against the whole Church is most insolent mâ—…dnesse saith S. Austin Ep. 118. 18. You erre no lesse absurdly when you say that in the fourth Session of the Council of Trent the Roman Church is made to differ as well from her ancient and purer self as from all other Churches besides her self This is meerly begg'd and not prov'd Might not all former Hereticks have said the same of all Generall Councils that condemn'd them Did either the Council of the Apostles Act. 15. or the first four Generall ones make the Church differ from her self by reason of their Definitions or Decrees why then the Council of Trent in particular Because say you that Council defin'd many meerly humane writings and many unwritten Traditions to be of equall authority with the Scripture anathemat zing all that should not receive them The Council of Trent defined no writings to be of equall authority with the Scriptures but such as those Orthodox Fathers by the assistance of the Holy Ghost confirming ancient Tradition judged to be the Word of God nor any unwritten Traditions but such as were either immediately received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself or inspired to the Apostles by the Holy Ghost and so handed down in a perpetuall succession unto them Of such Traditions the Apostle speaks 2 Thes. 2. Hold the Traditions which you have been taught whether by word or Epistle Hence it is clear saith S. Chrysostome that the Apostles delivered not all things by writing but many things also unwritten both which are worthy of equall belief Is not this the very Definition of the Council of Trent And might not all the Hereticks that ever deni'd any part of Scripture as the Cerinthians deni'd the whole New Testament but S. Matthew's Gospel the Marcionists Gnosticks Manichees all the old Testament as Luther the Epistle to the Hebrews S. Iames and the Apocalyps and all that ever denâ—…'d Apostolicall Traditions as Arius Nestorius Eutyches and other Novellers did might not I say all these have used the same plea against the Church or Councils that defined Canonicall Books or Apostolicall Traditions against them A strange objection and stranger reformation that justifies all Hereticks in the world As for the anathema hath it not ever been the Style of all Generall Councils to lay a curse upon the refusers of their Definitions And if the point of Infallibility was both believed and virtually defined by the first Generall Councils justly imposing upon mens consciences an inward assent to their Decrees of Faith upon pain of Anathema why not as well by the Council of Trent 19. But I wonder what you mean in saying that the Roman Church was made to differ from all other Churches besides her self If by the Roman Church you mean not onely the City and Diocesse of Rome but all other Churches united with that particular Church whose Bishops sate voted in the Council of Trent then you speak a Chymera there being but one true Catholick Church in the world which is the Roman that never differ'd from her self in matters of faith except you intend a Heterogenial Church patcht up of all condemn'd Sects in the world opposite one to anothre 20. Upon the premises your Reformers say you met together and concluded a Secession As if Protestants revolted not from the Pope long before the Council of Trent or the pretended new Creed as you call it But let us see the quality of those Reformers to wit your Kings your Clerâ—…y and your Layty too What Kings I pray Hen. the 8. the first broacher of the Schisme with Dalila in his â—…ap Edward the 6. a young Child and Qâ—… Elizabeth a woman fit heads to consult of Religion Yet were they all successively by Acts of Parliament either created or declar'd Supreame heads of the Church of England a Prerogative never châ—…lleng'd by any Christian Prince before The following Kings found the breach made and the Schisme completed What Clergy but Cranmer that Arch-Sycophant who according to Hâ—…story by his whispers in the Kings car was the first au thour of the Secession from the Pope and as â—…e pretended Bishop Bramhill confesses struck the nail home What Clergy but intruders when under Edward the 6. Protestantisme was establishâ—…t in England contrary to the liking of most of the true Bishops of that time And when under Qâ—…een Elizabeth all the Bishops but one were deposed and by Cambdens confession eighty Curates fifty Prebendarics fifteen Presidents of Colledges twelve Arch-Deacons and six Abbots lost their places when also the inferiour Clergy in a Convocation appointed by that very Queen protested against the Reformation What the Laiety too have they against all Antiquity power to define matters of Religion When Theodosius the younger sent his Ambassadour to the Council of Ephesus which was the third Generall one he writ to the Council that he sent him Ea Lege upon that condition that in questions of Religion he should have nothing to doe giving this reason It is not lawfull for him that is not a Bishop to meddle in businesses and consultations of the Church The same said Basil the Emperour to the Laiety in the seventh Generall Council 'T is not lawfull for you to treat in Ecclesiasticall Causes And long before that Iustinian If the businesse be Ecclesiasticall let no Civil Magistrate deale in such questions c. But in fine what Laiety was it but a Cromwell and such like flatterers It was generally conceived and truly as I think saith Weaver in his Monuments pag. 101. that those politick wayes for taking away the Pope's authority and suppressing religious Houses were principally devised by Cromwell And Bishop Gardner in Fox pag. 1344. saith The Parliament was with much cruelty constrained to abolish and put away the Primacy from the Bishop of Rome 21. Yea but these Reformers did not consult flesh and bloud O no! King Henry consulted the spirit when lusting after Anne Bolen he tore himself from the Pope for refusing him the grant of a Divorce and to satisfie his avarice he seized upon all the goods of Monasteries What spirit the Protectour and Parliament under Edward the Sixth consulted whether God or Mammon let Baker tell you There you may read how divers Bishops were committed to prison for misliking the Reformation and all of them dispossessed of their Bishopricks and that which is worse the Bishopricks themselves were dispossessed of their revenues A Parliament was held wherein divers Chantries Colledges Free Chappels Fraternities and Guilds with all their Lands and goods were given to the King which being sould at a low rate enriched many and enobled some and thereby made them firm in maintaining the change thus Baker Queen Elizabeth bred up a Catholick and by a Catholick Bishop consecrated Qâ—…een consulted Eternity when to buy a Crown she sold her Religion Or expect the Church of Rome should have been their Physician which was
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
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
