AN ANSWER To Doctor PIERCIE'S SERMON Preached before His MAJESTY at WHITEHALL 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 Whitehall a Philistin in black, defying the Armies of the living God. His strength was in his Tongue, not in his Arm: His weapons, Breath, and his combat, an hours Boast. Yet as to his own conceit, a huge Goliath: he blew down Mount Zion at a puff, and split in pieces the Rock, against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail. In that conjuncture, because no adversary could securely be seen, the applause flew high, victory and triumph rebounding from all the hills of great Brittany. Yet, God knows, all was but wind. Flaverunt venti. The winds blue: Zion stands still immovable, and the Rock unshaken. The blasts vanished to nothing at the first jossle against the House of God, because it was founded upon a Rock. This hath lately been demonstrated by the excellent Pen of S. C. clearly evincing the no less ancient, then unchangeable truths of our Doctrines. But indeed there needed no such Giant to defeat that Goliath: the least of Iesse's Family, the Church, supported by the power of his Cause, may hope for success in such a Duel. Upon which account I was encouraged to trace out another way of answer, tending to disable his proofs, by stripping his arguments, and showing them in cuerpo. Now the Doctor's Sermon having been both Preached and published under a Royal shadow, I come with an humble suit, prostrate at your Majesty's 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 Royal assent, 'twill render all-secure the Author of this slender work,  
Madam, Your Majesty's most humble, and ever devoted Servant I. S. June 1. 1663.   

Gentle Reader,  
I Am only to advertise thee of three things in the perusal of this Treatise. First, that Doctor Pierce having in his Dedicatory to the King pretended to the public confessions of our abl●…st Doctors, in favour of his erronrs, clogs both Margin and Text with our professed 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 citys any Orthodox Writers, they differ not in point of faith, but in things indifferent, or practices alterable upon just occasion. Secondly, that we allege against them in our behalf, the very prime Pillars of their pretended Church, as Luther, Calvin, Jewel, Whitaker, and the like, and that not only in matters of indifferency, but of the very substance of Faith. Thirdly, that Doctor Pierce knowing, that we for our belief rest only upon the Church's 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 men's words, which were they truly cited, would weigh nothing with us to the main cause of Religion. Finally, I profess, my intent in this short work, to be, not so much a proof of our Catholic Doctrines, as to show the unconvinciug weakness of the Preacher's Arguments, which he mistakes for Demonstrations.   

An Answer to Doctor Pierce's Sermon, Preached before His Majesty at Whitehall, Feb. 1. 1662.  
SIR,  
1. GIve me leave in the first place to tell you, that your application of our Saviour's words: From the beginning it was not so, is no less confused, then unconcluding. Confused; as speaking in general 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 mark, proving too much, or nothing at all. For neither were all truths revealed, or all good practices in use from the beginning: nor all heresies, or corruptions, since the beginning.  
2. You say our Saviour was sent to reform the jews: 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, than 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.  and Adam's eating the forbidden fruit, or Cain's 
Genes. 4.  murdering his Brother Abel, was not heresy, or corruption, for, from the beginning it was so.  
3. If the rule begin with the Law itself, why should the adoring of the Golden Calf be superstition, since 'tis as old as the self same Law? why all that followed? as David's Psalms and Music; the adding seven days to the Passeover by King Ez●…chias, 2 Chron. 30. 22. the Encaenia, or Feast of Dedication, instituted by judas Machabaeus, kept and honoured by our Saviour, joan. 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 expressed in the Written word) the leaving to abstain from blood, and strangled things, commanded by the Apostles, as necessary: the use of the Cross in Baptism; the change of the Sabbath into Sunday; the Baptism of Infants; the non-Rebaptization of Heretics; the verbal pronouncing the words in the form of Baptism, as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament; the Degrees and Titles of Primates, Arch-Bishops, Bishops, Deans, etc. will be superstition, error, and profanation, for from the beginning it was not so. Then on the contrary, the Saducees, Cerinthians, Nicolaits, Ebionits', will not be Heretics, (because they were from the beginning:) nay, nor the Papists neither, if as some Learned Protestants affirm, Popery began under the Apostles. Therefore S. Paul, saith Doctor 
a Synop●…is Contro. p▪ 76.  Willet, calleth Papistry a mystery of iniquity, which began even to work in his days. And Mr. Middleton 
b Papisto. mastix pag. 19●…. : No marvel, though perusing Councils, Fathers and Stories, from the Apostles forward, we find the print of the Pope's feet. And Mr. 
c Reform Catholic, pag. 616. Edit. 1616. in Folio.  Perkins: Our Church ever hath been since the days of the Apostles, and that in the very midst of Papacy. Insomuch that Urbanus Rhegius 
d In lib. Apologet. p. 192.  a Learned Protestant, being pressed to show 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 days: Your faith is renowned in the whole world. Rom. 1.  
