabees Alcaron Plato Cicero Virgil. Finally to prevent your cavils he concludes that things wherein all Nations agree can hardly spring but from the light of Nature whil'st other inventions forged by men will ever alter as Nations are divers In all this discourse where is there any recourse to Heathens to make up the antiquity of Purgatory from the Apostles In the margin you bid us see Bellarmin contradicted by the Romanists themselves and then you cite a work of Polydor Virgil corrupted and Printed at Basil amongst the Sectaries and forbidden by the Church Roffensis only intends that the name and nature of Purgatory was but very seldome mentioned amongst the ancientest Grecians But for the thing it self he sayes expâ—…essely Art 37. Whereas Purgatory is affirmed by so many both Greek and Latin Fathers 't is not likely but that the truth of it was made clear unto them by some sufficient proof Thomas ex Albiis neither denies Purgatory nor the Authority of Fathers but onely the manner of purging Soules before the Resurrection Suarez in the place you quote hath not a word of this matter And whether they contradict Bellarmin or no they all contradict you and assert Purgatory 11. Not content with abusing Bellarmin you treat the great S. Austin himself most unworthily perswading your Auditours that he denied Invocation of Saints to have been in his dayes A thing so manifestly false that Protestants themselves acknowledge the contrary I confesse saith Doctor Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristow page 5. that Ambrose Austin and Hâ—…erome held invocation of Saints And Mr. Brightman after he had named Athanasius Basiâ—… Chrysostome Nazianzen Ambrose Hierome Austin he rebukes them as in words condemning Idolatry but indeed establishing it by invocation of Saints Lastly Chemnitius alledgeth S. Austin craving S. Cyprian's prayers adjuvet itaque nos in orationibus and then excuses him saying these things did S. Austen without Scripture yielding to the time and custome But let us hear S. Austin himself giving the reason why Christians did willingly bury their dearest friends near the Martyrs Tombes dum recolunt saith he whil'st they call to mind where the bodies of those that are dear to them are laid they with their prayers commend them to the same Saints as it were to Patrons c. And in his 33. Sermon de diversis he relates how a Woman had recourse to S. Stephen for her Son newly dead praying Holy Martyr restore me my Son Let any one read S. Austin's eight Chapter of the 22. Book de Civitate Dei and if obstinacy doth not blind him he will be convinc'd of S. Austin's mind But you Sir to colour the cheat cite his words in Latine omitting what is most material Take his whole Text as it lies The Saint therefore to shew that Christians do not honour the Martyrs of God as the Heathens did their gods who were but dead men as Hercules and Romulus speaks thus They the Heathens built Temples erected Altars appointed Priests and offered Sacrifices to these their Gods But we build no Temples to our Martyrs as to Gods but Monuments as to dead men whose spirits live with God Nor do we set up Altars there whereon to Sacrifice to the Martyrs we offer Sacrifice to the one God both of Martyrs and ours at which Sacrifice as men of God who in confessing him overcame the world they are nominated in their due place and order yet are they not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth for he Sacrificeth to God not to them although at their Monuments because he is God's not their Priest By this Text intirely cited is it not evident that S. Austin in those words Yet are they not invocated by the Priest that Sacrificeth which you quote and there make a stop meaneth a Religious invocation due to God
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