concerning corruptions intrenching upon fundamentalls whereof you spoke not a word before nor ever told us which they were 116. Why may not all hereticks in the world by this example pretend to let out Schisme and not to introduce it Why not stand to it as you here doe that the actual departure from the Church is indeed yours but the causal the Church's Why not that if a secession be made from the Church 't is in the very selfsame measure that the Church makes one from Christ As if there could be a just cause to depart from the Universal Church We are certain saith S. Austin that no man could justly separate from the Communion of the whole world Epist. 48. And again There is no just necessity of dividing unity lib. 2. cont Parmenia cap. II. And your pretended Arch-Bishop Laud joynes with S. Austin There can be no just cause to make a Schisme from the whole Church Sect. 21. pag. 139. Now Luther Calvin and all their followers separated from all the Churches in the world So Luther confesseth He had none to assist him but was left alone and alone stood in the Battell forsaken of all Praefat in 1 Tom. contra Regem Angliae And for this we have the expresse confession of Chillingworth that seeing there was no visible Church but corrupted Luther forsaking the external Communion of the corrupted Church could not but forsake the external Communion of the Catholick Church c. cap. 5. pag. 274. So Calvin it is absurd that since we have been forced to divide our selves from all the world we should now in our very beginnings disagree amongst our selves Ep 141. So Chillingworth cap. 5. pag. 237. As for external Communion of the visible Church we have without scruple formerly granted that Protestants did forsake it So Perkins giving the reason of the Separation for that during the space of 900. yeares the Popish Heresie spread it self over the whole world and for many hundred yeares an universall Apostacy overspread the face of the whole earth What else I pray For if every point of Faith in which we differ from Protestants as Masse praying to Saints use of Images c. be Heresie and Apostacy all the Churches in the world besides Protestants were both Hereticks and Apostates And what other sense can that insolent vaunt of Luther have in his Letter to the Strasburgians Christum a nobis primò vulgatum audemus gloriari We dare boast that Christ by us was first preached As if none in the whole world had a right belief of Christ before Luther This this was really the Doctrine of your first age though now in the second many of you for very shame disclaime from it and seek with Doctour Usher the first English broacher of this new Heresie in his Sermon at Wansted before King Iames An. 1624. to hook in and matriculate in your Protestant Church the Greeks Abyssines AEgyptians Iacobits though differing never so much amongst themselves and from you and holding Heresies expressely condemned in former Councils You may well affect their Communion but I am sure they will scorn yours 117. I said the first English broacher Forindeed this monster of Doctrine fell first from the Apostate Pen of Marcus Antonius de Dominis who to gratifie the Sectaries forged the distinction of fundamentals and not fundamentals and so made up a Church of all Sects in the world agreeing in fundamentals a Church not to be found either in Scriptures Councils Fathers nay nor any unorthodox Writings of former ages For what Christians upon earth ever taught before that salvation might stand with a voluntary disbelief of the least point of Faith known to be sufficiently proposed by the Church as revealed by God As if the sin of incredulity consisted rather in the greatnesse of the matter revealed then in denying Gods veracity equally engaged in points noâ—… fundamentall 118. Yet still Saint Austin's words stand uncontrollable that no man can justly separate himself from the Communion of the whole world To whom your Doctour Whitaker subscribes lib. 3. cont Dureum Sect. 3. He goeâ—… from the Gospel who sayes the whole world can conspire against Christ. 119. Yea but otherwise Saint Paul had been too blame in that he said to the Corinthians Come ye out from among them and be ye separate 2 Cor. 6. 17. Very true if it were the same to separate from known Heathens and publick Idolaters of whom Saint Paul speaks who are no Church and from the whole Church of Christ against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile Neither did the Church thrust you out as you say but as Saint Iohn fitly termes it ex nobis exierunt You went out from us by your wilfull errours Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo saith Saint Hierome In Epist ad Tit. cap. 3. Hereticks give sentence against themselves parting from the Church of their own accord Nay but the Church by her hostilities and excommunications departed from you Yes indeed just as the four first Generall Councils departed from the Arians Macedonians Nestorians and Eutychians by their hostilities and anathemaes and not rather as Saint Cyprian sayes of other Hereticks By being excommunicated they received their due punishment not cast out by us but they of their own accord casting out themselves and wilfully thrusting themselves out of the Church Epist. 40. So that if the Devil drive you out as you confesse you were your own selfe-Devils and not the Church which excommunicated you 120. Yet I acknowledge with Saint Austin that every Christian who is excommunicated is delivered up to Satan but how to wit because the Devil is out of the Church as Christ is in the Church and by this he is as it were delivered to the Devil who is removed from the Communion of the Church whence the Apostle demonstrates those to be excommunicated whom he pronounceth to be delivered to Satan In this sense we grant that the holy Church by excommunication thrust out Protestants as the Apostle did the incestuous Corinthian after he had first by that detestable sin given the cause to be expell'd The excommunication was the punishment not the crime You were once under the spirituall government of the Roman Church believed her Doctrine avowed her practises Of your own private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or election you renounc'd her authority disbelieved her Doctrine cast out her practises Behold Schisme at your door that is a voluntary recession from the former Authority Faith and Discipline of the Church for nine hundred yeares acknowledged in the Land The anathema following was both just as thundring the offenders and wholly necessary to preserve the innocent from your contagion 121. To what you cite in the Margin against Hildebrand or Gregory the seventh Baronius hath fully answer'd Anno Domini 1076. 1077. showing out of approved Authours of the same age that William Bishop of Mastrecht the chief
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
indeed their great disease So it was in very deed For the rot of heresie spreading amongst them how could they but perish rejecting the cure of their supream Pastour But you had recourse to the Scriptures The very Plea of all Heretiques Nolo verba quae non sunt scripta cry'd out an Arian against the Nicene Faith But you reserved to your selves what you deny'd to the whole Church the expounding of Scriptures and what passes all astonishment confessing your selves errable in the interpreting of Scripture yet in despight of all Gods Church you hammer'd out a negative Religion never known to the world before Yes to the Fathers of the Primitive Church say you Find your negative Articles in the Fathers and the matter is ended Mind onely by the way that 't will not suffice to alledge the not finding our positive Doctrines in the primitive Fathers for you do not onely not believe them as neither Turks nor Heathens do but you positively believe their opposite negatives contained expressely in your 39. Articles of Religion as Art 21. No general Council but may erre Art 22. No Purgatory no lawful invocation of Saints no respect due to holy images 28. No transubstantiation 31. No Sacrifices of Masses but blasphemous Fables c. These Negatives therefore being Articles of your Religion must not be bare non entities whereof there be many millions but verities divinely revealed otherwise unfit to be oâ—…jects of Christian Faith Consequently they must be found either in clear and uncontrovertible Scripture or in Scripture so interpreted