5. By this Rule forsooth so applied, all heresies and usurpations in both Laws may be dispatched. For though there is hardly any of them in the Church which may not truly pretend to some great antiquity, even far beyond the Reformation: Yet because they are not so old as the old man, much less as the old Serpent, therefore they are convinced to be heresies and usurpations. Lo! how under the weight of this ponderous application, lie crushed for ever all the modern ancient errors and corruptions, not only of Disciplinarians, Anabaptists, Socinians, Solifidians, Ra●…ters, Millinarians, & Reprobatarians, but most of all the Pontificians: for they, like Mahometans, have a grand compound of several 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 days 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, joannes Sarisburiensis: The Roman Church shows herself towards others rather a Stepmother then a Mother. There sit in her Scribes and Pharisees: but how sincerely, the whole Chapter will discover. In which the Author having related, how in a conference with Adrian the fourth at Benevent in Italy: the Pope asked him familiarly what men thought of the Roman Church. ay, saith he, using a holy freedom, 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, shows herself towards others, rather a Stepmother then a Mother. There sit in her Scribes and Pharisees. But then, as to his own particular observation, he solemnly professeth in these words: 
a 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 profess, 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: 
b Qu●… à vestra doctrina dissentit, aut H●…reticus, a●…t Schismaticus est.  He that dissents from your Doctrine, is either an Heretic, or a Schismatic. 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 Author, what he only rehearseth out of other men's mouths? secondly to skip over the words: which is the Mother of all Churches, wherein appears the judgement of Nations, as to the Primacy of the Roman Church. Thirdly, to conceal the author's own words, by which he expressly declares a quite contrary sense 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 choose a Pope, the usual notion of a Roman Conclave, were the same as the whole Catholic Roman Church: or the gift of infallibility in defining matters of Faith, were proper to the Cardinals without a Pope: A profound Erudition. Secondly, you assert without proof, that the learned Members of the Roman Church swallow glibly so many errors, because they swallow this first, that she cannot err.  
8. Like men in fear, 
b 〈◊〉 est 〈◊〉, cu●… time●…s, ped●…m, Sen.  you strike first, knowing the blow to be unavoidable from us: that Protestants chop up so many errors, because they first devour this, that, notwithstanding all Christ's promises, the infallibility of the Apostles, and the necessity of that gift to preserve her from errors; yet the whole Church of Christ even in her greatest representatives can err. 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 Pastors of Souls, and Professors of Learning only: But if that be a new Creed, much more will your thirty nine Articles make up a new Creed, stuffed 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, than the Church has power to make new Creeds; if not, why should the Church's Declarations be called 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 explicitly to the faithful such verities, as are contained implicitly or virtually in the written word of God, or what traditionary Doctrines are truly Divine, coming down from the Apostles by never interrupted succession of practice and belief, were to make new Articles of Faith? Did the Council of Nice make new Articles of Faith, when it declared the Celebration of Easter, or the validity of Baptism ministered by Heretics, or the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father? what the Council of Constantinople, and St. Athanasius add 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 the fide obligante of necessary belief, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, and that of St. james, etc. are they now after the Church's acceptation, new Articles of Faith? And yet be those justly anathematised, 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 add 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, public prayer in an unknown tongue, and the Pope's Supremacy, shall be answered in your demonstratons.  
10. You abuse very disingenuously the learned Cardinal Bellarmine, in saying, first, that he boasted of the antiquity of Purgatory: where as in the places you quote, there is not a syllable of that humour; only this modest expression, We do not find the beginning of this doctrine: but all the Ancients both Greek and Latin from the very time of the Apostles, constantly taught that there is a Purgatory. Secondly, that Bellarmine could not give an older instance than Origen and Tertullian; a most palpable untruth: for Bellarmine in his tenth Chapter, cited by yourself, expressly alleges, 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' books. Perhaps because these two were never noted of error, you skipped 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 james? there Dr. Reynolds scrupling at the use of the Cross, the Dean of Westminster, saith Baker, showed out of Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and others, that in 
●…n vita jacobi 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 citys 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 only an Heretic, but an Arch-Heretick, and therefore of no authority, when he is brought by Bellarmin for Purgatory? but will be Orthodox anon, when in your 27. page you call for him against prayers in an unknown tongue? Yet this very fetch proves Purgatory the more: for if their Doctrine of Purgatory had been erroneous, or heretical, the Fathers and Councils, that spared them not for other heresies, would questionless have censured 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 alleged 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 days. 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 errors about Purgatory, alleges S. Austin, who in his 31. book of the City of God, the 13. chap. affirms it to have been the Platonics opinion, that all punishments after death were but purging pains; and to that effect S. Austin citys Virgil. To this Bellarmin replies, that in Plato's works, as in his Dialogues entitled Phaedon & Gorgias, 3. sorts of men are sentenced 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 says, that Purgatory was the sense of all Nations, jews, Mahometans, & Gentiles, both Philosophers & Poets; and proves it out of the Macchabees, Koran, 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; whilst 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 Polydore 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 seldom mentioned amongst the ancientest Grecians. But for the thing itself he says exp●…essely, Art. 37. Whereas 
Cum a tot Patribus tam Graecis quam 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 only the manner of purging Souls 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, persuading your Auditors, that he denied Invocation of Saints to have been in his days: A thing so manifestly false, that Protestants themselves acknowledge the contrary. I confess, saith Doctor Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol, page 5. that Ambrose, Austin and H●…erome, held invocation of Saints. And Mr. 
a Apocalip. c. 14. p. 382.  Brightman after he had named Athanasius, Basi●…, chrysostom, Nazianzen, Ambrose, Hierome, Austin, he rebukes them, as in words condemning Idolatry, but indeed establishing it by invocation of Saints. Lastly, 
b Part 3. examine. pag. 197. edit. 1●…14. Lib 5. Cont. Donatistas'. cap. 1.  Chemnitius allegeth 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 custom. But let us hear S. Austin himself, giving the reason why Christians did willingly bury their dearest friends near the Martyr's Tombs: dum recolunt, saith he, 
c De cura pro mort. cap. 4.  whilst 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, etc. And in his 33. 
