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 [Page] 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, 'twill 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 abl [...]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 [Page] 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: Genes. 3. [Page 2] and Adam's eating the forbidden fruit, or Cain's Genes. 4. 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 'tis 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 Ez [...] ­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 [Page 3] Learned Protestants affirm, Popery began under the Apostles. Therefore S. Paul, saith Doctor Synop [...]is Contro. p▪ 76. Willet, calleth Papistry a mystery of iniquity, which began even to work in his dayes. And Mr. Middleton Papisto. mastix pag. 19 [...].: No marvel, though perusing Coun­cils, Fathers and Stories, from the Apostles for­ward, we finde the print of the Pope's feet. And Mr. Reformed Catholick, pag. 616. Edit. 1616. in Folio. Perkins: Our Church ever hath been since the dayes of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of Papacy. Insomuch that Urbanus Rhegius In lib. A­pologet. p. 192. 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 Ch [...]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, Ra [...]ters, Millinarians, & Reprobatarians, but most of all the [Page 4] 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: Vnum ta­men aud [...] ­cter, consci­entia te [...]e profiteor, quia nus­quam hone­ [...]iores Clericos vidi quam in Romana Ecclesia, aut qui magis av [...]ritiam dete­ [...]arentur. 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: Qu [...] à vestra doctrina dissentit, aut H [...]reticus, a [...]t Schismaticus est. He that dissents from your Do­ctrine, [Page 5] is either an Heretick, or a Schismatick. Is not this very unhand [...]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, [...] est [...], cu [...] time [...]s, pe­d [...]m, Sen. 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, [Page 6] 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 [Page 7] 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 [Page 8] 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 time of the Apostles, constantly taught that there is a Purgatory. Secondly, that Bellarmine could not give an older instance then Origen and Ter­tullian; a most palpable untruth: for Bellarmine in his tenth Chapter, cited by your self, expressely alledges, for Purgatory, S. Clement the Roman, and S. Dennis, both Coetaneans to the Apos [...]les; and though in his Book De Scriptoribus Ec­clesiasticis, Bellarmine seems to doubt of that work of S. Clement, yet he constantly defends S. Dennis's books. Perhaps because these two were never noted of errour, you skipt them over to fa­sten upon Origen and Tertullian, thinking to dis­credit their authority by advancing their lapses. But, sweet sir, have Origen and Tertullian for­feited their credit since the conference of Divines at Hampton Court before King Iames? there Dr. Reynolds scrupling at the use of the Crosse, the Dean of Westminster, saith Baker, shewed out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and others, that in [...]n vita Ia­cobi Regis. their time it was used: And this the King judged antiquity enough to warrant the continuance of it still. Was Tertullian no Montanist, when in your third Page he is cited to your purpose; and is he one now in your eight Page, when Bellar­mine cites him to ours: nay, and shall be Orthodox again in your thirty one page, when he is fancied to make against us? Is Origen in your eighth page not onely an Heretick, but an Arch-Heretick, and [Page 9] therefore of no authority, when he is brought by Bellarmin for Purgatory? but will be Orthodox a­non, when in your 27. page you call for him against prayers in an unknown tongue? Yet this very fetch proves Purgatory the more: for if their Doctrine of Purgatory had been erroneous, or heretical, the Fa­thers and Councils, that spared them not for other heresies, would questionlesse have censur'd them for that, which never any one did. Thirdly, that the Cardinal having boasted of all the Ancients, both Greek and Latin, down from the Apostles, could not make it good, but by recourse to the Heathens, as Plato, Gorgias, Cicero, Virgil; as if those Heathens were alledged in the same Chapter, as holy Fathers of Christian times, to prove the doctrine of Purga­tory from the Apostles, albeit they lived long before the Apostles dayes. Yet not to be taken tripping, in your margin you cite also Bellarmin's 2d. Chapter, which nothing concerns either Authorities of Fa­thers, or the age of Purgatory. In this Chapter the Cardinal relating divers errours about Purgatory, alledges S. Austin, who in his 31. book of the Ci­ty of God, the 13. chap. affirms it to have been the Platonicks opinion, that all punishments after death were but purging pains; and to that effect S. Austin cites Virgil. To this Bellarmin replies, that in Pla­to's works, as in his Dialogues intituled Phaedon & Gorgias, 3. sorts of men are sentenc'd after death: the first to the Elysian Fields; the second, whose sins are curable, to temporary pains: the third, of sins in­curable, to eternal. Afterwards in the 11. chapter, a­mongst other proofs drawn from reason, Bellarmin sayes, that Purgatory was the sence of all Nations, [Page 10] Iewes, Mahometans, & Gentils, both Philosophers & Poets; and proves it out of the Macchabees, Alca­ron, Plato, Cicero, & Virgil. Finally, to prevent your cavils, he concludes; that things wherein all Nations agree, can hardly spring, but from the light of Na­ture; whil'st other inventions forged by men, will ever alter, as Nations are divers. In all this discourse, where is there any recourse to Heathens to make up the antiquity of Purgatory from the Apostles? In the margin you bid us see Bellarmin contradicted by the Romanists themselves, and then you cite a work of Polydor Virgil, corrupted and Printed at Basil amongst the Sectaries, and forbidden by the Church. Roffensis only intends, that the name and nature of Purgatory was but very seldome mentio­ned amongst the ancientest Grecians. But for the thing it self he sayes exp [...]essely, Art. 37. Whereas Cum a tot Patribus tam Graecis quàm Lati­nis Purgato­rium affir­metur, non est verisimi­le, quin ejus veritas per idoneas pro­bationas il­lis claruisset. Purgatory is affirmed by so many both Greek and Latin Fathers, 'tis not likely, but that the truth of it was made clear unto them by some sufficient proof. Thomas ex Albiis neither denies Purgato­ry, nor the Authority of Fathers, but onely the manner of purging Soules before the Resurrection. Suarez in the place you quote, hath not a word of this matter. And whether they contradict Bellar­min or no, they all contradict you, and assert Purgatory.

11. Not content with abusing Bellarmin, you treat the great S. Austin himself most unworthily, perswading your Auditours, that he denied Invo­cation of Saints to have been in his dayes: A thing so manifestly false, that Protestants themselves ac­knowledge the contrary. I confesse, saith Doctor [Page 11] Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristow, page 5. that Ambrose, Austin and H [...]erome, held in­vocation of Saints. And Mr. Apocalip. c. 14. p. 382. Brightman after he had named Athanasius, Basi [...], Chryso­stome, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Au­stin, he rebukes them, as in words condemning Idolatry, but indeed establishing it by invocation of Saints. Lastly, Part 3. examin. pag. 197. edit. 1 [...]14. Lib 5. Cont. Donatistas. cap. 1. Chemnitius alledgeth S. Austin, craving S. Cyprian's prayers (adjuvet itaque nos in orationibus;) and then excuses him, saying, these things did S. Austen without Scripture, yielding to the time and custome. But let us hear S. Austin himself, giving the reason why Christi­ans did willingly bury their dearest friends near the Martyrs Tombes: dum recolunt, saith he, De cura pro mort. cap. 4. whil'st they call to mind where the bodies of those that are dear to them, are laid, they with their prayers commend them to the same Saints, as it were to Patrons, &c. And in his 33. Tomo 10. edit. Pari­siensi. anno 1635. Sermon de diversis, he relates how a Woman had recourse to S. Stephen for her Son newly dead, praying, Ho­ly Martyr restore me my Son. Let any one read S. Austin's eight Chapter of the 22. Book de Ci­vitate Dei, and if obstinacy doth not blind him, he will be convinc'd of S. Austin's mind. But you Sir, to colour the cheat, cite his words in Latine, omitting what is most material. Take his whole Text as it lies. The Saint therefore to shew that Christians do not honour the Martyrs of God, as the Heathens did their gods, who were but dead men, as Hercules and Romulus, speaks thus; Lib. 22. [...] Civit. Dei, cap. 10. They (the Heathens) built Temples, erected Al­tars, [Page 12] appointed Priests, and offered Sacrifices to these their Gods: But we build no Temples to our Martyrs, as to Gods, but Monuments as to dead men, whose spirits live with God. Nor do we set up Altars there, whereon to Sacrifice to the Mar­tyrs; we offer Sacrifice to the one God both of Martyrs and ours: at which Sacrifice, as men of God, who in confessing him, overcame the world, they are nominated in their due place and order; yet are they not invocated by the Priest, that Sa­crificeth, for he Sacrificeth to God, not to them, although at their Monuments; because he is God's, not their Priest. By this Text intirely cited, is it not evident, that S. Austin in those words. Yet are they not invocated by the Priest, that Sacri­ficeth, (which you quote, and there make a stop) meaneth a Religious invocation due to God alone? as his reason evinces; For he Sacrificeth to God, (saith the Saint,) not to them, because he is God's, not their Priest. And Lib. 20. cap. [...]1. 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 [Page 13] hath Christs promises, his Ioan. 14. spirit of truth abiding for ever, & teaching his Church all truths, making it the house of the 1 Tim. 3. 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 De Missae privat [...] Tom. 7. fol. 443. Lu­ther's and Tom. 2. lib. de Eu­char. fol. 249. 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. Tom. 7. Serm. de Evcrs Hie­r [...]lalem. The Gospel is so copiuosly preached by us, that truly in the Apostles time it was not so clear, saith Martin Luther. And again, Lib. de Servo arbi­trio contra Erasmun [...] edie. prior 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: [Page 14] 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. 'Tis also an affected errour, to say we take our Purg [...]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 Exami. part 3. pag. 90. Edit. 1614. Chemnitius confesse, that Dionisius the Areopagite mentions Prayer for the Dead? Do's not your Doctor Against Purgat. p. 302. 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 Tomo 1. Epicher. de cau. Missae. fol. 186. 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 fi [...]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? De verbis Apostoli c. 34. Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ec­clesia, saith S. Austin: This the universall Church observes as delivered by the Fathers.

[Page 15] 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 Omnes bae­reses exie­runt ab illa t [...]quam sarmenta inutilia re­cisa de vite sed ilia ma­net in sua radice & in sua vite? S. Aug. de Symb. ad Catechu. lib. 1. c. 5. 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, [Page 16] therefore some of your Learned Protestants inge­nuously confesse it. We cannot tell, saith Doctor Powell, by Conside­rat. of the Papists Supplicati­on, p. 43. 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. 'Tis also the confession of Doctor Whitaker in his answer to Campian Respons. ad Rat. 7. Cam [...]., 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 Defence, &c. p. 351. proves against Cartwright, that the names of Metropolitan, Arch-Bishop, &c. have their originall from the Apo­stles. 'T [...]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 [Page 17] were to be thrown out as a Heathen and a Publi­can. For to dispute against the whole Church is most insolent m [...]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 Sess. 4. Quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, au [...] ab ipsis A­postolis Spi­ritu Sanct [...] dictan [...]e, quasi per manus tra­ditae ad nos us (que) perve­nerant. Upon that place. 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 [Page 18] 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 den [...]'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 [Page 19] 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 Cler [...]y, and your Layty too. What Kings I pray? Hen. the 8. the first broacher of the Schisme, with Dalila in his [...]ap, Ed­ward the 6. a young Child; and Q [...]. Elizabeth a Baker in Henr. 8. pag. 4 [...] in Edward [...]. p [...]g. 73 in Eliz. p. 113. 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 ch [...]l­leng'd by any Christian Prince before. The fol­lowing Kings found the breach made, and the Schisme completed. What Clergy, but Cranmer Godwin i [...] [...]a [...] Par­ker i [...]em that Arch-Sycophant? who according to H [...]story by his whispers in the Kings car, was the first au thour of the Secession from the Pope; and as [...]e pretended Bishop Bramhill confesses, struck the Of S [...]hi­sme, p. 44. nail home. What Clergy but intruders? when un­der Edward the 6. Protestantisme was establish [...]t in England contrary to the liking of most of the true Bishops of that time: And when under Q [...]een In vita Elizab. pag. anno. 1559. 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, [Page 20] when also the inferiour Clergy in a Convoca­tion appointed by that very Queen protested a­gainst Iullers Ch. Hist. Centur. 16. p. 55. 56. 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: Epist. ad Synod. Ephes. 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: 'Tis 7. Concil. Gene. not lawfull for you to treat in Ecclesiasticall Causes. And long before that, Iustinian: If Iustinia. C [...]it. 123. 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 [Page 21] upon all the goods of Monasteries. What spi­rit the Protectour and Parliament under Edward the Sixth consulted, whether God or Mammon, In Edw. 6. pag. 73. 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 Q [...]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 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. Hilari [...] lib contr. Constant. 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 [Page 22] 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 'twill 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 o [...]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, 'tis 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, 'tis not the stile of your Progenitours to appeal to the Fathers. Luther contemns them; I care not if a Cont. Hen­ricum Octa­vum. tom. 2. f. 344 p. 2. thousand Austins, a thousand Ter­tullians stand against me. In explan. art 4. edit. 1581. Ti­guri. Zwinglius slights them: Thou begi [...]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. [Page 23] Iewel In vita Iuelli p. 212. 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 Cont. San­der. p. 9. 2. 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 Ne (que) eni [...] nate sunt haereses n [...]si dum Scrip­turae bonae intelligun­tur non bene, & quod in iis non bene intelligitur, temerè & audacter as­serit [...]r. Tract. 18. in Ioann. 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; P [...]aker in vita Iacobi. 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, 'twill 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 [Page 24] 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, t [...]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 In his De­dicatory of the reform­ed Catho­lick. Per­kins will tell you, that 'tis 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 'twill, 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; 'twas a damnable Schisme, to separate from her; seeing Protestants Dr Potter, Sect. 3. pag. 73. [...]. cap. 8. Dr. La [...]d. Sect. 26. confesse, that no cause but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation. If it might not, then 'twas 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 [Page 25] 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 C [...]rt. Epist. fundame [...]ti c. 3. & 4. 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 Cardinal [Page 26] Peròn, in his Reply to King Iames, clearly evinc'd the Pope's Supreamacy to have been acknowldg [...]d in the first four Councils? Doe not those two Learned Books, the Protestants Tract. 1. Sect. 3. 1 Lib. 1. c. 5. & 6. Apology, and the Progeny [...] of Catholicks and Protestants, shew un­denia [...]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 [...] [...], pag. 442. 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, F [...]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.