by the primitive Fathers or in traditionary Doctrines of the same Fathers This you never being able to do 't is in vain to pretend to Fathers of the Primitive Church who never speak of your negatives revealed what ever they do of our positives 22. Sir 't is not the stile of your Progenitours to appeal to the Fathers Luther contemns them I care not if a thousand Austins a thousand Tertullians stand against me Zwinglius slights them Thou begiâ—…n'st to cry Fathers Fathers the Fathers have so delivered but I doe not aske thee Fathers nor Mothers I require the Word of God Iewel appeal'd to the first six hundred yeares but was rebuked for it by Doctor Humphrey He was over liberall c. What haue we to doe with Fathers Whitaker values them not a rush Neither think your self to have proved any thing though you bring against us the whole swarm of Fathers except that which they say be justified not by the voyce of man but by God himself Which is to say that though all the ancient Fathers should agree upon a Text of Scripture yet if Mr. Whitaker disagrees they are all to be rejected S. Austin will tell you that all Heresies are hatcht whil'st good Scriptures are ill understood and what in them is understood amisse is rashly and boldly asserted What greater rashnesse then for one man to pretend the true sence of Scriptures against the current of Antiquity Is it not a stupendious thing that the Bishop of Canterbury should say of King Iames at the Conference of Hampton-Court Undoubtedly his Majesty spake by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost and that this assistance should be denied to the whole Church of Christ in her greatest and most sacred Assemblies But if you ever admit of an appeale to the Fathers 't will surely be to such an age wherein few or none treated the matter in question and then the first that mentions it in after ages must be in your judgement a brocher of Novelties though none of those times ever thought so for as what S. Iohn writ in his Gospel beyond other Canonicall Writers stay'd unwritten above threescore yeares after the Ascension till some occasion arose of leaving it upon record and yet in that interim it was doubtlesse known to the Primitive Church So why might not other Doctrines of the Apostles be kept onely by Tradition tâ—…ll some hint was given to the Fathers of ensuing ages to publish them in writing How many things passe long before they are committed to paper 23. At length you separated from our ulcers that is from the three essentials Communion in Faith Communion in Sacraments and the Ministry or Government of our Church and yet left the body or substance undestroy'd But your Perkins will tell you that 't is a notable policy of the Devil which he hath put into the heads of sundry men of this age that our Religion and the present Church of Rome are all one in substance He addes to this that we rase the foundation Be it as 't will either Salvation might have been had in the Church you left or no. If it might as you must say that left her entire in substance 't was a damnable Schisme to separate from her seeing Protestants confesse that no cause but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation If it might not then 't was no true Church nor had Christ any true Church upon earth able to save men and consequently no Church at all since that in separating from the Roman you divided from all Churches in the world as I shall shew anon and you have never yet shewed what ulcer in particular it was for which you could not escape eternal death in the whole Church of Christ before Luther 24. Here you tell us of a remarkable infirmity obvious in our Writers That they complain you have left their Church but never shew you that Iota as to which you have left the word of God or the Apostles or the uncorrupted and Primitive Church or the four first General Councils As if it were possible to leave the whole Church of God and not to leave the word of God so strictly commanding to hear the Church Saint Austin thought he obey'd the word of God when he obey'd the Church commending the word of God and which otherwise he would not have believed to be the word of God And can you hope to disobey the Church and not disobey the word of God so highly commending the same Church This truth hath been made to shine out as clear as the Sun at mid-day by Bellarmin Peròn Stapleton and others but obstinate blindnesse will not see it You talk of primitive times the first four Councils purest Christians but good Mr. Doctor can you demonstrate out of Scripture that all contests about faith 〈◊〉 arising in future ages were to be decided in those primitive times or in the four first Generall Councils and those decisions by unperishable or unalterable records to be all transmitted to our dayes Can you clearly shew that by Christs command his Church was onely to be heard in her younger age and ever after unheard and slighted If not your appeale to those times is but a desperate shift extorted from you by the force of our Arguments And yet at that very weapon we defie and vanquish you by your own Confessions Hath not
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
all Antiquity that as S. Hierome noted the Villain Porphyrius censur'd S. Paul of sawcinesse and pride for checking S. Peter his Superiour The fourth Demonstration Page 17. 46. The next demonstration is taken also out of the Epistle to the Galatians 2. 9. where S. Paul gives an account how by Divine revelation he went up to Ierusalem to communicate his Gospel with the chief Apostles Peter Iames and Iohn because some were apt to mistrust his Doctrine as not having lived with Christ nor conferr'd with the Apostles Schollars of Christ. And that the said Apostles when they saw the grace that was given to Paul gave him and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship that is received them into their society of Preaching upon agreement that we saith S. Paul should goe unto the Gentiles and they unto the Circumcision Hence is hewed out the following demonstration 47. Whosoever receiveth into the fellowship of Preaching one sent unto him by Gods appointment to conferre his Doctrine that he may not Preach in vain is either inferiour to the party sent and received or at most his equal But S. Peter did so receive S. Paul Therefore S. Peter was either inferiour to Saint Paul or at most his equal And reason good for S. Peter was one amongst the three prime Apostles sent to the Iews as Christ himself was and S. Paul to the Gentiles who though in regard of their number they were to the Iewes but as the Ocean to a River yet in many other respects being the chosen people of God had as S. Paul said to the Romans Rom. 3. 3. much advantage every way above the Gentiles and chiefly because unto them were committed the Oracles of God and therefore S. Paul himself Act. 13. 46. profess'd to the Iewes It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you but seeing you put it from you and judge your selves unworthy of everlasting life Lo we turn to the Gentiles Otherwise S. Paul by calling Christ Minister Circumcisionis and himself Doctour of the Gentiles should according to you Mr. Pierce signifie some advantage of honour above Christ in the extent of his Diocesse 48. To reinforce this demonstration you may adde that since fellowship argues equality not onely all Fellowes of a Colledge are equall to their head that governs them who is likewise a Fellow but which is more we are all equal to Christ our Lord being called by God unto the fellowship of his Son Iesus Christ 1 Cor. 9. much more then was S. Paul equal with S. Peter was he not think ye especially if we add to this that S. Paul fourteen years before went up to Ierusalem to see and pay his respects to S. Peter because saith S. Ambrose 't was fit that Paul should desire to see Peter to whom our Saviour had committed the charge of the Churches And Theodoret upon the first to the Galathians He went to yield to S. Peter as to the Prince of the Apostles that honour which was fitting And S. Chrysostome He went to see him above others because he was the mouth and Prince of the Apostles and the Head of the whole Company And elsewhere He went to him as to one greater then himself and that not in a vulgar manner but to behold and admire him as a Personâ—…ge of great Excellency and Majesty as men goe to behold great and famous Cities The fifth Demonstration Page 17. 