d 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 convinced of S. Austin's mind. But you Sir, to colour the cheat, cite his words in Latin, omitting what is most material. Take his whole Text as it lies. The Saint therefore to show 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; 
e Lib. 22. 〈◊〉 Civit. Dei, cap. 10.  They (the Heathens) built Temples, erected Altars, appointed Priests, and offered Sacrifices to these their Gods: But we build no Temples to our Martyrs, as to Gods, but Monuments as to dead men, whose spirits live with God. Nor do we set up Altars there, whereon to Sacrifice to the Martyrs; we offer Sacrifice to the one God both of Martyrs and ours: at which Sacrifice, as men of God, who in confessing him, overcame the world, they are nominated in their due place and order; yet are they not invocated by the Priest, that Sacrificeth, for he Sacrificeth to God, not to them, although at their Monuments; because he is God's, not their Priest. By this Text entirely 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 
f 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 error is inexcusable in deriving the Catholic Church's infallibility in matters of Faith, either from Gnostics or Disciples of Marcus; whilst you might know that holy Scriptures, Councils, Fathers, and reason convinces the contrary. Quae conventio Christi & Belial? what relation hath Christ's promises, his 
g joan. 14.  spirit of truth abiding for ever, & teaching his Church all truths, making it the house of the 
h 1 Tim. 3.  living God, Pillar and Firmament of truth; with the filthy errors and practices of those beastly Heretics. A Preacher of the word of God should abhor 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 business was with Women: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; adds, that his Disciples driving the same trade, by 
i 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  deceits 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 ears, by 
* De Missae privat●… Tom. 7. fol. 443.  Luther's and 
† Tom. 2. lib. de Euchar. fol. 249.  Zwinglius' confession; they lusted insatiably after women, broke vows of chastity, seduced silly Virgins, corrupted Nuns, and boasted of their abilities above the whole Church, even the Apostles. 
k Tom. 7. Serm. de Eucrs Hier●…lalem.  The Gospel is so copivosly preached by us, that truly in the Apostles time it was not so clear, saith Martin Luther. And again, 
l Lib. de Servo arbitrio contra Erasmun●… edie. prior  What arguments soever the ancient Orthodox Fathers, the Schools of Divines, the authority of Councils and Popes, the consent of ages, and of all the Christian people can help you to, lay them all aside. We admit nothing but Scriptures; and so, that with us alone is the certain authority of interpreting: what we interpret, that is the sense of the Holy Ghost: what others bring, though they be many and great men, comes from the Spirit of Satan, and a distracted brain. This indeed is to be Marcists and Gnostics.  
15. 'Tis also an affected error, to say we take our Purg●…tory from Origen and Tertullian; doth not Bellarmin prove it out of Scripture, alleging near twenty Texts, so expounded by the ancient Fathers? Nay, doth not your own 
m Exami. part 3. pag. 90. Edit. 1614  Chemnitius confess, that Dionysius the Areopagite mentions Prayer for the Dead? Does not your Doctor 
n Against Purgat. p. 302.  Fulk plainly aver, that Tertullian, Cyprian, Austin, Hierome, and a great many more do witness, that Sacrifice for the Dead is the Tradition of the Apostles? Insomuch that 
o Tomo 1. Epicher. de cau. Missae. fol. 186.  Zwinglius being urged with the authority of S. chrysostom and S. Austin, deriving that custom from the Apostles, gives this wild answer: If it be so, as Austin and chrysostom 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 dream of their own brain? or an Heresy of Montanus, as if he could commend nothing but errors? Did not the Fathers of all ensuing ages follow that Doctrine without contradiction? and the whole Church of God embrace it as coming from the Apostles? 
p De verbis Apostoli c. 34.  Hoc enim à patribus traditum universa observat Ecclesia, saith S. Austin: This the universal Church observes as delivered by the Fathers.  
16. Thirdly, you err prodigiously, in affirming that your Reformers in England discovered in the Roman Church horrible corruptions in point of practice, and hideous errors in point of Doctrine; and that in matter of faith too, whereas hitherto no Protestant in the world hath ever been able to show any one such error, or corruption. What you can discover, shall appear hereafter in your goodly demonstrations.  