[Page 27] 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 See the Centurists [...] Centur. 6. verbo Gre­gorius in In­dice. time, in whose dayes Popery, say yours, was unde [...] 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, o [...] single Person. Espe­cially, H [...]spin. [...] S [...] ­cram lib. 2. pag. 157. Dr. Hum­phrey Iesuit▪ part. 2. [...]. 5. where he sayes that Gregory and Austin brought in­to England the whole Chaos of Po­pish super­stition. 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, Be [...]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 th [...] 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 [Page 28] 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 [...]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, 'twere 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 fai [...]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 [Page 29] and Russians, though not Grecians by birth. In this notion S. Austin him [...]elf saith, that Lib 2. de peccato Ori­ginali. c. 17. against the Pelagians, not onely the Councils of Bishops, and the See Apostol [...]ck, but also, Univer sam Romanam Ecclesiam, the whole Roman Church, and the whole Roman Empire were most justly [...]n­cens'd. Now because the Bishop of the Roman Diocesse, as Pope; that is, as S. Peter's Successo [...], and Vicar of Christ, is the head [...]f all B [...]shops, and by him all Churches are preserved in unity; there­fore that particular Chu [...]ch of the R [...]man Dio­cesse, is the Mother and Mistresse of all Churches: whence in a second acception, the Roman Church is not improperly call [...]d the Catholick Church, not formally, but causally, in rega [...]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 Contra Marcion. lib. 4. c. 4. 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 Lib. 4. Epist. 2. 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 [...]ou communicate with him, that is to say, with [...]he Catholick Church. S. Cyprian Ibidem Epist. 45. ad cor [...] ­lium. also w [...]ites to Cornelius. It seemed good to us th [...]t Letters should be sent to all our Colle gues a [...] Rom [...], that they should firmly embrace y [...]ur Comm [...]ion, [...]at is to say, the Catholick Church. And S. Ambrose [Page 30] in his Funerall Oration upon the death of his Bro­ther Satyrus, writes, that Satyrus▪ comming to Sardinia, then infected with the Heresie of the Lu­cif [...]rians, called for the Bishop, & enquired of him, Utrumnam cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, cum Roman [...] Ecclesia conveniret, Whether he [...] i [...] communion w [...]h the Catholick Bishops, that is, with the Church of Rome. And [...]ohn, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes in these words to Pope Hormis [...] 1000. yeares past: We promise Tomo [...]. Concil edit▪ [...] i [...]ter epist. Hor­mis [...]. here­after not to recite in the sacred mysteries, the names of those that have separated themselves from the Catholick Church, that is to say, who agree not fully with the See Apostolick. Note that in all these places I have cited, the words, that is, or, that is to say, are not mine, but the Authours ci­ted.

27. This then was the style of the ancient Fa­thers, which you not seeing, or not caring whom you strike at, call a childish fallacy in one of the Lea [...]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. Lib 2. de pe [...]see. Van­dal. Victor Bishop of [...]ica recounts, that Iocundus an Arian, said to King Theodori [...]. If thou put Armogastus to death, the Romanists will proclaime him a Martyr. D [...] gloria Martyr. l. 1. c. 25. And Gregory of Tours, records, that Theodeg [...]lus an Arian, or Pagan King, seeing a Miracle done at the Font of a Catholiek Church, said to himself, Quia est ingeniu [...] Romanorum, this is a device of [Page 31] the Romans. Hoc enim nomine vocitant nostrae Religionis homines. For so they call men of our Religion. 'Tis 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 See the 4. Catalogues in the e [...]d of the Pro­testant A­pology, & Coccius, Tom. 1. l. 8. art. 4. 7. 8. &c. as incapable of Salvation: You sought Communion with the Greek Church, but See Iere­mias Patri­arch of Constantino­ple his An­swer to the Lutherans. 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. Lib 4. contra Cres­conium. c. 61. See [...]. Au­stin lib. d [...] Pastorib. cap. 8. to the same purpose. Catholicks are every where, and Hereticks are every where: But Ca­tholicks are the same every where, and Hereticks are different every w [...]ere. Consequently for want of union cannot possi [...]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, 'tis restrained [Page 32] 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, Epist. 76. ad [...] Quando ipse in Ecclesia non sit. Opt [...]s Melevi [...]anus a­gainst Parmenian saith, that [...]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. B [...]t none so [...]xpresse fo [...] 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 r [...]st of our Lords Sacraments: In See S. Au­sten de fide & Symb. cap. 10. i [...] [...] 149. cont E [...]st. [...]undam. tract. 100. in I [...]n. de Ca [...] ▪ rudib. c. 7. & 27. ipsa Ecclesia Catholica non estis: In the Catholick Church you are not. M [...]rk that they believed all the A [...]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 erro [...]s. Therefore no Churches, nor parts of the t [...]ue Ch [...]ch.

29. The Egyptians, Ethiopians, and Abyssins not of our Communion, are Eutichians, holding [Page 33] 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 [...]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 Safe Reli­gion p. 11 [...]. blushes not to screw both Nestorians and Eutichians into the Prote­stant Church, under pretence that they [...] no [...] 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 he­resi [...]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 Ross's view of Religi­ons, p. 495. this day, and admit circumcision, with other ce­remonies of th [...] 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 [Page 34] 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 authorit [...] 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, [...]si­dor, and S. Austin, who for example having rank'd AErius [...]mongst Hereticks for denying Sa­crifice and Prayer for the dead, ends his Book, as­suring, that whosoever holds any of those H [...]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, See the Progeny of Catholicks and Prote­stants lib. 3. c. 2, 3, 4, 5. &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. [Page 35] other parallells of Protestan [...]s with the Donatists in Gualcerus h [...]s Chronicon, Seculo 4.

32. He [...]e also you have a fl [...]ng at Cardinall Peròn for his want of [...]mory, as if he fo [...]got, that the Preaching [...]f Ch [...]ist [...]n at Ierusalem. 'Tis a noto [...]ious vanity in yo [...] [...]-men, to be al­way [...]s pecking ar [...] gr [...]ones. Who denies, that m [...] m [...]y of time other Churches might prevent [...] Roman, and in that sense p [...]ecisely, be either M [...]hers o [...] S [...]sters her, as you please? The Mo­therhood of the Roman Church consists in her prio [...]ity, nor [...]f time, but of Dignity and Jurisdi­ct [...]on, grounded [...]pon S. Peters P [...]imacy: who as he was Father an [...] Head of all Bishops; so the Ro­man Church in which by his Successours he still l [...]veth and governeth, saith S. Chrysologus Epist. ad Eutychium., is the Mother and Head of all Churches: or with S. De simpli­citate Prae­lat [...]rum. Cyprian, The root and originall of the Catho­lick Church. The Church of Caesarea began after that of Ierusalem, and yet was made her Metro­politan, as the first Council of Nice Canon 7. declared; and Antioch was her Primate. Even so Antioch, Ierusalem, and all other Churches, founded before the Roman, were afterwards made subject unto her. For which reason Iuvenal the Bishop of Ierusa­lem, said publickly in the Council of Ephesus: Act. 4. c. 4. apud. Bin. tom. 1. 794. that the ancient Custome, and Apostolicall Tradition was, that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and judged by the Roman.

33. You falsifie Gildas egregiously, and by misplacing his words, make him say what he never dreamt of; namely, that Christian Religion was [Page 36] planted in Britany in the dayes of Tiberius Cae­sar, about seven yeares before S. Peter came to Rome. But Gildas having spoken of the extreame desolation of his Countrey, caused by the Warres with the Romans (which Warres beginning, not under Tiberius, or Caius, who never Warred with the Britains, but under Claudius, lasted 40. yeares) Interea, saith he, In the mean time, (to wit, during those Warres) there appeared and im­parted it self to this cold Island, more remote from the visible Sun then other N [...]tions, the true and invisible Sun (which in the time of Tiberius Cae­sar, had manifested himself to the whole world) I mean, Christ vouchsafed to impart his Precepts, &c. Here Gildas onely sayes, that during the Warres with Claudius, the Sun of justice, that ma­nifested himself to the world by his Preaching in Ierusalem under Tiberius, appeared at length to the Britains, that is, in the dayes of Claudius, in whose second year, S. Peter comming to Rome, was entertained by a noble British Lady, named Claudia Ruf [...]ina: But when all the Jewes were ba­nisht from Rome, he took that occasion to go Preaching into France, and from thence into Bri­tany, where he planted the Gospel, founded Chur­ches, and ordained Priests and Deacons, as Me­taphrastes recounts, and S. Peter himself, in the time of S. Edward the Confessour, revealed to a holy man: so hath Alredus In vit [...] S. Edwardi. Rhieuallis left upon R [...]ord 500. yeares since. Whence it appeares, that not S. 'Tis not known pre­cisely when S. Ioseph of Arimathia ent [...]ed into [...]any; who came not so much to preach, as to lead a solitary life. Ioseph of Arimathea, in the time of Tiberius, but S. Peter, in the time of Claudius, [Page 37] founded the British Church, after he had founded the Church of Rome, and fixt his Seat there.

34. But let us suppose Christianity to have been in Britany before St. Peter came to Rome, was it then planted in the Soil, upon the hills and dales of the Land? or in the hearts of the Britains? if in the hearts; then I ask, were those Britains English men, or did the Saxons receive their Christianity from them? Had not England, as England the first newes of Christ from Rome, by St. Austin the Monk, whom blessed St. Gregory di [...]ected to our Conversion? And are not all English Protestants now living, who call themseves a Christian Church, the off­spring of those first converted Saxons? what hi­deous ingratitude is it then, to smother the me­mory of so incomparable a benefit by still prat­ing of old Britany? whose faith whencesoever it sprung up first, lasted not, but Paganisme over­growing it, perisht in a short space, root and branch, till Pope Eleutherius replanted it du­rably; yet so, as it never spread thence to us En­glish: so great was the Britains hatred to the Saxons for usurping their Kingdome. I con­clude therefore with the two Ro [...]al testimonies of our Kings: the first of Lib cont. Lu [...]erum. art. 2. Henry the 8. pro­fessing, that all the Churches of the Faithful (much more England) acknowledge and reve­rence the most holy See of Rome for their Mo­ther. The second of King Iames of glo [...]ous me­mory, Pag. 75. in the summe of the Conference before [Page 38] Majestie, affirming, that the Roman Church was once the Mother Churche; let Epist. De­dicator. of F. P [...]sons to him. Pag. 3. Sir Ed­ward Cook [...]e the Appendix; We do not de [...]y, saith he, but that Rome was the Mother Church, and had thirty two Virginal Martyrs of her Popes a row.