49. No man can have spiritual jurisdiction and a fatherly power over the Church but he must of necessity Lord it over Gods heritage and fleece the flock of Chrtst. But S. Peter was never known to Lord it over Gods heritage or fleece the flock of Christ. Therefore he had no spiritual jurisdiction or fatherly power over the Church for he rather forbids to domineer in the Clergy The Minor is granted on both sides the Major is clear of it self without proofe for if spiritual jurisdiction could stand without Lording and fleecing S. Peter might be Head of the Church though he did not Lord it over Gods heritage or fleece the flock 'T is also confirmed by instances Christ our Saviour had no jurisdiction forsooth over the Apostles because he came not to Lord it but to serve Non veni ministrari sed ministrare The Apostles had no jurisdiction over their respective Churches for the same reason Nay there is no Hierarchie in the Church as the Presbyterians contend against your Episcopal Protestants because Primates may not Lord it over Arch-Bishops nor these over Bishops nor Bishops over Curats nor Parish Priests over the People for whosoever will be great among you shall be your Minister and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be the Servant of all And if you confesse that for the good government of a Nationall Church a Hierarchy is necessary then take the judgement of Mr. Cartwright in Mr. Whitgift's defence If it be necessary for the keeping of unity in the Church that one Arch-Bishop should be Primat over all why not as meet that for the keeping of the whole Universall Church there should be one Arch-Bishop over all Hearken to your Doctor Covell saâ—…ing to the Puritans How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastours in the world in peace and unity c. For in all Societies authority which cannot be where all are equall must procure unity and obedience Oâ—…serve Melancthon's judgement As there are some Bishops that govern divers Churches the Bishop of Rome governs all Bishops And this Canonicall policy I think no wise man doth disallow For the Monarchy of the Bishops of Rome in my judgement is profitable to this end that unity in Doctrine be preserved Wherefore we would easily assent to this Article of the Pope's Supreamacy if we did agree in other matters The sixth Demonstration Page 18. 50. If the Apostles were pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis equall not onely in the substance of Apostleship as power of Preaching founding Churches remitting Sins administration of Sacraments and the like but also in jurisdiction and right to govern the whole Church And if Bishops be all ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii not onely of the same merit in order to Priesthood but also of the same degree of authority over others Then S. Peter was not Head of the Church nor the Bishop of Rome his Successour in that Office But S. Cyprian sayes the first and S. Hierome the second Therefore S. Peter was not Head of the Church nor the Bishop of Rome his Successour in that Office Now whether your interpretation of these ancient holy Doctors be or be not their true meaning the Reader may evidently deduce first by what S. Cyprian addes immediately to the very words above cited and you very unhandsomely not to say maliciously conceale Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur Primatus Petro datur ut una Christi Ecclesia
But the first is true because the submission of Berengarius satisfied the Roman Council of 113. Bishops without Transubstantiation Therefore the Second A masculine proofe That in the time of Nicholas the second Transubstantiation was not hammer'd out as it is now believed we easily grant because it is as ancient as the time of Christs last Supper But that Pope Nicholas did not understand the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is a meere forgery indeed without a syllable of proofe Berengarius was held an Heretick for denying not the word but what is signified by Transubstantiation in that quality written against by the prime Divines of those dayes In so much that Fox confesseth that about the year of our Lord 1060. the denying of Transubstantiation began to be accounted heresy and in that number was put one Berengarius who lived about the year 1060. that is 200. years before the Council of Lateran And Ioachim Camerarius in his Book Intituled Historiae Narratio pag. 161. Transubstantionis dogma de evanescentia panis post annum 850. tanquam in quieta posessione mansit usque ad Berengarii tempora annum Christi 1050. The doctrine of Transubstantiation of the vanishing of the Bread after the year 850. remained as it were in quiet possession untill the time of Berengarius and the â—…ear of Christ 1050 80. This Berengarius twice recanted his errour first in a Roman Council under Pope Nicholas the second anno Dom. 1059. in which recantation there is not a word of Consubstantiation for there he acknowledgeth that after Consecration the Bread and Wine are not only a Sacrament in regard of the species remaining but also the true Body and Bloud of Christ our Saviour into which the substance of Bread and Wine is changed for the substance of Bread and Wine remaining cannot identically be affirmed of the Body and Bloud of Christ. 81. This to have been Berengarius his meaning is evident by the words of his second recantation under Pope Gregory the seventh Ego Berengarius corde credo ore confiteor panem vinum quae ponuntur in Altari per mysterium sacrae Orationis verba nostri Redemptoris substantialiter converti in veram propriam vivificam carnem sanguinem Iesu Christi Domini nostri post Consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi quod natum est de Virgine c. I Berengarius do believe with my heart and onfesse with my mouth that the Bread and Wine that are put upon the Altar by the Mystery of the holy prayer the words of our Redeemer are substantially converted into the true proper and vivifying Flesh and Bloud of Iesus Christ our Lord and that after Consecration are the true Body of Christ that was borne of the Virgin 82. Note that he sayes the Bread and Wine are substantially converted into the true Body and Bloud of Christ which Conversion the Council of Lateran 136. years after exprest by the word Transubstantiation So false it is that the Doctrine it self began only then The Council of Lateran was the greatest that ever was held in the Church of God whereat were besides the Pope the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Ierusalem in person the two of Alexandria and Antioch by their Substitutes the first being hindered by sicknesse the second by the Turk 70. Metropolitans or Primates 400. Bishops 800. Abbots Priors The Embassadours of the two Emperours of the East and West and of the Kings of England France Arragon and Huâ—… 83. Now that so many â—…ed grave and judicious men of several Nations from all