17. You add to that another gross error: that those blessed Reformers found by what degrees the several errors & corruptions were slightly brought into the Church, as well as the several time: wherein the Novelties received their birth and breeding. But, good Mr. Pierce, how often have you Protestants been challenged to show, when any such Novelties against faith or manners sprung up in the Church, and yet could never do 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 Apostasy, Heresy, or Schism? Not by Apostasy, because she believes in Christ: If by Heresy, what lawful Council, what Fathers, what other Church of Christ ever censured or condemned her? If by Schism, 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 Schism, the rent or wound cannot be mortal to both parts, lest Christ should have no Church at all upon earth. And because such a Church different from the Roman cannot possibly be found, therefore some of your Learned Protestants ingenuously confess it. We cannot tell, saith Doctor powel, by 
q Considerate. of the Papists Supplication, p. 43.  whom, or at what time the enemy did sow (the Papists Doctrine) etc. neither indeed do we know who was the first Author of your blasphemous opinions. And Doctor Fulk in his rejoinder to Bristol, 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 
s Respons. ad Rat. 7. Cam 〈◊〉. , that the time of the Roman change cannot easily be told. And yet this pitiful shift is clearly against that renowned rule of S. Austin, in his 118. Epistle and elsewhere: that what is held by the Universal Church, and not known when it began, is to be believed as an Apostolical Tradition: By which maxim Doctor Whitgift 
t Defence, etc. p. 351.  proves against Cartwright, that the names of Metropolitan, Archbishop, etc. have their original from the Apostles. 'Tis also against evident reason: for if Christ's Spirit of Truth abiding always with the Church, could permit errors in faith to creep into it unperceptibly; such errors 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 Heretic, because he opposeth the whole Church of Christ, and so 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 err no less 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 herself. This is merely begged, and not proved. Might not all former Heretics have said the same of all General Councils that condemned them? Did either the Council of the Apostles, Act. 15. or the first four General ones make the Church differ from herself by reason of their Definitions or Decrees? why then the Council of Trent in particular? Because, say you, that Council defined many merely humane writings, and many unwritten Traditions to be of equal authority with the Scripture: anathemat zing all that should not receive them. The Council of Trent defined no writings to be of equal authority 
Sess. 4. Quae ipsius Christi ore ab Apostolis acceptae, au●… ab ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sanct●… dictan●…e, quasi per manus traditae ad nos usque 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 perpetual 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. chrysostom, that the Apostles delivered not all things by writing, but many things also unwritten, both which are worthy of equal belief. Is not this the very Definition of the Council of Trent? And might not all the Heretics that ever denied any part of Scripture, as the Cerinthians denied the whole New Testament but S. Matthew's Gospel, the Marcionists, Gnostics, & Manichees all the old Testament, as Luther the Epistle to the Hebrews, S. james, and the Apocalypse: and all that ever den●…'d Apostolical 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 Canonical Books, or Apostolical Traditions against them? A strange objection, and stranger reformation, that justifies all Heretics in the world! As for the anathema, hath it not ever been the Style of all General 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 General Councils, justly imposing upon men's 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 herself. If by the Roman Church you mean not only the City and Diocese of Rome, but all other Churches (united with that particular Church) whose Bishops sat & voted in the Council of Trent; than you speak a Chimaera, there being but one true Catholic Church in the world, which is the Roman, that never differed from herself in matters of faith: except you intent a Heterogenial Church patched up of all condemned 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 Laity too. What Kings I pray? Hen. the 8. the first broacher of the Schism, 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 declared Supreme 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 Schism completed. What Clergy, but Cranmer 
Godwin i●…●…a 〈◊〉 Parker i●…em  that Arch-Sycophant? who according to H●…story by his whispers in the King's car, was the first au thour of the Secession from the Pope; and as ●…e pretended Bishop Bramhill confesses, struck the 
a 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 
b In vita Elizab. pag. anno. 1559.  Elizabeth all the Bishops but one were deposed; and by Cambdens' confession, eighty Curates, fifty Prebendarics, fifteen Precedents of Colleges, twelve Arch-Deacons, and six Abbots lost their places, when also the inferior Clergy in a Convocation appointed by that very Queen protested against 
jullers' 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 Ambassador to the Council of Ephesus, which was the third General 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 do: giving this reason: 
c Epist. ad Synod. Ephes.  It is not lawful for him that is not a Bishop, to meddle in businesses and consultations of the Church. The same said Basil the Emperor to the Laiety in the seventh General Council: 'Tis 
d 7. Concil. Gene.  not lawful for you to treat in Ecclesiastical Causes. And long before that, justinian: If 
e justinia. C●…it. 123.  the business be Ecclesiastical, let no Civil Magistrate deal in such questions, etc. 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 politic ways 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 blood: 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 satisfy his avarice, he seized upon all the goods of Monasteries. What spirit the Protector 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 Bishoprics, and that which is worse, the Bishoprics themselves were dispossessed of their revenues.— A Parliament was held— wherein divers Chantries, Colleges, Free Chapels, Fraternities and Guilds with all their Lands and goods were given to the King, which being sold at a low rate, enriched many, and ennobled some, and thereby made them firm in maintaining the change; thus Baker. Queen Elizabeth, bred up a Catholic, and by a Catholic 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 heresy spreading amongst them, how could they but perish, rejecting the cure of their supreme Pastor? But you had recourse to the Scriptures. The very Plea of all Heretics. 
f Hilari●… lib contr. Constant.  Nolo verba, quae non sunt scripta, cried out an Arian against the Nicene Faith. But you reserved to yourselves, what you denied to the whole Church, the expounding of Scriptures; and what passes all astonishment, confessing yourselves errable in the interpreting of Scripture, yet in despite of all God's Church you hammered out a negative Religion, never known to the world before. Yes, to the Fathers of the Primitive Church, say you: Find your negative Articles in the Fathers; and the matter is ended. Mind only by the way, that 'twill not suffice to allege the not finding our positive Doctrines in the primitive Fathers; for you do not only not believe them, as neither Turks nor Heathens do; but you positively believe their opposite negatives contained expressly in your 39 Articles of Religion; as Art. 21. No general Council but may err, 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, etc. 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 progenitors to appeal to the Fathers. Luther contemns them; I care not if a 
g Cont. Henricum Octavum. tom. 2. f. 344 p. 2.  thousand Augustine's, a thousand Tertullias stand against me. 