35. Thus having gone over the undemonstrable principles of your Sermon, asserting much, and pro­ving nothing; I come now to your pretended demon­strations. But first I must mind you, that in case you should demonstrate, as you promise the Novelty of our pretentions, and evince the antiquity of your own: yet to the ma [...] truth or falsity of Religion, by your own confession, 'twere but a Topick, reach­ing no farther then a mere probability, which may in it self, be as well false as true. For in your third page you cite and approve the principle of Vincen­tius Lirinensis, who, say you, to prove the truth of any Doctrine, argues the case from a threefold To­pick; the universality, the consent, and the anti­quity of tradition: wherefore in your opini­on, not only universality of place wherein a Do­ctrine is believed, or the consent of Fathers that believe and teach the same; but also anti­quity of time (though from the beginning) when it is believed, is but a bare Topick. And yet, God knows, this very Rule is your open con­demnation. Since it is impossible for you, or all the Protestants in the world, to shew that any one point of Doctrine, wherein you differ from the Roman Church, was ever believed, not only in all places, at all times, or by all the Fathers: [Page 39] but not so much as any one place, at any one time, or by any one Father, nay or by any one person before Luther; except perhaps by some such as were noted and condemned for Hereticks.

Doctor Pierce's Engagement to domonstrate the Novelties of the Ro­man Church.
Page 6. and 7.

We cannot better put them to shame, then by de­monstrating the Novelties of their pretensions, whil'st at the same time we evince the sacred an­tiquity of our own. Thus you.

36. Who can but wonder, that a Doctor un­derstanding what a demonstration is, should esteem the flourishes of a Pulpit, demonstrations, and then blunder out nothing but old arguments, which have been answered a hundred times over? If you say the sence of Scripture on your side is evident, Our men ten to one more in number, equall in Learning (not to say more) and as upright in con­science, doe averre the contrary. And the con [...]st it self destroyes your assertion. For whence, I pray, arises this very controversie amongst men of equall abilities to judge a right, but from the obscurity of Scripture? Did ever men in their right wits, having their eyes open, dispute whether the Sun shin'd at mid-day? To Demonstrations from universall Tradition you pretend no [...]: as well because such discourses in your opinion are but Topicks, as be­cause you are able to bring nothing against our po­sitive Doctrines, but empty Negatives, the silence of [Page 41] the Fathers in two or three ages, who writ little or nothing of our present debates. And I hope you will not so much as pretend, that a few inconsiderable speeches of some Catholick Writers make up De­monstrations against that Church, in which they lived and died. But 'tis now high time to ponder your Demonstrations.

Against the Pope's Supreamacy.

The first Demonstration.
Page 16.

37. Phocas the Emperour in the year 606. saith Baronius, as you quote him, being angry with Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople, adjudged the Title of Universall to the Roman Bishop alone; to whom it had been given in a Nationall Coun­cil of Act. 11. Constantinople under Menas, seventy yeares before; and in the Act. 3. Council of Chalcedon, one of the four fi [...]st Generall Synods, more then two hun­dred yeares past.

Therefore not onely the Title, which was the precise question, but also the prima [...]y of jurisdi­ction, and universall Pastorship, whereof there was no question at all, began under Phocas, and so was a Novelty, according to our Saviours words: 'Twas not so from the beginning. A very robusti­ous Demonstration.

[Page 42] 39. This is confirmed, because Phocas was the greatest Villain in the world besides Cromwell and Pontius Pilate.

Therefore the Pope's Supreamacy must of necessi­ty have begun under Phocas, let never so many pre­cedent exercises of that power, holy Fathers, and Councils shew the Contrary.

40. 'Tis farther confirm'd by the abuse offered to Baronius, whose words are partly alter'd, part­ly conceal'd. His words rightly quoted are these: Phocas therefore incenst against Cyriacus, enacted by an Imperiall Edict, that such a Title (of uni­versall Bishop) did become the Roman Church alone, and that it agreed onely to the Roman Bi­shop to be styled Universall, and not to the Bishop of Constantinople. And why, but because the Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter's Successour, was known to be the supreame Pastor of all Churches?

41. The words quite concealed, clearly shew­ing Baronius his judgement, are these: What then did Phocas by his Edict conferre upon the Roman Church? Nothing, but that by his sentence he de­clared the Title of Universall to be unduly usurped by the Bishop of Constantinople, which was due to the Roman Church alone; since that even her ad­versaries (the Bishops of Constantinople) contra­dicted not, that the Roman Church had alwayes held the Primacy over all Churches, as above in due place hath been most largely demonstrated. Had all these words been fairly cited, your proof out of Ba­ronius, that the Pope's Supreamacy began under [...]hocas, would have appeared in its proper colours, [Page 43] it being evident, that Phocas did not first conferre even the Title in question, much lesse the Jurisdi­ction: but onely declare that of right it belonged to the Popes of Rome: who notwithstanding ne­ver used it, as the Bishops of Constantinople presu­med to doe.

The second Demonstration.
Page 17.

42. Looking back to the beginning, we find that the Wall of Gods City had twelve Foundations, and in them were the Names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb. Revel. 21. 24.

But all foundations of the same wall, in which mens Names are written, be equall in every re­spect.

Therefore the twelve Apostles, signified by those twelve foundations, were all equall in every re­spect.

Nay more, the ancient Prophets upon this ac­count were all equall every way, as well amongst themselves, (though some were Kings and Gover­nours of the rest) as with the Apostles; because we are built upon the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles, Ephes. 2. 20. And why not the Apostles equal to Christ, who is also a foundation of the wall of Gods City? Other foundation can no man lay, then that that is laid, which is Iesus Christ. 2 Cor. 3.

Therefore S. Peter was onely equall to the other Apostles, and could in no respect have a primacy [Page 44] over them, though you your self grant him a pri­macy of order before them all, and by consequence a step above equality. A gallant conviction.

To back this Demonstration, let us adde another taken out of the same Chapter of the Re­vel. v. 12. where it is likewise said, that the City of God had twelve Gates, and at the Gates twelve Angels, and Names written thereon, which are the Names of the twelve Tribes of the Children of Israel. Now if one should argue thus, to prove that the Tribe of Iuda had not the Scepter, or pri­macy of Civil power over the rest, but was equall in all regards.

The City of God had twelve Gates with twelve Angels, and on them the Names of the twelve Tribes of Israel.

But all Gates and Angels, who have mens names written upon them, are equall in every respect.

Therefore the twelve Tribes of Israel signified by those twelve Gates and Angels, were equall in every respect. See a far­ther answer in the acute Authour of Schisme disarm'd. Sect. 13.

Would not he argue like a stout Logician?

The third Demonstration.
Page 17.

43. Whosoever withstands another to his face, because through inadvertency, or frailty he do's a­misse, and so speaks to him in the presence of o­thers, out of pure charity and zeale of the common good, is at least his equall, if not superiour.

[Page 45] But S. Paul did so to S. Peter, Galat. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14.

Therefore he was at least his equall, if not his superiour.

44. Blind S. Cyprian, that saw not this light of Epist. 71. S. Augu­stin lib. 2. cont. Dona­tistas cites these words of S. Cypri­an to the same pur­pose. In cap. 2. ad Galat. evidence, when he said, Neither Peter, whom our Lord chose the first, and upon whom he built his Church: when Paul disputed with him about Circumcision, challenged insolently, or took arro­gantly any thing to himself; saying that he had the Primacy, and therefore the later Disciples ought rather to obey him. Blind S. Chr [...]sostome, admiring S. Peter's virtue: Paul reproves, and Peter heares; to the end, that whil'st the Master reproved holds his peace, the Schollars may learn to change their opinion. Blind S. Austin: That Epist. 19. which was done of S. Paul profitably by the liberty of charity, Peter took in good part by holy and be­nigne godlinesse of humility, and thereby gave a more rare example to posterity, if at any time they doe amisse, to be content to be corrected by their Iuniors; then Paul gave, to be confidently bold; even Inferiours to resist their betters for defending the truth of the Gospel: brotherly charity alwayes preserved. Blind S. Gregory, when he said: Peter H [...]il. 18. in Ez [...]chiel. was silent, that he who was on the top of the Apo­stleship, might be the first in humility.

45. Sir, good D [...]vinity teacheth us, that there S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 3. art. 4. are two kinds of Correction; the one of justice, that belongs to Superiours in regard of their Sub­jects: the other of Charity, which concerns all men. For as we are obliged to love our Neigh­bours: [Page 46] so charity bindes us in due circumstances to use fraternall correction to all; even Superiours: As Iethro did to Moses, Ioab to David, and S. Bernard to Pope Eugenius. In a word, S. Peter's authority over S. Paul was so acknowledged by all Antiquity, that as S. Hierome noted, the Villain Porphyrius censur'd S. Paul of sawcinesse and Apud S. August. Ep. 11. 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] S. Paul fourteen years before went up to Ierusa­lem to see and pay his respects to S. Peter; because, saith S. Ambrose, 'twas fit that Paul should de­sire In 1. [...]d Ga­lat. 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 Homil. 87. in Ioan. 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 In cap. 1. ad Galat. that not in a vulgar manner, but to behold and ad­mire him, as a Person [...]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. 1 Pet. 5. 3.

The Minor is granted on both sides; the Ma­jor is clear of it self without proofe: for if spiri­tual [Page 49] 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. 'Tis 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. Mat. 20. 18. Mark 10. 45. 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 Pag. 380. 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, sa [...]ing to the Puritans: How can they think that equality would keep all the Pa­stours In his Exa­min against the Plea of the Innocent. 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. O [...] ­serve Melancthon's judgement: As there are some Centur. Epi­stolar. Theo­logicar. Ep. 74. Bishops that govern divers Churches: the Bi­shop [Page 50] 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 & Libro de u­nitate Ecclesiae. 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, Ep. ad Eva­grium. edit. Paris. 1533. com. 2. pag. 117. 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, What ever Rigaltius & others op­pose. the Reader may evidently deduce: first by what S. Cyprian addes immediately to the very [Page 51] words above cited, and you very unhandsomely, not to say maliciously, conceale. Sed exordium ab unitate proficiscitur. See Pa­melius justi­fying this Text from most anci­ent copies of 800, and 900. years past, and the sense co­he [...]es with all that fol­lows and goes before. Vnam cathe­dram consti­tuit, & u­unitatis e­jusdem ori­ginem ab uno incipientem sua authori­tate dispo­suit. Qui cathedram Petri supra quam fun­data est Ec­clesia deseri [...] in Ecclesia se esse confi­dit? Primatus Petro datur, ut una Christi Ecclesia, & Cathedra una monstretur. The beginning comes from unity. The Primacy is given to Peter, that there may be shown one Church of Christ and one Chayre. And in the same Trea­tise: He that forsakes the Chayre of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, do's he trust that he is in the Church? Vide Epist. 73. Secondly from his 71. Epistle: Peter, whom our Lord chose first, and upon whom he built his Church, &c. Thirdly from his 40. Epistle: There is one God, one Christ, one Church, and one See, by the word of our Lord founded up­on S. Peter. Insomuch that the Centurists, famous Protestants, reprove S. Cyprian for it, saying, Passim dicit Cyprianus supra Petrum Ecclesiam fundatam, S. Cyprian often sayes, As lib. 1. ep. 3. & l. 4. ep. 9. &c. that the Church is founded upon S. Peter. Centur. 3. Columna 84. Fourthly from that the same Centurists Centur. 4. Columna 557. & 1250. blame likewise S. Hierome for the like sayings, who upon the 6. of S. Matthew, spea­king of S. Peter, hath these words: Secundum Me­taphoram Petrae rectè dicitur ei: aedificabo Eccle­siam meam superte; According to the Metaphor of a Rock, 'tis rightly said unto him, I will build my Church upon thee. And in his first Book against Iovinian: Inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut Capite constituto, Schismatis tolleretur occasio. Amongst the twelve one is chosen, that a Head being esta­blisht, the occasion of Schisme might be taken a­way. Which place of S. Hierome is alledged by [Page 52] Doctor Covell above cited page 107. to prove the necessity of one Head, for preventing Schismes and Dissentions in the Church. Finally from his 75. Epistle, when speaking to Pope Damasus: Bea­titudini tuae, saith he, id est, Cathedrae tuae com­munione consocior, super illam Petram aedifica­tam Ecclesiam scio, &c. I am joyned in communion with your Blessednesse, that is to Peter's Chayre: upon that Rock I know the Church is founded. Now, Sir, by these clear and unquestionable Texts is it not manifest, that in your Sermon to the Court you cheated these Fathers out of their true meaning?