parts of the Church should unanimously conspire to forge a Novelty no man contradicting nay that after the Canons of this Council publish'd all Christians in the world should come to their respective Churches and fall down to adore upon their knees what they before believed to be only Bread and Wine and a meer figure of Christs Body and Bloud as Protestants do is a most desperate phansie 84. Truly the ancient Fathers sayings in this matter are so plain using the words Transmutation Transelementation Transfaction Creation and the like that divers Learned Protestants themselves cited in the Protestants Apology confesse a far greater antiquity of Transubstantiation then the Council of Lateran There you shall read that Gregory the great and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation that Chrysostome doth seem to confirm Transubstantiation that Eusebius Emissenus did speak unprofitably of Transubstantiation that in Cyprian there are many things that seem to affirm Transubstantiation that Damascen taught Transubstantiation The reason is clear because those expressions of the Fathers import some reall change not in the species or outward accidents of the Bread and Wine which still remain and appear the same therefore in the inward substance rightly termed Transubstantiation Those words of Berengarius in your Margin taken out of Floriacensis if truly cited speak no intrinsecall impâ—…ession upon Christs Body but onely an extrinsecall denomination derived from the outward formes of Bread as S. Chrysostome exprest himself Thou seest him thou touchest him thou eatest him So Abraham was truly said to see touch and entertain Angels for the shape they appear'd in Against the denying the Cup to the Laiety The sixteenth Demonstration 85. Whatsoever our Saviour Christ in the institution of the Eucharist commanded all his Apostles to doe was likewise a command to all Christians But our Saviour commanded all his Apostles to drink of that Cup he had newly Consecrated Therefore to drink of that Cup newly Consecrated was a command to all Christians Therefore the withdrawing the Cup from the Laiety neither was nor could be from the beginning 86. The Argument to conclude must run thus and yet it halts extreamly of one Leg for our Lord by those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Drink you all of it intended onely that all the twelve Apostles then present should drink of that individuall Cup he had blessed without powring in and consecrating more Wine This intention of Christ is manifest for he said not onely drink you all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but having consecrated the Cup he said Drink ye all 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of it Secondly out of St. Mark who addes and they all drank of it Could all present and future Christians drink of that individuall Cup Thirdly out of St. Luke Take this divide it amongst your selves Were all Christians commanded to take that very Cup and divide it amongst themselves Fourthly Christ said to his Apostles take eat and divide Were all Christians commanded to take both kindes with their own hands as Priests doe 87. True it is that St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. mentions both kinds and exhorts to receive not unworthily but commands not both kinds nay rather insinuates an indifferency when he maketh this inference wherefore whosoever shall eat of this Bread or drink this Cup of our Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of our Lord.
professedly and at large teaches the contrary assigning out of the Canons three other causes as Sodomy heresie or tempting to any grievous sinne in cap. 5. Matth. vers 32. which you also quote and so could not misse of seeing your imposture In the text you cite out of Maldonat he speakes only of a perpetual divorce which was the present question and asserts with our Saviour that if a man so recedes from his Wife except the cause of Fornication commits adultery though he marry no other because if his wife commits it 't will be imputed to the husband as dismissing her unduly 105. The judgement of Chemnitius a fierce Protestant we value not in this matter The Scriptures he quotes are only effects of the conjugall tye not the knot it self which consists in the mutual right of each party to the other not in the actual exercise of that right which may be hindred many wayes Else if upon businesse the husband be long absent in a forraign Countrey he dissolves the bond of wedlock which to assert is ridiculous 106. But now good Doctour you little think that throwing stones at randome with Diogenes his Boy you have hit your Father Does not Luther your grand Patriarch allow of a Divorce not only temporary but perpetual even with leave to marry again for many other causes then fornication The first is in case the wife be froward refusing conjugal right Si non vult uxor veniat ancilla c. If the wife will not let the maid come put away Vasthi take Hester Serm. de Matrim The second if the husband perswade the wife or the wife the husband to any sinne The third if a rich woman marry a poor man and her friends disapprove the match The fourth if the wife brawle and scold and will not live peaceably in 1 Cor. 7. Ann. 1554. lib. de causis Matrim Ann. 1530. 107. Calvin in his Institutions huggs the same doctrine of Divorce with liberty to take another wife in case one marry without the consent of Parents if a Whore instead of a Virgin if either party be absent a year or will not keep home after three moneths warning lib. 4. cap. 19. And in the Genevian Canons pag. 29 32 40 41. If a husband shall be absent let his wife cause him to be called by the publick Cryer avd if he come not within the time limited the Minister shall licence his wife to take another husband 108. But to come nearer home Martin Bucer a Reader of Divinity in Cambridge under Edward the 6. whom Calvin stiles the most faithfull Doctour of Christs Church The whole University of Cambridge A Man most holy and truly Divine Doctour Whitgift A Reverend Learned painfull and sound Father And Sr. Iohn Cheek Quo majorem vix universus Orbis caperet greater then whom the universall world scarce held 109. Hic vir hic est This is the man that professedly argues against your exposition of Christs words to wit that as there is at this day like hardnesse of heart so the distressed Wives ought to be relieved no lesse now then in times past that the Magistrate now hath no lesse authority in this matter then Moyses had and at this day ought to use the same Neither is it to be believed saith he that Christ would forbid any thing of that which his Father commanded but he commanded the hard of heart that if they would not use their Wives with Nuptiall equity they should then procure a Bill of Divorce and marry again Out of this principle he deduces many particular cases as of parting one from another Theft Homicide Lunacy c. in which Divorce with freedome to re-marry may be lawfull in Matth. 19. fol. 147. de Regno Christi lib. 2. cap. 26. 27. 28. 37. 40. 42. 