h 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 do not ask thee Fathers, nor Mothers: I require the Word of God. jewel 
i In vita juelli p. 212.  appealed to the first six hundred years, but was rebuked for it by Doctor Humphrey: He was over liberal, etc. What have we to do with Fathers? Whitaker values them not a rush: Neither 
k Cont. Saunder. p. 9 2.  think yourself 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 voice 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 
l Neque eni●… nate sunt haereses n●…si dum Scripturae bonae intelliguntur non bene, & quoth in iis non bene intelligitur, temerè & audacter asserit●…r. Tract. 18. in joann.  that all Heresies are hatched, whilst good Scriptures are ill understood: and what in them is understood amiss, is rashly and boldly asserted. What greater rashness, then for one man to pretend the true sense of Scriptures against the current of Antiquity? Is it not a stupendious thing, that the Bishop of Canterbury should say of King james at the Conference of Hampton-Court; 
m P●…aker in vita jacobi.  Undoubtedly his Majesty spoke by the special 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 appeal 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 broacher of Novelties, though none of those times ever thought so: for, as what S. john writ in his Gospel, beyond other Canonical Writers, stayed unwritten above threescore years after the Ascension, till some occasion arose of leaving it upon record, and yet in that interim it was doubtless known to the Primitive Church: So, why might not other Doctrines of the Apostles be kept only by Tradition, t●…ll some hint was given to the Fathers of ensuing ages, to publish them in writing? How many things pass 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 
n In his Dedicatory of the reformed Catholic.  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 adds to this, that we raze 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 Schism, to separate from her; seeing Protestants 
o Dr Potter, Sect. 3. pag. 73. 〈◊〉. cap. 8. Dr. La●…d. Sect. 26.  confess, that no cause but necessity of Salvation can justify such a separation. If it might not, than '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 show anon; and you have never yet showed what ulcer in particular it was, for which you could not escape eternal death, in the whole Church of Christ before Luther.  
24. Here you tell us of a remarkable infirmity obvious in our Writers. That they complain you have left their Church, but never show you that jota, 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 
p C●…rt. Epist. fundame●…ti c. 3. & 4.  obeyed the word of God, when he obeyed 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 midday, by Bellarmin, Peròn, Stapleton, and others: but obstinate blindness 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 General Councils? and those decisions by unperishable or unalterable records to be all transmitted to our days? Can you clearly show that by Christ's command his Church was only to be heard in her younger age, and ever after unheard and slighted? If not, your appeal to those times is but a desperate shift, extorted from you by the force of our Arguments. And yet at that very weapon we defy and vanquish you by your own Confessions. Hath not Cardinal Peròn, in his Reply to King james, clearly evinced the Pope's Supreamacy to have been acknowldg●…d in the first four Councils? Do not those two Learned Books, the Protestants 
q Tract. 1. Sect. 3. 1 Lib. 1. c. 5. & 6.  Apology, and the Progeny 〈◊〉 of Catholics and Protestants, show undenia●…ly out of your own Authors, that the Roman Church remained pure for the first four hundred and forty years after Christ, giving that reason why the Fathers of those ages, Austin, Epiphanius, Optatus, Tertullian, and Irenaeus appealed against Heretics 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 Appeal, pag. 573. Do not the same two Books farther show from your own concessions, and out of the ancient Fathers, that within those 440 years, even up to Pope Sylvester and Constantine's time, and so to the Apostles, there were Churches dedicated in the honour of Martyrs, Relics, Pilgrimages to Jerusalem, forbidding Priests to marry, vowed Virginity, Invocation of Saints, the Primacy of the Roman Bishop, the unbloody Sacrifice, Real presence, Transubstantiation, Confession, Prayer for the Dead, F●…ee-will, justification by Works, Merit, Tradition, Purgatory, Vows, Evangelicall Councils, Monachisme, and other Mysteries of Faith? What then do you talk, as if none of our tenets or practices, in which we differ from you, could be traced by sure footsteps, as far as the times of the purest Christians.  
25. Do not you beat the air, whilst you labour to prove those Doctrines to be novelties, which your own confess to have had a being in the very times of your appeal, the times of purest Christians? But if disowning your domestic 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 days Popery, say yours, was unde●… full sail: then we justly expect, that you demonstrate, how such a press of errors either did, or could, within the narrow compass 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 jesuit▪ part. 2. 〈◊〉. 5. where he says that Gregory and Austin brought into England the whole Chaos of Popish superstition.  if we consider, first the reluctancy of man's nature to accept of any Doctrines so contrary to flesh and blood, as Confession, fasting, Celibate in the Clergy, Be●…ef of the Real Presence, etc. Secondly, the perpetual vigilancy of the Pastors Christ left in his Church to watch upon the walls of jerusalem day and night; which duty th●… Pastors of those days complied with so exactly, that from the year 327. till the year 680. they held against heresies newly rising, six General Councils, whereof one was called 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 Chalcedon, and the second of Constantinople, the last, fourscore years after. How is it imaginable, that none of these Councils meeting so frequently to suppress errors, should take notice of so many new Doctrines you object, if in truth they had been Novelties. Thirdly, that those Doctrines stole not into the Roman Church alone, but spread through all the Christian Churches then extant in the world, both East and West, with all which S. Gregory held communion, as may be seen in his Epistles. Can the wit of man conceive such ●…ilfull, obstinate, dead silence in all Churches, at the starting up of so many false Doctrines in so short a space, especially all the Father's holding Novelties in Doctrine for Errors?  