The seventh Demonstration.
Page 18.

51. If every Patriarch, and Bishop be appoint­ed to be chief in his proper Diocesse, as the Bi­shop of Rome is the chief in his; then the Pope cannot be chief, or Head of the whole Church.

But so it was appointed by the Canons of the two first General Councils, Nicè and Constan­tinople.

Therefore the Bishop of Rome cannot be chief, or head of the whole Church.

The Minor is stoutly proved, first by the 6. Ni­cene Canon, in which there is not a word of that sense. The Canon is this, Let the ancient custome held through Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis that the [Page 53] Bishop of Alexandria have power over those Pro­vinces, because that also with the Bishop of Rome, this is usual or customary: that is, to allow that power in the Bishop of Alexandria: for if this be not the sence, how could the Judges in the Coun­cil of Chalcedon inferre out of this Canon, Omnem primatum, all primacy in the See of Rome? as we shall presently see. The fifth Canon of the second Generall Council runs thus: The Bishop of Con­stantinople must have the honour of Primacy af­ter the Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome. Doe not those words, after the Bishop of Rome, rather prove the absolute Primacy of the Roman See? Secondly in the Council of Chalcedon, which was the fourth Generall, Act. 16. the Judges having heard the recitall of those two Canons, concluded thus: By what hath been deposed of every one, we conceive that all Primacy and chief honour is reserved to the Arch-Bishop of old Rome. What Canons, I pray, but those of the two first Generall Councils, you have alledg'd? which are so far from equallizing the Roman Bishop with the rest, that they give him all Primacy: that is, both of Order and Jurisdiction. For Primacy of Order alone, is neither all Primacy, nor the chief Honour; Primacy of Jurisdiction exceeding it far. This Primacy is farther p [...]oved, because the same Council pretending to grant the Bishop of Con­stantinople a Primacy over the East after the Pope of Rome, according to the second Generall Coun­cil, expressely addes, that he should have power to order the Metropolitans in the Diocesses of the [Page 54] East: that the Bishops chosen by the Clergy, of whatsoever Metropolis of the East, be presented to the Arch-Bishop of Constantinople, that he might either confirm or reject them as he pleased. And both Theodorus Balsamon upon the Council of Sardica, cap. 3. & 5. and Nilus de Primatu Papae, cap. 7. from those two Canons of the second and fourth Generall Councils, endeavour to conclude a right in the Bishop of Constantinople to admit of appeales from all the East. Wherefore your expo­sition out of Iustellus concerning primacy of Or­der alone, is manifestly false, and against the Text. As therefore the primacy aimed at for the Bishop of Constantinople over the East (but never ob­tained, because the Church of Rome alwayes re­jected those two Canons, as derogatory to the pre­cedence of Alexandria and Antioch, established by the first Council of Nice:) was both of Order, and Jurisdiction: so much more the acknowledged Primacy of the Pope over the whole Church. Whereupon the Fathers of that Council writing to Pope Leo, say, You presided in this Assembly as the Head to the Members. When therefore in the same Council of Chalcedon it is said: that the Fa­thers of the Church had given those priviledges to the See of old Rome, because it was the Imperiall City: Their meaning is not, that the Cities great­nesse was the immediate cause of the Primacy: For that was the being S. Peter's Successor, as ap­peares by the Title they gave S. Leo's Epistle in their Speech to the Emperour, [...], the speech of Peter's Chayre: and having [Page 55] read that Epistle, thus acclaymed, Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo: And in their relation given to Saint Leo, speaking of Dioscorus, who had dared to excommunicate the Pope in a false Coun­cil, called without the Pope's consent, which never was lawfull: He shewed, say they, malice against him, to whom the custody of the Vineyard was com­mitted. The Fathers therefore meant causam causae, the remote cause, to wit, the cause why St. Peter fixt his Seat at Rome, as being the head of the Roman Empire, to the end, saith S. Leo, that the light of truth, which was revealed for the Sal­vation Serm. 1. de Apost. Peer [...] & Pa [...]lo. of all Nations, might from the head of the world, be communicated effectually to the whole Body. And so the Emperours Theodosius, and Va­lentinian in a Law made six yeares before the Council of Chalcedon, comprehend all the causes: saying, that three things establisht the See Aposto­lick: S. Peters merit, who is Prince of the Apo­stolicall Colledge, the dignity of the City, and Sy­nodicall authority: that is, Divine, Ecclesiasticall, and Civill right.

52. The strict injunction you mention of the second Generall Council laid upon Bishops, not to meddle but with their own Discesse: was not to hinder Hierarchy, but confusion: And so by set­ting bounds to the other Patriarchs, and omitting the Roman, they shewed their respects to that See, as to the Head of all without limit. 'Tis 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 [Page 56] 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 In Concil. Constanti­ [...]op. 1. Can. 3. 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 item Anal. Tomo 3. in Valent [...]nia: jun. & The­ [...]dos. fol. 31. 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 [Page 57] 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, Vt sibi li­ceret cum consens [...] Pae­pae, u [...] Eccle­sia Constan­tinopolis ha­beretur & appellaretur universalis in suo orbe, sicut Ro [...] ­na in orbe totius Mun­di. Glaber Ro­dulphus lib. 1. cap. 1. 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. b De Prima­tu Papae li. 1. 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 gov [...]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 [Page 58] 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 This expo­sition is gi­ven at large by the Pro­testant, An­dras Fricci­us, de Eccle­s [...] lib. 2. cap. 10. Universal Bishop in a strict Grammatical sense, imports Unum in multis, one in many, and so [...] 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 Lib. 4. Epist. Indict. 13. Ep. 32. 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 Lib. 7. In­dict. 2. Ep. 64. 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 Tract. 1. Sect. 7. sub­divis. 9. 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. [Page 59] 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 Libro 7. de [...]isibili Me­ [...]archia num. 433. usque ad 541. Faith, and of all the faithfull members. That all those things are false that are taught con­trary to the Doctrine of the Rom. [...]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 Lib. 4. Insti­tut. cap. 7. Sect. 12. 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 wit, that when there is no Pope at all, the Catholick Church hath then no Head. Therefore, &c.

What! no Head at all? At least it retaineth an invisible head, which is as much as Protestants al­low the Church. It follows only, good Sir, that in the interval, the Church as Universal hath no visible head: a thing nothing strange in Politick Bodies. Elective Princes, as the German Emperour, and the King of Polonia, be they not in Civil Go­vernment [Page 61] Heads of their Princedomes. If they de, the Princedome wants a Head till another be chosen. Is this a mystery? God govern'd his Church three hundred yeares without a Generall Council: may he not govern it a short space with­out a Pope? especially all other Bishops and infe­riour Pastors remaining still in full poss [...]ssion of their authority over their severall Flocks: and knowing their duty by former definitions of Popes and Councils, interpreting the word of God?

Yea, but when there are many Popes, the Church is a monster with many heads. True, if with many Popes acknowledged and accepted of by the Uni­versall Church, or declared by a Generall Coun­cil, which is impossible. Otherwise in order to the Faithfull, many Popes, no Pope. In the interim 'tis enough for them to stick to their known Do­ctrine, believing in generall him to be Pope, who is Canonically chosen, without determining any in particular.

But what if the Pope be hereticall? hath not the Catholick Church such a Head, which makes her deserve to be beheaded? A dainty conceit! Are not the Bishops of England in your opinion the immediate Heads of their respective Diocesses? what if one amongst them should turn Arian, would not the crime lie upon the Diocesse, and make her deserve to be beheaded? no doubt, if you may be believed. And to come nearer your example: you once made Henry the 8th. supreame head of the Church of England; If holding the Primacy he had faln into Heresie, durst you have said that the [Page 62] glish Church had such a Head, as made her deserve to be beheaded? Doe not you see whether this poysonous Doctrine leads?

The tenth Demonstration.
Page 21.

55. Some Popes, even by the confession of Pa­pists, have err'd as private Doctors onely, not as Universall Pastours of the Church, never defining heresie, or commanding hereticall doctrine to be submitted unto, as to Divine truths.

Therefore no Pope is Head of the Church.

Nay, the most zealous and partiall asserters of their Supreamacy, confesse that Popes have been Hereticks, and Heathens too: either by denying the Godhead of the Son, as Liberius; or lifting him above the other two Persons, as Iohn the 22. or sacrificing to Idols, as Marcellinus; or being rejected by the Church for the crime of Heresie, as Anastasius the second. Therefore in the opinion of those zealous asserters of the Pope's Supreama­cy, the Pope is not supreame Head of the Church. For to what end are those mens authorities alledg­ed, if not to knock down the Pope's Headship with our own Clubs.

56. Good God, what a heap of subtilties are here mass'd up, with much more craft, if not ma­lice, then ingenuity? One onely Pope subscribed to S. Athanasius's banishment, communicated out­wardly with the Arians for fear of torments, but [Page 63] never subscribed to the Heresie it self; never taught, maintained, or defined it. Insomuch, that not onely Soorates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, but also S. Athanasius himself in his two Apologies ex­pressely say, he was no Heretick. Therefore Popes have denied the Divinity of Christ.

One onely Pope is without any ground accused by Stella, as holding the Son greater then the Fa­ther and the Holy Ghost: No other Writer in the world besides Stella ever charging him with such an errour: no not Calvin himself, though he want­ed not spleen enough to impose upon him most wrongfully the mortality of the Soule. Therefore Popes have lifted up the Son above the Father and the Holy Ghost.

One onely Pope, not for want of faith, but fea [...] ­ing the cruell Emperours indignation, let fall a gram or two of Incense to the Idols, as S. Peter denied Christ for fear of the J [...]wes. but soon af­ter repenting with Peter, died a glorious Martyr. Therefore Popes have been Heathens by sacrificing to Idols, and a totall Apostacy from Faith.

One sole Pope was grievously slandered by the Eum integrū [...]yncerumque in Catholica side perman­siss [...], nullum est dubium. Baronius 497. in Spondano. Schismaticks, adhering to Laurence the Antipop [...], as if he had communicated with Photinus an A­rian Deacon, and would have reinserted the nam [...] of Acacius, a furious Arian, amongst the holy Bi­shops commemorated in the sac [...]ed Mysteries. And these slanders once blown abroad by those Schismaticks, were too inconsiderately, saith Ba­ronius, registred in the Popes lives. Therefore Popes have been rejected by the Church for he­resie.

[Page 64] Did ever Stella, Plat [...]ina, or Onuphrius, say so? Do they inferre out of the supposed fall of these few Popes amongst 234. others, that either the Popes were not supream Governours of the Church, or that therefore the Roman Church erred in Faith? Do they not expressely assert the contrary? And that those Popes err'd as private persons only, and not as Heads of the Church? Doth not Stella in the very same place adde immediately: Sed in quant [...] est c [...]put, Ecclesia null [...]s er­rare potest. But as he (the Pope) is Head of the Church, he can in no wise erre; and that the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Constanti­nople have often fallen from their faith, [...]t the Church of Rome never.