110. And I am credibly informed that even in England Divorce and second Marriage is granted for Frigidity though contracted after Marriage in pre-contracts where no consummation was and in case either party turnes Catholick However what more common in the whole Island then Divorce from Bed and Board allow'd in certain Cases besides Fornication by the Canons of your Church Where then is the onely Council of Trents heynous offence 111. By these therefore and many more corruptions in point of practice and doctrine too which were no deviations from what had been from the beginning but wrongfully imposed upon the whole Church united with their Head the Roman Bishop and never confess'd by the learned'st or unlearned'st Sons of the same Church in their publick Writings the sensuall part of the Christian world was moved to look for a deformation 112. What if Stapleton laments the vices of some Popes who sate upon the Chayre of Peter as the Scribes and Pharisees upon the Chayre of Moyses Did he therefore acknowledge that corruption of manners either in the whole Church subject to that See or that it was ever approved by the Church S. Austin in 166. Epistle will tell you that Christ hath placed in the Chayre of Unity the Doctrine of Verity and secured his people that for ill Prelates they forsake not the Chayre of wholsome Doctrine in which Chayre even ill men are enforced to speak good things 113. Now because page 31. you ingenuously confesse that corruption of manners in point of practice cannot justifie a separation from the Roman Church and so your Sermon is to no other purpose stuff'd with such pretended corruptions but to spit your venome at the Roman See I pass over what you say of that kinde in the same page and come to your Demonstrations from corruption of Doctrine to evince the lawfulnesse of your Separation But first I must note that this objecting humour Tertullian observed in the Hereticks of his dayes and stopt their mouthes with telling them they were Vitia conversationis non praedicationis Faults of manners not of Doctrine St. Austin discovered the same in the Donatists who had with wicked fury separated themselves from the Roman Church and thus takes up the Heretick Petilian Why dost thou call the See Apostolick the Chayre of Pestilence c. If we listed to retort what a large field opens it self in the lives of your Patriarchs Luther Calvin Beza Zwinglius and others even from your own Concessions Of corruption of Doctrine in matter of Faith The xxi Demonstration Page 30. 114. If the Roman Church's corruptions of Doctrine and that in matters of Faith corruptions intrenching on fundamentalls have been shewed in the former Demonstrations then the Schisme is the Roman Church's who gave the cause of Separation not the Protestants who did but separate when the cause was given But the said corruptions of Doctrine have been shewed in the former Demonstrations Therefore the Schisme is the Roman Church's c. 115. No question if those corruptions of Doctrine have been really demonstrated in which appeares not the least glimpse of evidence no nor of probability neither much lesse
stickler in that Schismaticall Council at Wormes died a while after in despaire roaring out that he was damn'd for adhering to Henry the King against Pope Gregory and that the rest of those Schismaticall Bishops upon repentance both writ to the Pope for pardon and went themselves after the King into Italy to be absolv'd from their Schisme He addes that after the Pope had absolv'd the King he said Masse and before Communion taking the sacred Hoste in his hand in presence of the King and the whole assembly protested that he received it as the judgement of the crimes objected against him by the Schismaticks that if he were innocent he might be free'd from all suspition if guilty be suddenly struck dead upon the place That then the Pope received very confidently half the holy Hoste and after the Peoples loud congratulation of his innocency he turn'd to the King inviting him to receive the other half of the Hoste as a Canonicall clearing himself from the crimes objected also against him but that the King pretending an excuse declined the triall But if all were true that you cite out of Goldastus whom Gretser charges with three hundred lyes 't would onely prove the misgovernment of one Pope and nothing at all against the Roman Church or Supreamacy of Saint Peter's Chayre 122. In the last part of your work where you should have proved the power of particular Nations to reforme the Church in matters of Faith or alter what is ordered by the universall Church for the common good and that by separating from the whole world as Luther did you name not one Nation City Family or Orthodox man that ever did it atempted it or thought of it To sooth your Auditours you rake out of the Channell of sixteen hundred yeares a few examples in matter of fact wherein Princes either intrenching upon the immunities of the Church or asserting a pretended right have sometimes clasht â—…ith the Roman Bishops or medled de facto in Church affaires but have they therefore in their severall Kingdomes made themselves absolute Heads of the Church immediately under Christ as Henry the eighth did ordering Laymen Vicar generals in spirituality As Cromwell was and sate in the Convocation House amongst the Bishops as Head over them all Did they deny or renounce the Supreamacy of Popes in the spirituall government of the Church Have they challenged as born and in-bred to their Crowns Supreame power in all causes both Spirituall and Civill Did they part from the Pope the Papacy the Roman Church and all ancient Christian Churches in the world or ever made Lawes to reverse the Decrees of Generall Councils in matters of Faith and not upon that very score been accounted Hereticks This you shall neither find in Iustinian's Code nor in Zeno's Henoticon nor in Charles the great 's Capitulars 123. The Code was compil'd a nefandissimis hominibus by most wicked men saith Spondanus And that unhappy Emperour by medling too much against his own rule in Ecclesiasticall affaires ruin'd his Empire fell into open Heresie persecuted Orthodox Bishops and died suddenly Yet Baronius and others very probably judge that his Lawes concerning the Church were drawn up by Epiphanius and Menas Patriarchs of Constantinople but publisht in the Emperour's name for the better observance For first he often professeth that in Ecclesiasticall affaires he decreed nothing but according to the holy Canons Secondly Iohn the second Pope in a Letter to him confirmes those Lawes as being informed by two Bishops Hypathius and Demetrius his Legats that they were made by the consent of Bishops in conformity to the See Apostolick and Decreâ—… of the Fathers Thirdly because the Emperouâ—… in the Code Tit. 1. lege 8. sayes he will 〈◊〉 suffer any thing to passe concerning the affaires of the Church which shall not be referr'd 〈◊〉 his Blessednesse the Pope because he is Heâ—… of all the holy Prelates Zeno was a profess'â—… Eutychian who put out a profession of Faith call'd Henoticon in which embracing the Faiâ—… of the three first Generall Councils he left out the Council of Chalcedon He was in fine buâ—…ied alive 124. Charles the Great 's respect to the See Apostolick is most renowned in the Christian world Of devotion to the Church he caused the Ecclesiastical Laws to be drawn out of the sacred Councils and Decrees of Popes into 168. Capitula or Chapters where with much modâ—…sty he excuseth himself saying that he does not prescribe Lawes to Bishops but only minds them to see the Decrees of their fore-â—…athers observed There even as they are in Goldastus his thiâ—…d Tome he sayes The Ecclesiastical and Canonical authority teacheth that Councils must not be held without leave of the Roman Bishop there that by the incitement of the See Apostolick and the Council of Bishops he forbid Church-men to bear Armes there Ordering that according to the Council of Nice suits arising between the Clergy and the Layety be decided in Provincial Councils He addes Yet without prejudice of the Roman Church to whom in all causes reverence ought to be kept Constantine the Great openly profest that he could not judge of Bishops The designes of the two late Emperours Ferdinand the first and