26. But here comes in a childish fallacy even of our greatest Giants in dispute: that they shut up the Church in Rome, as the Donatists in Africa, and then call it the Catholic 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 Cardinal Peròn shut up the Church in the City 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 Supreme Governor under Christ. And in this sense, according to Antiquity, the Catholic Church, not causally, but formally, is styled the Roman Church: as all Nations under the Roman Emperor, and not the City and Territories of Rome alone, were called the Roman Empire: All the twelve Tribes of Israel, the Jewish Church: and all Nations under the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Greck Church, as the Muscovites and Russians, though not Grecians by birth. In this notion S. Austin him●…elf saith, that 
a Lib 2. de peccato Originali. c. 17.  against the Pelagians, not only the Councils of Bishops, and the See Apostol●…ck, but also, Univer same Romanam Ecclesiam, the whole Roman Church, and the whole Roman Empire were most justly ●…ncens'd. Now because the Bishop of the Roman Diocese, 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 Diocese, is the Mother and Mistress of all Churches: whence in a second acception, the Roman Church is not improperly call●…d the Catholic Church, not formally, but causally, in rega●…d of that unity she infuseth into the Catholic Church, knitting all the Members thereof in one Body, under one supreme Head. What ere you think, this was the sense of the ancient Fathers. Tertullian 
b Contra Martion. lib. 4. c. 4.  speaking of Martion, who had offered money to the Roman Church, saith, Martion gave his money to the Catholic Church, which was rejected, both it and himself, when he fell into Heresy. S. Cyprian 
c 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 Catholic Church. S. Cyprian 
d 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 Catholic Church. And S. Ambrose in his Funeral Oration upon the death of his Brother Satyrus, writes, that Satyrus▪ coming to Sardinia, then infected with the Heresy 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 Catholic Bishops, that is, with the Church of Rome. And ●…ohn, Patriarch of Constantinople, writes in these words to Pope Hormis●… 1000 years past: We promise 
e Tomo 〈◊〉. Council edit▪ 〈◊〉 i●…ter epist. Hormis●….  hereafter not to recite in the sacred mysteries, the names of those that have separated themselves from the Catholic Church, that is to say, who agree not fully with the See Apostolic. Note that in all these places I have cited, the words, that is, or, that is to say, are not mine, but the Authors cited.  
27. This than 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 Cardinals the Church ever had. Nay the very Arians themselves, knowing to their grief, Roman and Catholic to be in the common phrase, Synonimons: yet to disgrace Catholics, called them Romanists, as you do now. 
f Lib 2. de pe●…see. Vandal.  Victor Bishop of ●…ica recounts, that jocundus an Arian, said to King Theodori●…. If thou put Armogastus to death, the Romanists will proclaim him a Martyr. 
g 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 the Romans. Hoc enim nomine vocitant nostrae Religionis homines. For so they call men of our Religion. 'Tis you, not we, that stand in parallel 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 
h See the 4. Catalogues in the e●…d of the Protestant Apology, & Coccius, Tom. 1. l. 8. art. 4. 7. 8. etc.  as incapable of Salvation: You sought Communion with the Greek Church, but 
i See jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople his Answer to the Lutherans.  were justly repulsed, and so would yet be, wheresoever you tried, there being no Church in the world, except the Reformed, that will join with you in external communion of Sacraments, Liturgies, and Church Duties. To make your Church swell, you are forced now a days to take in most Heretics in the world; Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Anabaptists, Sacramentarians, etc. not remembering that famous saying, gathered out of S. Austin, cited by the most Learned Bishop of Chalcedon in his Treatise of Schism. 
k Lib 4. contra Cresconium. c. 61. See 〈◊〉. Austin lib. d●… Pastorib. cap. 8. to the same purpose.  Catholics are every where, and Heretics are every where: But Catholics are the same every where, and Heretics are different every w●…ere. Consequently for want of union cannot possi●…ly make up one Church. And if they had all the same errors in Faith, they would still be Heretics, and no Church of Christ.  
28. Behold a reason in brief. Though the word Church taken grammatically signify any Congregation of men, yet in the sense of the holy Scriptures, Fathers, and ancient custom, 'tis restrained to the sole company of Christians united in Divine Faith, Sacraments, and obedience to their Pastor. Divine Faith therefore being of the essential form that makes one a member of the Church, how can Heretics, who according to S. Paul, have made shipwreck touching Faith, be parts of the true Church? upon which score the Apostle commands Titus, c. 3. to avoid an Heretic, because he is subverted and condemned of himself. S. Cyprian denied Novatianus to be in the Curch, 
l 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 Catholic Church, the rest among Heretics are thought to be, but are not. S. Hierome against the Luciferians, Nulla Congregatio haeretica potest dici Ecclesia Christi: No heretical 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 Baptism, 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 Catholic Church you are not. M●…rk that they believed all the A●…ticles of the Creed, and consequently your fundamentals. Now all the Congregations in the world, disagreeing from the Roman in points of Faith, are 〈◊〉 Heretics, 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 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 
m 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 Catholic Church; As if the silly Minister understood their meaning better than all the learned Fathers of the two General Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, that condemned and cast them out of the Church for Heretics. What will Baxter answer to that Act of Parliament under Queen Elizabeth, impowering Bishops to judge any matter or cause to be heretic, which by the first four General Councils, or any one of them, have been determined 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 determine 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●… jews. 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 err 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 Roger's Book was perused, and by the authorit●… of the Church of England allowed to be public.  
30. Of Luther and Calvin's pretended Churches there is no doubt, as holding many aged errors, 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 ranked AErius ●…mongst Heretics for denying Sacrifice and Prayer for the dead, ends his Book, assuring, that whosoever holds any of those H●…resies cannot be a Catholic: Much less than such as hold with the Pelagians, that. Children dying unbaptised may be saved; with the Novatians, no power in Priests to remit sins; with the Manichees, no external Sacrifice, or freewill; with certain Heretics in S. Ignatius the Martyr's days, no Real presence; with Vigilantius, no single life of Priests: with jovinian, no difference of merits, 
n See the Progeny of Catholics and Protestants lib. 3. c. 2, 3, 4, 5.  etc.  