57. As for S. Hilary, he was not so desperate­ly rash, as to judge the whole Church, except France, to be really turn'd Arian. For neither Liberius, nor S. Servatins with sundry other Bi­shops did ever subscribe to the heretical Confes­sion of the Arians made at Arimini, though ma­ny of the Orthodox Bishops did, partly compelled by fear of torments, partly deluded by the Ari­ans, perswading them that the word [...] was omitted, because it was not in Scripture. Hence it is that S. Basil, coetanean to S. Hilary in his 293. Epistle writes thus, 'Twas fitting you should under­stand, that by the grace of God there be very many that maintain the Orthodox Faith delivered by the Nicene Fathers according to the rule of piety, and that you are not left alone in the East. For truly the whole West conspires unanimously with [Page 65] you. Nay, your Doctor Boughen in his Answer to T. B. confesses, that when Arianisme prevailed' at Rome, the Catholick Church was visible at A­lexandria, in Sardinia, in France, and other pla­ces. Wherefore S. Hilary by those words, à caete­ris extra Gallias, from the rest out of France; and inter nos tantùm; amongst us alone: intended on­ly to extoll the constant Faith of his Country, for not communicating with the Arians, who were spread over many other parts of Europe. Other­wise, he saying expressely in the same Treatise, E­piscopos Orientales stare sanos: that the Bishops of the East stood sound, would have expressely con­tradicted. himself.

58. For the rest of this your Instance, I can on­ly say in your words, that whosoever shall read at large the many liberties and exemptions of the Gallican Church, which still acknowledges the Pope's supremacy; and the publish'd confessions of Popish writers touching the Papal usurpations and right of Kings (put together by Goldastus an he­retick, prov'd by Gretser, to be a lying knave) but never denying the Roman Bishops to succeed S. Pe­ter in the spiritual government of the Church, will not be able to deny, that the Supremacy of the Pope hath this Lying against it; that it was not so from the beginning.

But I must tell you with holy S. Leo, that who­soever denieth the Supream Authority of the Ro­man Bishop, cannot deminish the power thereof, but Epist. 89. similia habet. Epist. 83. puffed up with the spirit of pride, plungeth him­self headlong into Hell. [Page 66] What then? have these ten so well contrived Rati­ocinations demonstrated nothing at all? yes Sir, they have demonstrated, that you are still guilty of Schisme for disturbing the See Apostolicks quiet possession of Supremacy in England without a de­monstration, that it was usurpt. For'tis evident from our solutions, that you have not demonstrated such an usurpation. And tis no lesse evident, that an au­thority of so high a concern for the peace and uni­ty of the Church, so long a knowledged and obey'd in this Kingdome, as of Christ's institution, could not without open Schisme be cast out, except it had been demonstratively proved an usurpation.

Against the Infallibility of the Catholick or Roman Church.

The eleventh Demonstration.
Page 22.

No Church can be infallible; to wit, as well in­capable of errour, as not erroneous, except it hath that infallibility, which is one of Gods peculiar in­communicable Attributes. For where there is not omniscience, there must be ignorance in part, and where ignorance is, there may be errour.

But no Church can have that incommunicable Attribute.

Therefore no Church can be infallible, much lesse the Roman.

A high and massy discourse: As if there were [Page 67] no difference betwixt an intrinsecal infallibility proper to the nature of an infinite Being, essential­ly identify'd with Omniscience, and an infallibili­lity extrinsecally communicated, relying upon the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, promised by the word of God. Had Moyses, and the Pro­phets Gods incommunicable Attribute? were the Apostles Omniscient? And yet were they not in­fallible in what they preach'd, assisted by the spi­rit of God? was not S. Paul as well incapable of teaching the Church errours, as not erroneous, whilest he said to the Thessalonians 1. 2. 13. Ye received the word of God which ye heard from us: ye received it not as the word of man, but, as it is in truth, the word of God. And again; Since you seek a proofe of Christ speaking in me, 2 Cor. 13, 3. Was not the humanity of Christ incapable of errour and sin, as it was go­vern'd by his Divinity, and could not teach er­rours? and yet it was not identify'd with the in­created Omniscience of God, nor with the incom­municable Attribute of infallibility. What mean some Protestant Doctours, when they grant the Universal Church cannot erre in Fundamentalls? Cannot God preserve from errour as well in not­fundamentals taken in your sense, as Fundamen­talls? If so, that Church so preserved upon Gods promise will be infallible in the sense intended by the Roman Church: and then what is become of your demonstration, drawn from the impossibility of the thing? Surely S. Cyprian had a better opi­nion of the Roman Church, when he said, Lib. 1. [Page 68] Epist. 3. The Romans are they, whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom misbelief can have no accesse. S. Ierome had the same sentiment, when speaking to Ruffinus, Know thou, saith he, that the Roman Faith commended Lib. 3. Apo­log. advers. Ruffinum. cap. 4. by the voice of the Apostle, admitteth no such delu­sions, and that being fenced by S. Paul's authority, it cannot be altered, though an Angel should teach otherwise.

60. You and yours on the other side, denying the Church to be infallible, argue Christ of impro­vidence, in not furnishing his Church with un­doubtable meanes to compose differences in mat­ters of Faith, and preserve unity; The Church of Tyranny; in obliging men upon pain of damnati­on, to believe her definitions, that may be false: and the whole Body of Christians of unsettledness in belief, as relying upon nothing not subject to errour, whether Fathers, Councils, Church, or Scriptures expounded by them. If I should say, that any one at his pleasure I may resist the Councils, I Art. 2. 9. See also E­pist. ad Sena­tum Pragen­sem. Decernant Concilia, quidquid ve­lint penes nos erit ju­dicium, &c. should say well, saith Luther, expressely against St. Austin's belief in his first Book against the Dona­natists, chap. 7. who speaking of the rebaptization of those that had been baptized by Hereticks, he sayes, The obscurity of this question compell'd men of great authority to stagger a long while, untill that in a full Council of the whole world it was firmly decreed, what was most wholsomly to be held, all doubts removed. Which he could never have said, had he held the Church errable in her Gene­rall Councils. Say what you please, all your cer­tainty [Page 69] of Faith is finally resolved into the private spirit, though you cannot endure to be told so.

The twelfth Demonstration.

61. The Tenet of Infallibility upon earth can­not be true, if errours in Faith spring up in the Church.

But Novatianisme was hatcht at Rome: Dona­tisme spread over the West: Arianisme over the East: Chilianisme infected the primitive Fathers without contradiction [...], and the Church of God in S. Austin's and Innocent the third's opinion, held the necessity of Infant-communicating, which the Council of Trent declared against.

Therefore the Tenet of Infallibility upon earth cannot be true.

62. A sturdy argument indeed, if one held every single person of the Church to be infallible. Mean while it proves as well, that the Church even under the Apostles time was not infallible, for that in their time sprung up the Heresies of Simon Ma­gus, Di [...]rephes, Cerinthians, Ebion, Nicolaitans, &c. and yet the Apostles in their Council at Ieru­salem could freely say, It seemed good to the Ho­ly Ghost and to us. Was not this Council by the assistance of the Holy Ghost, inerrable, notwith­standing those Heresies? How then doe Heresies prove the Fallibility of Generall Councils, law­fully called, to beat them down? would not such a Principle argue the Fallibility of Christ, because his Doctrine was opposed by the Jewes?

[Page 70] 63. Novatianisme though hatcht at Rome, yet the Egge was laid in Africa, and this no Authour denies. For Novatus after a Schisme raised against St. Cyprian, coming to Rome, joyned with No­vatianus a Roman Priest, against Pope Cornelius; and both together sowed the heresie held first by Montanus and Tertullian, that such as were faln should not be readmitted into the Church after re­pentance. This heresie was presently resisted by Cornelius in a Council held at Rome of threescore Bishops: in Africa by S. Cyprian in a Synod of for­ty two Bishops: at Antioch in a Provincial Coun­cil. And Eusebius addes, that every where through all Provinces the Bishops met against that errour. Finally, the first Council of Nice offered peace to the Novatians, if renouncing their heresie they would return to the Church. How then do's this heresie, so universally resisted, destroy the Infalli­bility of the Church?

64. The Donatists were but a poor crew in A­frica, condemned first by Melchiades Pope, in a Council at Rome, and then by two hundred Bi­shops (some say six hundred) at Arles in France: against which heresie S. Austin fought gallantly with the Sword of the unwritten word, laying this principle: that, Quod universa tenet Ecclesia nec Lib. 4. cent. Do [...]. cap. 24. vide etiam lib. de unita [...]e Ec­clesi [...] cap. 19. Conciliis institutum, sed semper retentum est, non nisi authoritate Apostolica traditum rectissime creditur: What is not clearly contained in Scri­pture, or instituted by Councils, and yet is held by the whole Church, is to be believed to have been delivered by the Apostles.

[Page 71] 65. The Arians, 'tis true, spread for a while by power and violence, but were condemn'd by the first Council of Nice, and by Iulius Pope, in a Roman Council, and by the Council of Sardica in Thracia, and of Arimini in Italy, and in many other Provinciall Councils. Neither did that he­refie ever reach to the breast of Pope Liberius, as I have shewed before. At Sirmium, 'tis true, be­ing call'd thither after two yeares banishment, he subscribed to the first Confession of Faith, in all respects Orthodox, except that the word Homoou­sion was left out, as being new, and not found in Scripture.

66. Of the Millenaries there were two sorts: the one held that Christ should reign after the Re­surrection for a thousand yeares upon earth in all carnall pleasures: of this opinion was Cerinthus and his followers: and this is likely to have been condemn'd with the heresie of the Apollinarists, in a Roman Council under Pope Damasus, as Ba­ronius records, An. 373. against which Doctrine Dennis, Bishop of Alexandria writ long before, Euseb. lib. 7. Eccles Hist. c. 22. in confutation of Nepos, a Bishop of AEgypt. The others addicted those thousand yeares to chaste and spirituall delights: and of this thought were some of the ancient Fathers, but not the whole Church: For many, saith S. Iustin, who are of the pure and pious sense of Christians, doe not acknowledge that Dialog. cu [...] Tryphone Iudao. Doctrine.

67. These Fathers were drawn to that opinion by Papias, Bishop of Hieropolis, who, as Eusebi­us Libro 3. His. Ed. cap. 39. recounts, said he had it from Aristion and [Page 72] Iohn Priests, Auditors of the Apostles: A doctrine unknown, and rather fabulous, saith Ensebius; But for my part, I think he took the spirituall and mysticall Tr [...]dition of the Apostles m [...]terially according to the Letter, and could not discern what they spoke in figures to sucking Children, and little ones. Who also by the small works he writ, appeares to have been of a mean and lesse capable wit. However this Chillianisme, as it was never defined by any Generall Council, or particular Synod, or any Roman Bishop: So with Cornelius à Lapide upon the twentieth of the Apocalyps: I dare not say 'tis an Heresie, because I have nei­ther clear Scripture, nor Decrees of Councils, by which it is condemn'd as Hereticall. The same saith S. Hierome upon Ieremy, lib. 4. Neither doe we find it in the Catalogues of old Heresies set down by S. Austin, Philastrius, Isidor, or Guido Carmelita. 'Tis in Epiphanius, but as relating to Cerinthus of a carnall reign.

68. Communion of Infants was never held ab­solutely necessary by the whole Church. For the ancient Fathers unanimously taught that Baptisme Homil. 13. takes away all sin. Baptisme, saith S. Basil, is the the death of sin, the regeneration of the Soul, the reconciliation of the Kingdome of Heaven. Nay, Orosius in his Apology, S. Prosper in his ninth Answer to the French Objections, and S. Fulgen­tius de fide ad Petrum, all three Disciples of St. Austin, undoubtedly maintain, that Baptisme gives salvation and life everlasting. Hold most firmly, saith S. Fulgentius, that holy Baptisme sufficeth [Page 73] little ones to salvation, as long as their age is not capable of reason. Where it is to be noted, that when Infant-Communion was in use: they were first Baptized, then Confirmed, and lastly received the holy Holy Eucharist, as is gathered out of the Lao­ [...]icean Counci [...], held some time before the Coun­cil of Nice, and confirmed by the Synod of Trull, Can. 7. Inunctos etiam sacro Chrismate Divino Sacramen­to communicare convenit. And yet both the Eli­bertin Council under Pope Sylvester, Can. 77. and S. Hierome against the Luciferans affirm, that a man dying before confirmation, is saved; and consequently before Communion. Finally, as the learned Authour of the Systeme observes, nei­ther Systema fi­dei cap. 40. num. 3. in any of the British or English Councils, nor in S. Gregory's instructions given to S. Austin the Monk, is there any mention of this matter.