Maximilian the second were ever pious and full of devotion to the Roman Church nor can you show that at any time that most Catholick House of Austria had the least thought of reforming the Church in points of Faith by their own authority However they might perhaps by the advice of learned men propose to the Pope what they thought fit in present circumstances for quieting the Empire Of twenty Kings of Iuda some were severely punish't for intermedling in Priestly functions Others as Kings and Prophets too might by Divine instinct reform even in matters of Religion Others not without the consent and aid of Priests destroying Idolatry restored discipline But which of them ever undertook a Reformation against the whole Iewish Clergy or by disowning the High Priests authority Of Cooks fraudulent allegations for our Kings of England see a solid Refutation in Persâ—…s against Cook 's fifth part of Reports where you shall find all Antiquity speaking the great respect of the British and English Kings to the Roman Church See also my Lord of Chalcedon in the Protestants Schisme Page 36. and the pages following 125. In a word Sir by the whole rapsody of your Marginal Transcripts you shew only what was done but quo jure with what right not a tittle If from matter of fact you conclude a power tell me your sense of this illation The long Parliament outed Ministers put down Bishops dissolv'd your Church Therefore they had right to doe it If you abjure this consequence to what end such a crowd in the margin quoting Histories of what was done but proving nothing of the right and power to do it 126. Doe the examples of some few secular Princes unduly handling Church affairs or actually opposing
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
AN ANSWER To Doctor PIERCIE'S SERMON Preached before His MAJESTY at WHITE-HALL Feb. 1 1663. By J. S. Non in persnasibilibus humanae sapientiae verbis sed in ostensione spiritûs virtutis 1. Cor. 2. 4. Printed in the year 1663. To the Queen-Mother MADAM THere appeared of late at White-hall a Philistin in black defying the Armies of the living God His strength was in his Tongue not in his Arme His weapons Breath and his combat an houres Boast Yet as to his own conceit a huge Goliah he blew down Mount Sion at a puffe and split in pieces the Rock against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevaile In that conjuncture because no adversary could securely be seen the applause flew high victory and triumph rebounding from all the hills of great Britany Yet God knowes all was but wind Flaverunt venti The windes blew Sion stands still immoveable and the Rock unshaken The blasts vanisht to nothing at the first jossle against the House of God because it was founded upon a Rock This hath lately been demonstrated by the excellent Pen of S. C. clearly evincing the no lesse ancient then unchangeable truths of our Doctrines But indeed there needed no such Gyant to defeat that Goliah the least of Iesse's Family the Church supported by the power of his Cause may hope for successe in such a Duell Upon which account I was encouraged to trace out another way of answer tending to disable his proofs by stripping his arguments and shewing them in cuerpo Now the Doctor 's Sermon having been both Preached and published under a Royall shadow I come with an humble suit prostrate at your Majesties feet that I may shelter this Answer under your gracious protection whose name as it is most renowned in the Christian world for zeal of Religion so upon your Royall assent 't will render all-secure the Author of this slender work Madam Your Majesties most humble and ever devoted Servant I. S. June 1. 1663. Gentle Reader I Am onely to advertise thee of three things in the perusall of this Treatise First that Doctor Pierce having in his Dedicatory to the King pretended to the publick confessions of our ablâ—…st Doctors in favour of his erronrs clogs both Margin and Text with our profest enemies as Goldastus Armacanus John Hus Hierome Prague Chemnitius Bishop Hall Cook Nilus Balsamon and others or with Authors of suspected faith whose works are forbidden by the Church as Erasmus Cassander Thuanus and Polidor Virgil de inventione rerum enlarged and corrupted by Protestants or if he cites any Orthodox VVriters they differ not in point of faith but in things indifferent or practises alterable upon just occasion Secondly that we alledge against them in our behalf the very prime Pillars of their pretended Church as Luther Calvin Jewell Whitaker and the like and that not onely in matters of indifferency but of the very substance of Faith Thirdly that Doctor Pierce knowing that we for our belief rest onely upon the Churches definition or interpretation of Scripture as an infallible ground and not upon this or that Schooleman Historian or Grammarians speeches yet he hath wearied his sides in declaiming against us upon the fancied credit of a few private mens words which were they truly cited would weigh nothing with us to the main cause of Religion Finally I professe my intent in this short work to be not so much a proof of our Catholick Doctrines as to shew the unconvincivg weaknesse of the Preacher's Arguments which he mistakes for Demonstrations An Answer to Doctor Pierce's Sermon Preached before His Majestie at White-hall Feb. 1. 1662. SIR 1. GIve me leave in the first place to tell you that your application of our Saviours words From the beginning it was not so is no less confus'd then unconcluding Confus'd as speaking in generall of a beginning and not distinguishing what beginning whether of time order institution or what Unconcluding because it either overshoots or falls short of the marke proving too much or nothing at all For neither were all truths revealed or all good practises in use from the beginning nor all heresies or corruptions since the beginning 2. You say our Saviour was sent to reform the Iewes that is not to found a new Law but to renew the old and that he made known the rule of his reformation From the beginning it was not so Well then if you take the beginning from the birth of the World as in Marriage then the whole Leviticus will be either superstition or profanation for from the beginning it was not so The Devils denying God's veracity You shall not die and Adam's eating the forbidden fruit or Cain's murdering his Brother Abel was not heresie or corruption for from the beginning it was so 3. If the rule begin with the Law it self why should the adoring of the Golden Calf be superstition since 't is as old as the self same Law why all that follow'd as David's Psalmes and Musick the adding seven dayes to the Passeover by King Ezâ—…chias 2 Chron. 30. 22. the Encaenia or Feast of Dedication instituted by Iudas Machabaeus kept and honoured by our Saviour Ioan. 10. 22. the reading of Scripture to the people every Sabbath day Act. 13. 22. no superstition since from the beginning it was not so 4. If to reform Christian Churches you set up your Pharos with the precise beginning of the new Law then since nothing with you in point of Religion was from the beginning but what is exprest in the Written word the leaving to abstain from blood and strangled things commanded by the Apostles as necessary the use of the Crosse in Baptisme the change of the Sabbath into Sunday the Baptisme of Infants the non-Rebaptization of Hereticks the verball pronouncing the words in the form of Baptisme as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament the Degrees and Titles of Primates Arch-Bishops Bishops Deanes c. will be superstition errour and profanation for from the beginning it was not so Then on the contrary the Saduces Cerinthians Nicolaits Ebionits will not be Hereticks because they were from the beginning nay nor the Papists neither if as some Learned Protestants affirm Popery began under the Apostles Therefore S. Paul saith Doctor Willet calleth Papistry a mystery of iniquity which began even to work in his dayes And Mr. Middleton No marvel though perusing Councils Fathers and Stories from the Apostles forward we finde the print of the Pope's feet And Mr. Perkins Our Church ever hath been since the dayes of the Apostles and that in the very midst of Papacy Insomuch that Urbanus Rhegius a Learned Protestant being press'd to shew a change in the Roman Church since the Apostles time gives this desperate answer Though it were true that the Roman Church had changed nothing in Religion would it therefore presently follow that she were a true Church I think not A learned thought indeed supposing what S. Paul writes