31. Whence I conclude, that since all other Churches in the world disagreeing from the Roman, are by sacred Antiquity held and confessed Heretical, 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 errors in Faith, and the Roman never yet proved erroneous. See 17. other parallels of Protestan●…s with the Donatists in Gualcerus h●…s Chronicon, Seculo 4.  
32. He●…e also you have a fl●…ng at Cardinal Peròn for his want of ●…mory, as if he fo●…got, that the Preaching ●…f Ch●…ist ●…n at jerusalem. '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. Peter's P●…imacy: who as he was Father an●… Head of all Bishops; so the Roman Church in which by his Successors he still l●…veth and governeth, saith S. Chrysologus 
o Epist. ad Eutychium. , is the Mother and Head of all Churches: or with S. 
p De simplicitate Praelat●…rum.  Cyprian, The root and original of the Catholic Church. The Church of Caesarea began after that of jerusalem, and yet was made her Metropolitan, as the first Council of Nice 
q Canon 7.  declared; and Antioch was her Primate. Even so Antioch, jerusalem, and all other Churches, founded before the Roman, were afterwards made subject unto her. For which reason juvenal the Bishop of jerusalem, said publicly in the Council of Ephesus: 
r Act. 4. c. 4. apud. Bin. tom. 1. 794.  that the ancient Custom, and Apostolical Tradition was, that the Church of Antioch is to be ruled and judged by the Roman.  
33. You falsify Gildas egregiously, and by misplacing his words, make him say what he never dreamt of; namely, that Christian Religion was planted in Brittany in the days of Tiberius Caesar, about seven years before S. Peter came to Rome. But Gildas having spoken of the extreme desolation of his Country, caused by the Wars with the Romans (which Wars beginning, not under Tiberius, or Caius, who never Warred with the Britain's, but under Claudius, lasted 40. years) Interea, saith he, In the mean time, (to wit, during those Wars) there appeared and imparted itself to this cold Island, more remote from the visible Sun than 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, etc. Here Gildas only says, that during the Wars with Claudius, the Sun of justice, that manifested himself to the world by his Preaching in jerusalem under Tiberius, appeared at length to the Britain's, that is, in the days of Claudius, in whose second year, S. Peter coming to Rome, was entertained by a noble British Lady, named Claudia Ruf●…ina: But when all the Jews were banished from Rome, he took that occasion to go Preaching into France, and from thence into Brittany, 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 Confessor, revealed to a holy man: so hath Alredus 
s In vit●… S. Edwardi.  Rhievallis left upon R●…ord 500 years since. Whence it appears, that not S. 
t 'Tis not known precisely when S. joseph of Arimathia ent●…ed into ●…any; who came not so much to preach, as to lead a solitary life.  joseph of Arimathea, in the time of Tiberius, but S. Peter, in the time of Claudius, founded the British Church, after he had founded the Church of Rome, and fixed his Seat there.  
34. But let us suppose Christianity to have been in Brittany 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 Britain's? if in the hearts; then I ask, were those Britain's English men, or did the Saxons receive their Christianity from them? Had not England, as England the first news 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 themselves 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 Brittany? whose faith whencesoever it sprung up first, lasted not, but Paganism overgrowing it, perished 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 Britain's hatred to the Saxons for usurping their Kingdom. I conclude therefore with the two Ro●…al testimonies of our Kings: the first of 
u 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 james of glo●…ous memory, 
Pag. 75.  in the sum of the Conference before Majesty, affirming, that the Roman Church was once the Mother Church; let 
x 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 pretensions, 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 than a mere probability, which may in itself, 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 show 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: 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 Heretics.  

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, whilst 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 sense of Scripture on your side is evident, Our men ten to one more in number, equal in Learning (not to say more) and as upright in conscience, do aver the contrary. And the con●…st itself destroys your assertion. For whence, I pray, arises this very controversy amongst men of equal 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 shined at midday? To Demonstrations from universal Tradition you pretend no●…: as well because such discourses in your opinion are but Topics, as because you are able to bring nothing against our positive Doctrines, but empty Negatives, the silence of 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 Catholic 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 Emperor in the year 606. saith Baronius, as you quote him, being angry with Cyriacus Bishop of Constantinople, adjudged the Title of Universal to the Roman Bishop alone; to whom it had been given in a national Council of 
a Act. 11.  Constantinople under Menas, seventy years before; and in the 
b Act. 3.  Council of Chalcedon, one of the four fi●…st General Synods, more than two hundred years past.  
Therefore not only the Title, which was the precise question, but also the prima●…y of jurisdiction, and universal Pastorship, whereof there was no question at all, began under Phocas, and so was a Novelty, according to our Saviour's words: 'Twas not so from the beginning. A very robustious Demonstration.  
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 show the Contrary.  
40. 'Tis farther confirmed by the abuse offered to Baronius, whose words are partly altered, partly concealed. His words rightly quoted are these: Phocas therefore incensed against Cyriacus, enacted by an Imperial Edict, that such a Title (of universal Bishop) did become the Roman Church alone, and that it agreed only to the Roman Bishop to be styled Universal, and not to the Bishop of Constantinople. And why, but because the Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter's Successor, was known to be the supreme Pastor of all Churches?  
41. The words quite concealed, clearly showing Baronius his judgement, are these: What then did Phocas by his Edict confer upon the Roman Church? Nothing, but that by his sentence he declared the Title of Universal 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 always 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, it being evident, that Phocas did not first confer even the Title in question, much less the Jurisdiction: but only declare that of right it belonged to the Popes of Rome: who notwithstanding never used it, as the Bishops of Constantinople presumed to do.   

The second Demonstration.  
Page 17.  