69. As for S. Austin, he often attributes a to­tal remission of sins to Baptisme; affirming ex­expressely De peccato­rum menti [...] & Remissi­one lib. [...]. cap. 2. & de Perseve­rantia san­ctorum cap. 12. that Children when they die are either saved by Baptisme, or damn'd for Original sinne. Hoc Catholica fides novit: This Catholick Faith knoweth. And again in his 59. Epistle, Infants by the Sacrament of Christian grace without doubt appertain to life everlasting and the Kingdome of Heaven.

Therefore that so great a Doctor may not contra­dict himself, I say with Cardinal Peròn, his meaning to be, that Infants must either receive actually, or in voto; by vow of the Church implicitely contained­in Baptisme; For by Baptisme the Child is insert­ed into the mystical Body of Christ, which mysti­cal [Page 74] Body is represented by the holy Eucharist. Now because Christ our Saviour said, that without the eating of his flesh life is not to be had: hence the Saint proves against the Pelagians th [...] absolute necessity of Baptisme, not only to enter into the Kingdome of Heaven, as they granted, but also to life everlasting, which they deny'd. For without Baptisme none can eat Christs flesh, either really, as in persons of due age, or in voto, as in Children. This to have been S. Austin's mind, is clearly ga­thered out of these ensuing words, which venerable Bede upon the first to the Corinthians chap. 10. and Hugo Victorinus, Lib. 2. de Sacramentis, cap. Sermo. ad Infantes ad [...]ltare de Sacramento. Gratian. de Co [...]secrat. Cap. qui pas­sus est. See also St. Austin l. 3. de peccator: merit. & Re [...]iss. c. 4: 20. attributes to S. Austin, None must any wise doubt, that every one of the faithful is then made partaker of the Body and Bloud of Christ, when in Baptisme he is made a member of Christ; or that he is estranged from the Communion of that bread, although before he eates that bread and drinks that Cup, he departs this life in the union of Christs Body.

7. The [...]ame may be said of Pope Innocent the first, who in his Epistle to the Fathers of the Me­levitan Council, rather insinuates, that Baptisme it self is the eating of Christs Body. Neither do's Maldonat say, that Infant-communion was either believed necessary, or practised by the whole Church: but onely that S. Austin held it as of Faith, and as the Tenet of the whole Church. Nor do's Maldonat deny that this very thought concerning Faith and the whole Church, was St. Austin's private opinion.

[Page 75] 71. Whence it followes, that albeit the pra­ctice in some parts of the Church might have lasted six hundred yeares, yet neither in the whole Church, nor as held for a point of Faith in the whole Church. And if S. Cyprian was confessedly decei­ved, in holding rebaptization of Hereticks an Apo­stolicall Tradition, and, as S. Austin sayes, would Lib. 2. co [...] ▪ Donatist. cap. 4. have submitted to a Generall Council defining the contrary: why might not S. Austin be mistaken in the Traditions of Infant-Communion, and if now living, would humbly submit to the Council of Trent defining against it?

Against Transubstantiation.

The thirteenth Demonstration.
Page 23.

72. If the age of Transubstantiation may be mea­sured by the very first date of it's definition: the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may be allowed to be as old as the Lateran Council, held under Pope Innocent the third, somewhat more then four hun­dred yeares past.

But according to you, if ye be serious and doe not trifle, it's age may be measured by the first date of it's definition.

Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation is but somewhat more then four hundred yeares old, and was not so from the beginning.

73. Sir, I suppose you could not chuse but eve [...] [Page 76] feel with your hands the lightnesse of this Argu­ment, together with the train of bad consequences it drawes after it. For hence must necessarily follow, that no point of Faith can be elder in it self, then the Council that defines it. Consequent­ly the Consubstantiality of the Son, the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, the Unity of Person in Christ, consisting with the duality of Natures, and the un­confusion of Natures in one Person, have no great­er antiquity, then the four first Generall Councils, by which they were first respectively defined above 300. yeares after Christ. As if the age of Divine Mysteries revealed could not prevent their Concili­ary definitions, occasioned by the emergency of heresies against them. For if it can, why may not the Doctrine of Transubstantiation have been from the beginning, as well as that of the four Mysteries above mentioned, though it's Conciliary definition be much younger?

74. Nay, but our Lord having said, This is my Blood, explaineth himself in the same breath, by cal­ling it expressely the fruit of the Vine. So was Eve called Adam's Bone, which then she was not, but had been: & Aaron's Rod, whil'st it was a Serpent, still call'd a Rod: And Angels call'd Men, because they appeared like men, though substantially no Men. But howsoever there still remained in the Chalice the Accidents of Wine, which were truly genimen Vitis, a product of the Vine, that word signifying not Wine onely, or necessarily, but whatsoever growes of the Vine, the Flowers, the Leaves, the Grapes, &c. Pag. 9. in the Margin [Page 77] you wrong Scotus, as if he held Transubstantiation not a point of Faith before the Lateran Council, whereas he onely sayes, (speaking of the like Defi­nitions) that it was not explicitely believed under the notion of that word till the Councils definiti­on: Quae veritas (saith he) etsi prius e [...]at de fide, In 4. Dist. 11. quast. [...]. non tamen erat prius tantum declarata, Which truth, though it was before matter of Faith, yet it was not before so much declared. Is not this to a­buse Authours, and Auditours?

The fourteenth Demonstration.

Making the Romanists asham'd of their Doctrine.

75. When two particular Divines disagree in the manner of explaining a Mystery of Faith, but agree both in the truth and Faith of the Mystery it self: then all those that joyn with them in the belief of the same Mystery, are made asham'd of their Doctrine.

But Aquinas and Bellarmin disagree in the manner of explaining the Mystery of the Eucharist, and both agree in the truth and Faith of the My­stery it self.

Therefore all that joyn with them in the belief of the same mystery, as all Romanists doe, are made asham'd of their Doctrine.

76. Surely this Demonstration will shame none but the owner of it. A Schollar and not blush to argue so? How many Mysteries doe Christians be­lieve, [Page 78] and yet the greatest Divines doe so clash in the explications of them, that each party holds the Mystery impossible in the others opinion? We all believe the blessed Trinity. Now if one should ar­gue thus? The Scotists hold the Mystery impossible without a certain distinction, which they call Ex natura rei, betwixt the Divine essence and the three personalities or Relations. The Thomists cry out against that distinction, as destructive of the Mystery, and importing a quaternity: must there­fore all Christians be ashamed of their belief of the Mystery it self, because those two learned Schooles ja [...]e in the expounding of it, or rather he that makes so wise an argument?

77. But in very deed S. Thomas and Bellar­min differ not about the manner of Christs being in the Sacrament, as you would make your Audi­tours believe. They both agree that Christ is there definitively, all in all, and all in every part of the sacred Hoste: which way of existing S. Thomas calls Sacramentall: Their difference is in a philo­sophicall Question, whether a Body can be in two places at once circumscriptively: that is, with all it's locall dimensions, answering to the extensive parts of the place. S. Thomas holds it cannot, as implying a division of the body from it self. Bel­lermine replies with great respect to S. Thomas: Haec ratio, pace tanti Doctoris dixerim, non est so­lida. This reason (be it spoken under favour of so great a Doctor,) is not solid. Which having mo­destly shown: Adde to this, saith he, that if a body cannot be locally in two places, truly neither Sacra­mentally. [Page 79] What is here to shame the Catholicks? Where is Bellarmine's anger? Where his revenge upon the Angelical Doctor? I see nothing here but your vanity, seeking at the cost of others wrong to purchase applause to your self.

78. You seem likewise to be unvers'd in School affairs, seeing that Bellarmine's inference in that question, is common to all Schoolmen, that defend the local existence of a body in two places. Had your intent been, to evince the impossibility of the Real Presence from the cross opinions of those two Doctors: you might perhaps have argued thus.

According to S. Thomas, Christs body cannot be locally in two places at once.

But according to Bellarmine, if it cannot be locally, it cannot be Sacramentally in two places at once.

Therefore according to both, it can neither be locally nor Sacramentally in two places at once: and consequently not at all in many Hostes.

In this Paralogisme no asserter of the Real Pre­sence will be so senseless, as to grant both premi­ses: but if with S. Thomas he grant the Major, with S. Thomas he will deny the Minor. And if with Bellarmin [...] [...]e grant the Minor, with Bellar­mine he will deny the Major. And so nothing will follow inconsistent with his Belief.

The fifteenth Demonstration.
Page 24.

79. If so long agoe as the time of Pope Nicho­las the Second, either Transubstantiation was not forged and hammered out into the shape in which we find it, nor at all understood by the Pope him­self; then Transubstantiation, as we now find it, is a Novelty invented since the time of Berenga­rius.

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 Lanfrank, Adelman­ [...]us, &c. 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 [Page 81] 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 [...]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 [Page 82] 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 Hu [...].

83. Now that so many [...]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 [Page 83] 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 Printed a [...] ­no 1608. Tract. 1. Sect. 3. Sub­divis. 2. p. 82. & tract. 2. Sect. 7. Snbdivis. 4. pag. 184. 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 imp [...]ession upon Christs Body, but onely an extrinsecall denomination derived from the outward formes of Bread, as S. Chrysostome Homil. 60. ad I'opulum. 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?

[Page 85] 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. So that to receive either unworthily, is to be guilty of both; because in either you receive both. Hence the Apostle addes presently, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink­eth judgement to himself, not discerning our Lords Body: Why? but because that in receiving the Body under the form of Bread alone, you receive also the Blood. which is not separated from Christs living Body. It was therefore so from the begin­ning. For Christ our Lord, Ioan. 6. five times promiseth life everlasting to the Bread of life, not mentioning the Cup in those Texts. Himself accor­ding to divers S. Hieron. in Epitaphi [...] Paulae. S. Aug. l. 3. de Consensu Evangelist. c. 25. Beda in cap. 24. Lucae Theophil [...] ­ctus. Ibidem Isychius Hieresolin. lib. 2. in Leviticum cap. 9. &c. Fathers gave the Sacrament in one kind to the two Disciples in Emaus. The Luke 24. 30. Acts 2. 42. 46. item 20. 7. 11. Apostles practis'd the same, in breaking Bread without na­ming the Cup; and in your principles, a negative argument from Scripture is valid. The Primitive Church communicated the Sick under the form of Bread alone. Euseb. l. 6. cap. 43. S. Ambrose dying received in Paulinus in vita ejus. one kind. The Eremits S. Basilius ad Caesaream P [...]tritiam carried the Sacrament to the Desart in clean Corporalls, or Linnen called Domi­nicalia, there to receive it fasting: & the Christians of AEgypt kept it in their Houses. Satyrus, Saint S. Ambr. Serm. de a­bitu fratris. 6. Serm. de Lapsis 6. Concil. Tolet. 11. [...]n. 11. Ambrose his Brother took an Hoste with him in a Box about his neck, to receive it at Sea. To suck­ing [Page 86] Children the Cup was onely given in S. Concil. Laodic. Can. 49. Cy­prian's dayes. And Concil. Trul. C [...]n. 52. in the Greek Church they were wont to consecrate the Eucharist onely upon Saturdayes and Sundayes, to be received the other dayes in the week during Lent. Now in those hot Countreys the consecrated Wine could not be kept so long. And it is most evident from Antiquity, that the Eucharist was kept under the form of Bread, to be distributed as occasion served. Inso­much that we find amongst the Lawes of Charles the great, 800. yeares ago: Presbyter semper Eu­charistiam Lib. 1. Le­gum, c. 160. habeat paratam, &c. Let the Priest al­wayes have the Eucharist ready, that if any be sick. or a Child infirm, he may give them the Sacra­ment, that they may not die without Communion. Well then, seeing neither Christ our Lord in the Institution of the Eucharist, nor S. Paul in declaring it, excepted any sort of persons, as Sick, Ermits, Children, Sea-passengers, or Christians in persecuti­on, & yet the Church from all antiquity had power to administer it to such in one kinde, and it was ever thought sufficient to salvation, that is, a whole Sacrament, not a Half-Communion, as you tearm it: You must then either demonstrate out of Scri­pture, the Churches restraint to these alone, or confesse her practice towards all to be justifiable. Finally, Epist. ad Bohemos. Luther himself confesseth, that Christus hac de re nihil unquam praecepit, Christ never com­manded any thing in this matter. And In secunda edit. loco­rum commu­nium: [...]n. 1525. fol. 78. Argen­tora [...]. Melanch­thon held it a thing indifferent.