of the Roman Châ—…ch in his dayes Your faith is renowned in the whole world Rom. 1. 5. By this Rule forsooth so appli'd all heresies and usurpations in both Lawes may be dispatcht For though there is hardly any of them in the Church which may not truly pretend to some great antiquity even farre beyond the Reformation Yet because they are not so old as the old man much lesse as the old Serpent therefore they are convinc'd to be heresies and usurpations Loe how under the weight of this ponderous application lie crush'd for ever all the modern ancient errours and corruptions not onely of Disciplinarians Anabaptists Socinians Solifidians Raâ—…ters Millinarians Reprobatarians but most of all the Pontificians for they like Mahometans have a grand compound of severall erronrs and corruptions pretending indeed to some great antiquity yet bundled up in a new Creed the Articles whereof though as old as the new Law yet not reaching to the dayes of the old Serpent they make up a young Symbol not passing the age of the Council of Trent 6. Page 6. You fasten this Quotation upon our Learned Countryman Ioannes Sarisburiensis The Roman Church shewes her self towards others rather a Step-Mother then a Mother There sit in her Scribes and Pharisees but how sincerely the whole Chapter will discover In which the Authour having related how in a conference with Adrian the fourth at Benevent in Italy the Pope askt him familiarly what men thought of the Roman Church I saith he using a holy freedome laid open the evils that in divers Provinces I had heard For as it was said by many the Roman Church which is the Mother of all Churches shewes herself towards others rather a Step-Mother then a Mother There sit in her Scribes and Pharisees But then as to his own particular observation he solemnly professeth in these words Yet one thing upon the testimony of my conscience I boldly professe that I saw no where more honest Clergy and who more detested avarice then in the Roman Church and in relation to the Pope's authority thus He that dissents from your Doctrine is either an Heretick or a Schismatick Is not this very unhandâ—…ome dealing in a Preacher first to omit wilfully those words As it was said by many and then to impose upon an Authour what he only rehearseth out of other mens mouthes secondly to skip over the words which is the Mother of all Churches wherein appeares the judgement of Nations as to the Primacy of the Roman Church Thirdly to conceale the Authour 's own words by which he expressely declares a quite contrary sence to what you wrongfully charge him with Good Reader Crimine ab uno Disce omnes 7. From your eight page till the sixteenth you seem like Euclid in his First Book to speak principles undemonstrable or with Pythagoras to exact your Auditors assent without reason upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he said it 〈◊〉 you assert but prove not that the point of Infallibility is the great Palladium of the Conclave as if the meeting and shutting up of the Cardinals to chuse a Pope the usuall notion of a Roman Conclave were the same as the whole Catholick Roman Church or the guift of infallibility in defining matters of Faith were proper to the Cardinals without a Pope A profound Erudition Secondly you assert without proofe that the learned Members of the Roman Church swallow glibly so many errours because they swallow this first that she cannot erre 8. Like men in fear you strike first knowing the blow to be unavoidable from us that Protestants chop up so many errours because they first devour this that notwithstanding all Christs promises the infallibility of the Apostles and the necessity of that gift to preserve her from errours yet the whole Church of Christ even in her greatest representatives can erre Thirdly you assert without ground that the point of Infallibility is an old Article of a new Creed Sir there is no such Creed extant in the Roman Church A profession of Faith I admit was appointed in a Bull by Pius quartus to be sworn to by Pastours of Souls and Professours of Learning only But if that be a new Creed much more will your thirty nine Articles make up a new Creed stuft with so many modern negatives and unto which not all but some amongst you were by your Statutes to subscribe But howsoever In your S. article you receive and believe 3. Creeds the Apostles Creed Nice Creed and that of S. Athanasius Now I ask these two last are they new Creeds or no if new ones then the Church has power to make new Creeds if not why should the Churches Declarations be call'd new Creeds rather now then in those former times Fourthly you assert quite gratis that in the Council of Trent the Roman Partisans were not afraid to make new Articles of Faith As if to declare explicitely to the faithful such verities as are contain'd implicitely or virtually in the written word of God or what traditionary Doctrines are truely Divine coming down from the Apostles by never interrupted succession of practice and belief were to make new Articles of Faith Did the Council of Nice make new Articles of Faith when it declared the Celebration of Easter or the validity of Baptisme ministred by Heretiques or the consubstantiality of the Sonne with the Father what the Council of Constantinople and St. Athanasius adde in their Creeds by way of declaration to the Apostles Creed doth it speak new Articles of Faith There was a time when some Canonical Books were not de fide obligante of necessary belief as the Epistle to the Hebrews and that of St. Iames c. are they now after the Churches acceptation new Articles of Faith And yet be those justly anathematized who deny any one of the aforesaid points so declared Why then might not the Council of Trent upon occasion of emergent heresies declare anew what was to be held about the Sacrifice of the Mass Purgatory Invocation of Saints Worship of Images and the like and yet no more in contempt of the Apostles denunciation Gal. 1. 8. then the definitions of former General Councils When did the Church forfeit the power of defining St. Paul's anathema strikes at you Protestants who adde your negative articles contrary to the word of God not at the Church which declares what is truly revealed in it 9. What you say here about the time when the denial of Marriage to Priests began of the date of Transubstantiation halfe-Communion publick prayer in an unknown tongue and the Popes Supremacy shall be answered in your demonstratons 10. You abuse very disingenuously the learned Cardinal Bellarmine in saying first that he boasted of the antiquity of Purgatory where as in the places you quote there is not a syllable of that humour only this modest expression We do not find the beginning of this doctrine but all the Ancients both Greek and Latine from the very