Against restraining the holy Scriptures from the common people.

The seventeenth Demonstration
Page 26.

88. If Hebrew to the Iewes was the mother tongue, and in that 'twas read weekly before the people. If the new Testament was first written in Greek, because a tongue most known to the Eastern world: and if after some hundreds of years it was translated into a few other tongues for the use of the common people: then the restraining it from the common people was not from the begin­ning.

But the Antecedent supposition is true.

Therefore the Consequent.

89. Yea, but in our Saviours time Syriack was, and had been 14. Generations before, the mother tongue of the Iewes, who lost the Hebrew in the long captivity of Babylon: in so much that Esdras Neh. 8. 8, 13. reading the Law to them, was forced to use in­terpreters. The New Testament was in Greck, and as S. Ierome sayes, read only in Greek all the East over; though most of the Eastern Na­tions had a different Language, as it appears by the Acts of the Apostles, Ch. 2. How have we heard each man in our own language wherein we were born? Parthians and Medians, and Elamites, and those that inhabit Mesopotamia, Iewry and Capa­docia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Phamphilia, [Page 88] Egypt and the parts of Lybia, that is about Cy­rene, and strangers of Rome. Iewes also and Prose­lytes, Cretensians and Arabians. We have heard them speak in our own tongue.

90. Moreover, S. Matthew writ his Gospel for the Iewes in Hebrew, or in Greek, & not Syriack, their vulgar tongue: nor is it known that ever the old Testament was by order of the Iewish Church turn'd into Syriack. S. Mark writ in Greek at Rome, and for the Romans, whose vul­gar language was Latin: so did S. Paul his Epi­stle to the Romans; in Greek also to the Galathi­ans, and yet their vulgar was a kind of German Language: they have a proper tongue almost the same as those of Trevers, saith S. Hierome upon that Epistle, lib. 2. in his Preface: And if the new Testament 400. years after, was translated into some very few other tongues, what is that to the beginning? were not the common people from the beginning restrained from it, at least those 400. years, and in those Nations, where Hebrew, Greek or Latine were not the vulgar tongues? And was it then translated by order of the Churches into Hebrew, Greek, or Latine, or put into the hands of the common people, as of necessary use, or com­manded to be read in those new traductions upon that score?

91. Neither is it true, that the Roman Church keeps the Scripture from the People; 'Tis at this day extant in all vulgar Languages of Europe, and permitted to be read by the Layety with leave of their Pastours; who are to judge into whose hands [Page 89] the sword of the Scripture, which is the wo [...]d of God, is fit to be put. Which rule, had it been ob­served in England, when after fifteen hundred years the Bible (except perhaps the Psalmes) was under Henry the 8th. translated into English out of Latine, so many mad Sects would never have risen in it.

Against publick Prayers in an un­known Tongue.

The eighteenth Demonstration.
Page 27.

92. What is scandalously opposite to the plain sense of Scripture, was not from the begin­ning.

But the use of publick Prayers in a tongue un­known to the common people, is scandalously opposite to the plaine sense of Scripture, 1 Cor. 14.

Therefore the use of publick Prayers in a tongue unknown to the Common people was not from the beginning.

93. The Minor is undenyable, because you as­ [...]rt it; but not a word of proofe: which to make good, you must demonstrate first, that the Apostle by preferring the gift of prophecy before unknown tongues in the Church, the only intent of that Chapter, speakes of tongues in the publick service, and administration of Sacraments proper to Pa­stours; [Page 90] and not rather and solely of tongues in mu­tual conferences, when the first Christians met for edification to communicate with one another their miraculous gifts, as inspired Canticles, Prophecies, Tongues, and other graces imparted above Nature, both to men and women in those dayes. In which assemblies the Corinthians seem to have committed some disorders, turning Gods gifts, especially that of tongues, which was the least, to pride and va­nity. But in the Liturgy or Publick Service, which amongst the Corinthians was in Greek, there was no abuse at all, nor occasion to complain. Se­condly, you must demonstrate, that the Apostle means every kind of tongue unknown to the vulgar, though known to most of the better sort. For if so, he would have contradicted himself by writing in Greek to the Romans a long Epistle of Instru­ction. As therefore S. Paul cannot be rightly said to have spoken to the Romans in an unknown Tongue, because Greek was known to most per­sons well bred, though not to the common people: So for the same reason is not our Latin an unknown Tongue in the sense of the Apostle. Thirdly, you must demonstrate that the Apostle speaks even of Tongues that may be learn'd by industry, and not of Tongues divinely inspired, which neither the Pastours of the Church, nor the people, nay nor the Speaker himself did understand. And so St. Paul saith in that Chapter, He that speaks Tongues, speaks not to men, but to God. And again, He that speaks Tongues, let him pray, that he may interpret. Why pray for the gift of inter­pretation, [Page 91] if he understood the Tongues? for so he might of himself interpret by the help of his natu­rall Language. And again: If I pray with the Tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is without fruit: namely, the Spirit that is in me maketh me to pray; but my understanding, not knowing what is said, remaines fruitlesse. Now that the Apostle did not wholly dislike the speak­ing of unknown Tongues in the Church, but onely preferre the gift of Prophecy (to wit of expounding hard points of Religion) before it; he co [...]cludes thus: Therefore brethren be earnest to prophecy, and to speak with Tongues prohibit not: but let all things be done decently, and according to order, a­mongst you.

94. No question but in primitive times the service of the Church was in the three sacred Tongues, Hebrew, Greek, and Latine, as appeares by the ancient Liturgies: Hebrew amongst the Jewes, though not understood by the common peo­ple: Greek in all the Churches of the East, where severall Nations had a different Language: Latin over the West, (not known to the unlearn­ed, but in Italy, and some few Roman Colonies) as in Africa, Spain, France, Britany, Germany, Polonia, &c. But when Greek and Latin grew to be un-vulgar in the Nations where they were first naturall; who, where, by what Churches order were the Liturgies translated into vulgar Tongues? read but the modest answer; or Epistle to the boy­sterous Authour of the Animadversions upon Pag. 98. FIAT LUX, and there you shall finde what [Page 92] Cyrill, Arch-Bishop of Trapesond a Grecian, an­swered Dr. Cosins at Paris, upon enquiry into the matter: to wit; that all the Liturgies, both those of S. Basil, S. Chrysostome, and S. Gregory Nazianzen were ever kept in the Learned Greek, differing from the vulgar Language: and that Masse, or Li­turgy was and had ever been the great work of their Christianity all over the Greek Church. Some particular persons, 'tis true, after the Greek Church was torn with Schismes and Heresies, translated the Greek Liturgy into Ethiopian, Armenian, and some [...]ew other popular Tongues; but most of those having by length of time out-liv'd the knowledge of the common people, we may truly averre, that in our dayes all the Churches in Christendome, except some few inconsiderable in regard of the rest, have the publick service in Tongues not vul­gar. Take the testimony of your own men, the Authors of that famous [...], or Bible of ma­ny Languages, who in the Preface to their Intro­duction, Printed An. 1655. ingenuously con­fesse, that Imò non tantùm Scri­pturas, sed & Liturgi­as & Ritu­alia apud plerasque Christianorum Sectas in Syriaca lingua esse, licet doctis inter eos solùm [...], clarè ostendit doctissimus Breerwoodus. Si [...] etiam, ut hoc obiter addamus, Iudaei in precibus publicis Hebraica lingua utuntur, quam vulgus ignorat: Et Ecclesia Graeca, antiqua Graecae, quae ab hodernct vulgari tantum differt, quantùm Italica a Latinct. Etiam apud Mabometano [...] ubique lingua Arabi­ca tum preces publicè fiunt, tum Alcoranum legitur (quod proph [...]ari ex­ostimant, si in aliam linguam transferatur) etiam ubi Arabica est vulgaris. Praefat. ad Introduct. page 37. not onely the Scriptures, but also the Liturgies and Rituals in most of the Sects of Christians are in Syriack, a Tongue unknown but to the Learned amongst them. That the Iews in pub­lick [Page 93] prayers use Hebrew, of which the common people are ignorant. And the Greek Churches, the ancient Greek differing as much from the vulgar Greek at this day, as Italian from Latin. And that amongst the Mahometans, prayers are every where publickly said, and the Alca­ron, read in Arabick (which they think would be profaned, if translated into any other Tongue) even where the Arabick is not the vulgar Language. With these agrees the Relation of Alexander Rosse, in his Review of all Religions. The Maronites, saith he, Cophtes, Ia [...]its, Sect. 1 [...]. pag. 497. Printed 1658. Georgians, Circassians, and others use a Tongue unknown to the people, in their Liturgies and pub­lick Service.

99. I know no Nation of this age, where pub­lick Service in a vulgar Tongue was ever brought in by the Popes approbation, as you say. In China there are two Languages, one for the Learned, and another for the generality. The Pope onely grant­ed that Masse [...]e said in the Language of the P [...]lus Si [...] ­tus. Learned, because Latin sounds very harshly in that Nations eares. If for such like reasons any for­mer Popes have allowed the translation of the Masse-book into vulgar Tongues, 'tis an argu­ment, that this point of Church Discipline is not indispensable; for the Council of Trent sayes only, that it seemed not expedient to the Fathers, that Sect. 22. cap. [...]. the Masse should be celebrated every where in the vulgar Tongue: which hinders not, but that in some places it may be otherwise, if it be judged ex­pedient. However, if God had universally misli­ked [Page 94] publick prayers for the Church in an unknown Tongue, he would never have ordered, that no man should be in the Tabernacle, when the High Priest went to pray for the whole Assembly of Is­rael; Levit. 16, 17. Luc. 1. 10. his Language there being neither heard, nor understood but by God himself. The load of your Margin weighs nothing against our Doctrine. Origen, if truly cited, proves onely that every pri­vate Christian prayes to God in his own native Dialect. But, Doctor, is Origen alone, primitive Wri [...]rs? the rest you cite, I am sure are not, nor to the purpose.

Against prohibiting of Marriage to men in Orders.

The nineteenth Demonstration.
Page 27. 28.

96. In the old Law Priests were permitted to have Wives for continuing on, the Tribe of Levi, of which all Priests were to be: but never to use them upon the dayes of Officiating, or sacrificing in the Temple or Tabernacle: though those Obla­tions were but beggerly Elements, Shadowes, and Figures, as the Apostle calls them.

Therefore Priests of the new Law, where there is no such restraint to Tribe or Family, and where Priests offer daily to God the dreadfull Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, may have Wives: and the contrary was not from the begin­ning. [Page 95] To corroborate this proof are cited in your Margin, Thuanus, a French Lawyer, and as it ap­peares by the whole thread of his History, little better then a Hugonot, Bishop Hall, a violent Pro­testant against Catholicks, and Zonaras a Greek Schismatick. Again,

97. Some of the Apostles were married before their calling to the Apostleship, but after Priest­hood ever abstained from their Wives, as witnes­seth the second Council of Carthage, at which Can. 2. S. Austin was present. It pleased all, that Bi­shops, Priests and Deacons abstain from Wives, that, what the Apostles taught, and was observed by antiquity, we also observe. And S. Hierome Epist. 50. The Apostles were either Virgins, or after marriage, continent. Bishops, Priests, and Deacons are chosen either Virgins or Widows, or surely after Priesthood eternally chast.

Therefore Priests may in imitation of the Apo­stles marry, and the forbidding was not from the beginning. Especially if we consider, how S. Paul exhorts even Lay men to forbear the use of their Wives, for a time, that they may give themselves to Prayer, and attend to the Lord without distra­ction, 1 Cor. 7. 35. He that is without a Wife, is careful of the things that pertain to our Lord, how to please God. But he that is with a wife, is careful of things that pertain to the world, vers. 32. Should not Priests, whose calling is above the world, be in a state most capable of pleasing God? What sort of m [...]n be Souldiers to God, but Bi­ [...]hops and Priests, as Timothy was, to whom St. [Page 96] Paul sayes, No man being a Souldier to God, in­tangleth himself in the affaires of this life, that he may please him, who hath chosen him to be a Souldier. What affaires more secular then Wife and Children? who more entangled then Mini­sters, that, of their Benefices enjoyable onely for their lives, in place of complying with their duties, must provide for Wife and Children? Again,

98. S. Paul asserts his liberty to carry about with him [...] a Sister, a Woman, as well as the rest of the Apostles, &c. that is, to maintain him of her substance, or have a care of his Tem­porals; as our Saviour had been relieved whiles [...] he preached. This meaning is clear both by the Apostles design there exprest of living upon his Trade, to burden no body, and by the interpre­tation of Greek and Latine Fathers; who living so near the Apostles time, are rather to be credit­ed then Luther and his Broode pleading for Wives. Why do you against the sense of antiquity turn [...] into a Wife, the word, especiallly without an article, importing a woman, whether Wife, or no Wife? else 1 Cor. 7. 'Tis good for a man not to touch [...], why translate you a Woman, and not a Wife? The Fathers are St. Chrysostome, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, Tertullian, S. Ambrose, S. Ierome, S. Austin; cited by Bellarmin. [...]ib. 3. [...]. num. 5. Only Clemens Alexandrinus expounds the Text of the Apostle, Wives; but adds, that being Wives, yet lived continent, and were in place of Sisters.

99. The sixth Canon of the Apostles, only or­ders, that Bishops and Priests [...] do not [Page 97] turn off their Wives after Priesthood, leaving them to the wide world, without means to subsist in a handsome way, but rather to provide for them carefully; yet abstaining from carnal acquaintance. This sense is rightly deduced from the 27. Canon, ordering thus, praecipimus: we command that if a­ny promoted to the Clergy will marry, they be Le­ctors or singers only; and the same is meant of lesser orders. Again,

100. Saint Paul saith, 1 Timoth. 3. 2. and Tit. 1. 6. that a Bishop may be a Husband of one Wife. Sir, your own Bible reads, A Bishop must be blamelesse, the Husband of one Wife. In which words, there is neither command nor counsel to have or use a Wife. Otherwise no man wifelesse could be made Bishop, without disobeying the A­postles command, or counsel. Yet the words by their tenour sound a precept; but of what? that a Bishop may be a husband of one wife? that's a permission never dream't of by S. Paul, not a precept. Is it then, that he must not have, or have had two wives together? that's a Law common to all Chri­stians. If you say, not two wives together before his Conversion; then it follows, that when S. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. 9. advises to take a Widow of threescore, having been the wife of one man, he means, not of two men at once, which was never lawful amongst either Iewes or Gentiles. The true sense therefore is, that a Bishop must not be bigamus, or have had more then one wife, before he be made Bishop: And this exposition is wholly consonant to the ho­ly S. Chrys. hom. 2. ep. ad Tit. S. Ambrose in 1 Timoth. 3. 2. S. Hie­rome ep. 83. c. 2. & ep. 2. c. 18. ep. 11. c. 2. S. Austin de bono con­jugii. c. 18. S. Leo, ep. 87. S. Greg. l. 2. ep. 25. Fathers, Councils, and practice of the Church.

[Page 98] Therefore Priests may have wives, and the con­trary was not from the beginning. Nay, according to S. Paul, 1 Tim. 4. 3. 'Tis the doctrine of De­vils; because Saturninus, the Gnosticks, Mani­cheans, and other hereticks, forbid all men both Clergy and Layety to marry, the use of marriage coming à malo Deo, from an ill God, or the De­vil, as they taught.

101. The Fable of Paphnutius his pleading in the Nicene Council, that Priests, if married before their Ordination, might use their wives after Priesthood, hath been long since exploded by Ba­ronius, Bellarmine, the Protestants Apology and others, as being reported by lying Authours, and clearly against the 3. Canon of the same Synod, for­bidding Priests to have any women in their houses, but Mother, Grandmother, Sister, or Aunt, who are above all suspition: not a word of a Wife, which certainly would have had women servants to attend her. Yet that very Fable makes against all Mini­sters, that marry after Ordination: and worthily: for before Luther, there is no authentical example of its lawfulnesse in the whole world.

Against Divorce for other causes then Adultery.

The twentieth Demonstration.
Page 29.

102. Our Savour Christ from the beginning confined the liberty of a perpetual Divorce (for of this he was askt) to the sole cause of fornica­tion, by reason that fornication is properly and per se or of its own nature most opposite to the contract of marriage, violating the faith, and right given to one another.

But according to the Council of Trent, a Di­vorce from bed and board, not perpetual, but for Your fri­volous ca­vil, quoad totum & to­rum, de­serves no answer. a certain or uncertain time, till the cause be re­moved, may be made for many causes besides for­nication, to wit, imminent danger of Soul or Bo­dy from either party.

Therefore the doctrine of the Council of Trent was not from the beginning. No,

103. Because forsooth, 'twas not from the be­ginning, that our Lord promised an hundred­fold to him, who for his name should leave his Wife, Matth. 19. 27. and Luke 18. 29. 'Twas not from the beginning, that, if an eye scandalize us, that is, according to S. Hierome, persons never so dear, as Wives, &c. should tempt us very dange­rously against faith, or the Law of God, we were bid to pull it out, and cast it from us, Mat. 5. 29.

[Page 100] 104. Do's Maldonat averre such a separa­tion, though not for Adultery, to be against the Law of Christ? Sir, you most unconscionably slander Maldonat and abuse your Auditours, upon perswasion, that he contradicts the Council of Trent, in holding sequestration from bed and board, not perpetual, but temporary for any cause whatsoever but fornication, to be opposite to the Law of Christ. Whereas Maldonat 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, 'twill 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, [Page 101] 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 Tomo 5. Wit­timbergensis impress. 1554. fol. 113. item. ibid. fol 111. vers. 1 [...]. 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 Printed an­no 1560. 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: [Page 102] 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?

[Page 103] 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 See the like sayings E­pist. 165. & contra litteras Peti­liani, lib. 2. cap. 51. 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) Cassander cited in your Mar­gin con­cludes thus: Non tamen baee quae diximus, eo pertinent, ut imagines Sanctorum, si in iis modo decorum servetur, non aliquo honore iis convenienti & debito affici possin [...], What I have said, hinders not but that some convenient and due ho­nour may be given to the Images of Saints, if a decency be kept in i [...] I pass [Page 104] 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, Lib. de prae­script. Faults of manners, not of Doctrine. St. Austin discovered the same in the Donatists, who had with wicked fury separated themselves from the Lib. 2. con­tra Lit. Pe­tiaani, cap. 51. 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, See the Pro­testants Apo­logy Tract. 2. cap. 3. Sect. 9. 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.

[Page 105] 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 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, 'tis 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 Solus primo eram, &c, the Battell, forsaken of all: Praefat, in 1 Tom. [Page 106] & 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: In his ex­position of the Creed, pag. 307. an [...]o 1596. 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 [Page 107] 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 Tom. 3. de Rep. [...]ccle­siast. lib. 7. cap. 11. Im­press. anno 1622. 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 no [...] 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 goe [...] [Page 108] 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 [...]aenas quas meruerunt pepende­runt ut à no­bis non eje­cti, ultrò se ejecerint, & de Ecclesia se expelle­rent. ep. 40. 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 [Page 109] not the Church; which excommunicated you.

120. Yet I acknowledge with Saint Austin, Lib. 11. qq. cap. 3. 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. [Page 110] showing out of approved Authours of the same age, that William Bishop of Mastrecht, the chief 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, 'twould onely prove the misgovernment of one Pope, and nothing at all against the Roman Church, or Supreamacy of Saint Peter's Chayre.

[Page 111] 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 [...]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 Baker in Henric. 8. pag. 64. 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 [Page 112] 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 Decre [...] of the Fathers. Thirdly because the Emperou [...] 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 He [...] of all the holy Prelates. Zeno was a profess' [...] Eutychian, who put out a profession of Faith call'd Henoticon, in which embracing the Fai [...] [Page 113] of the three first Generall Councils, he left out the Council of Chalcedon. He was in fine bu [...]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 mod [...]sty he excuseth himself, saying, that he does not prescribe Lawes to Bishops, but only minds them, to see the Decrees of their fore- [...]athers observed. There, even as they are in Goldastus his thi [...]d Apud Gret­s [...]rum contra Goldastum, pag. 193. Page 133. Pag. 137. 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 Page 134. 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. Ru [...]n. l. 1. Hist. cap. 2. Concil. Nic. 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 [Page 114] 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 Pers [...]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 [Page 115] 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 Epist. ad solitar. 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 Lib. 2. [...]p. 13. See also the Epist. ad Marcelli [...] Soror [...]. you ever heard, most Clement Emperour, that Lay-men did judge of Bishops in matters of Faith?

128. 'Tis 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.

[Page 116] 129. You need not put an (If) to the matter (If Sacriledge and Rebellion) when you speak of your Reformers violent courses. 'Tis 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 S [...] 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 [Page 117] 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 Eph. 5. 27. 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 Canticl. 4. pulchra, all faire, and as her blessed Bridegroom tells her, Macula non est in te, there is no spot in thee.

[Page 118] 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. 'Tis 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, 'twas 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 'twas 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 non­performance, tell your Reader in the Dedicatory, that your marginal citations are the evidence and warrant of all the rest: And why? because for­sooth, [Page 119] we cannot wit [...] 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 [...]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 [Page 120] this judgement he still persevered even after his return to Protestants. For answering his own motives, he retracts it not, but sayes onely that, Iliacos intra muros peccatur & extra: Papists are more guilty of this fault then Protestants. We approve as just, his imputation of falsity and ca­lumny laid upon Protestants, but deny his parity as most false, till it be proved.

Now, for a farewell, tell me in good earnest, for the Novelty of what point of our Faith have you quoted truly any one of our ablest Hyperaspistae, as you arepleas'd to call them? In what leafe, page, line or margin may we find him? you confesse, pag. 31. that Corruptions in point of practice cannot justi­fie a separation. Well then, amongst the eleven points you object as Novelties, let us set aside the Celibacy of the Clergy, the Communion under one kind, the Scriptures and publick Service in an un­known Tongue: for these concern practice, and are dispensible by the Church. There remain eight other Doctrines of Faith: direct me now to one approved Catholick Authour cited in your Sermon, clearly testifying, that the Pope's Supreamacy, the Churche's Infallibility, Transubstantiation, Sacri­fice of the Masse, Purgatory, Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, and the lawfulnesse of a Tempory Divorce for other causes besides Fornica­tion, are all, or any of them, really and truly in their own notions abstracting from the words they are signified by, a meer Novelty, and not revealed from the beginning. This I am sure you can never doe. But if you could, that mans, or mens autho­rity [Page 121] must by your own confession be the evidence and warrant of all the rest: that is, of what ever you assert in your whole Sermon.

This then supposed, can you possibly perswade any rationall man, that the particular authority of one, or more private Doctors, how able soever, is a rigorous evidence, convincing the whole Roman Church of errour in Faith, and such an evidence, as will in the eyes of God and Man justifie a Separa­tion from that Mother Church, though thousands of others no less able assert and believe the contrary? If this be evidently impossible for you to do, as certain­ly it is, Dagloriam Deo, and confess the rashness of your engagement to demonstrate our Novelties, and return with speed to the House of God, that Firmament and Pillar of Truth, the Roman Church, from which you can never demonstrate any just cause to depart. 'Tis the hearty wish of

Your humble Servant I. S.

ERRATA.

PAge 3. line 10. for Vrbanus read Ioannes. line ultima for The Pontif: r. Of the Pontific. p. 11. l. 22. for Martyr re­store r. Martyr Restore. p. 13. l. 11. for guilt r. Gift. p. 15. l. 12. for slightly r. slily. p. 19. l. 24. for Bromhill r. Bram [...]all. p. 33. l. 17. in the margin; Statut. 1. Elisab. p. 34. l. 11. for Philostratus r. Philastrius. p. 53. l. 19. for honour is r. Ho­nour according to the Canons is. p. 55. l. 6. for malice r. his malice. p. 61. l. 2. for de r. be. p. 69. l. 19. blot out, Time. p. 71. l. ult. in the margin, [...]or Ed. r. Eccl. p. 93. l. 20. in the margin, for Paulus Sixtus r. Paulus Quintus. In the Dedicatory, for Iune 1. r. Aug. 1.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.