42. Looking back to the beginning, we find that the Wall of God's 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 men's Names are written, be equal in every respect.  
Therefore the twelve Apostles, signified by those twelve foundations, were all equal in every respect.  
Nay more, the ancient Prophets upon this account were all equal every way, as well amongst themselves, (though some were Kings and Governors 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 God's City? Other foundation can no man lay, then that that is laid, which is jesus Christ 2 Cor. 3.  
Therefore S. Peter was only equal to the other Apostles, and could in no respect have a primacy over them, though you yourself 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 add 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 juda had not the Sceptre, or primacy of Civil power over the rest, but was equal 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 men's names written upon them, are equal in every respect.  
Therefore the twelve Tribes of Israel signified by those twelve Gates and Angels, were equal in every respect. 
a See a farther answer in the acute Author of Schism disarmed. 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 does amiss, and so speaks to him in the presence of others, out of pure charity and zeal of the common good, is at least his equal, if not superior.  
But S. Paul did so to S. Peter, Galat. 2. 11, 12, 13, 14.  
Therefore he was at least his equal, if not his superior.  
44. Blind S. Cyprian, that saw not this light of 
Epist. 71. S. Augustin lib. 2. cont. Donatistas' citys 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 hears; to the end, that whilst the Master reproved holds his peace, the Scholars 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 benign godliness of humility, and thereby gave a more rare example to posterity, if at any time they do amiss, to be content to be corrected by their juniors; then Paul gave, to be confidently bold; even Inferiors to resist their betters for defending the truth of the Gospel: brotherly charity always 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 Superiors in regard of their Subjects: the other of Charity, which concerns all men. For as we are obliged to love our Neighbours: so charity binds us in due circumstances to use fraternal correction to all; even Superiors: As jethro did to Moses, joab 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 censured S. Paul of sauciness and 
Apud S. August. Ep. 11.  pride, for checking S. Peter his Superior.   

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 jerusalem to communicate his Gospel with the chief Apostles, Peter, james and john; because some were apt to mistrust his Doctrine, as not having lived with Christ, nor conferred with the Apostles, Scholars 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 go 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 God's appointment, to confer his Doctrine, that he may not Preach in vain; is either inferior to the party sent, and received, or at most his equal.  
But S. Peter did so receive S. Paul.  
Therefore S. Peter was either inferior to Saint Paul, or at most his equal.  
And reason good, for S. Peter was one amongst the three prime Apostles sent to the jews, as Christ himself was, and S. Paul to the Gentiles, who though in regard of their number, they were to the jews 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. professed to the jews, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing you put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, Lo! we turn to the Gentiles. Otherwise S. Paul by calling Christ Minister Circumcisionis, and himself Doctor of the Gentiles, should according to you Mr. Pierce, signify some advantage of honour above Christ in the extent of his Diocese.  
48. To reinforce this demonstration you may add, that since fellowship argues equality, not only all Fellows of a College are equal 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 jesus Christ, 1 Cor. 9 much more than was S. Paul equal with S. Peter; was he not think ye? especially if we add to this, that S. Paul fourteen years before went up to jerusalem 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. chrysostom, He went to see him above others, because 
Homil. 87. in joan.  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 than 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 go 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 God's heritage, and fleece the flock of Chrtst.  
But S. Peter was never known to Lord it over God's 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 itself without proof: for if spiritual jurisdiction could stand without Lording and fleecing, S. Peter might be Head of the Church, though he did not Lord it over God's 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 Hierarchy 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 Curates, 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 confess, that for the good government of a national 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 Archbishop should be Primate over all, why not as meet, that for the keeping of the whole Universal Church, there should be one Archbishop over all? Harken to your Doctor Covell, sa●…ing to the Puritans: How can they think that equality would keep all the Pastors 
In his Examine against the Plea of the Innocent.  in the world in peace and unity, etc. For in all Societies, authority, which cannot be where all are equal, 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 of Rome governs all Bishops. And this Canonical 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: equal not only 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 only of the same merit in order to Priesthood, 
Ep. ad Evagrium. edit. Paris. 1533. come. 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 Successor in that Office.  
But S. Cyprian says the first, and S. Hierome the second.  
Therefore S. Peter was not Head of the Church, nor the Bishop of Rome his Successor 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 adds immediately to the very words above cited, and you very unhandsomely, not to say maliciously, conceal. 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, & vunitatis 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 Chair. And in the same Treatise: He that forsakes the Chair of Peter, upon which the Church is founded, does he trust that he is in the Church? 
a Vide Epist. 73.  Secondly from his 71. Epistle: Peter, whom our Lord chose first, and upon whom he built his Church, etc. 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 says, 
b As lib. 1. ep. 3. & l. 4. ep. 9 etc.  that the Church is founded upon S. Peter. 
c Centur. 3. Columna 84.  Fourthly from that the same Centurists 
d 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 jovinian: Inter duodecim unus eligitur, ut Capite constituto, Schismatis tolleretur occasio. Amongst the twelve one is chosen, that a Head being established, the occasion of Schism might be taken away. Which place of S. Hierome is alleged by Doctor Covell above cited page 107. to prove the necessity of one Head, for preventing Schisms and Dissensions 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, etc. I am joined in communion with your Blessedness, that is to Peter's Chair: 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 Diocese, 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 custom held through Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis that the Bishop of Alexandria have power over those Provinces, because that also with the Bishop of Rome, this is usual or customary: that is, to allow that power in the Bishop of Alexandria: for if this be not the sense, how could the Judges in the Council of Chalcedon infer out of this Canon, Omnem primatum, all primacy in the See of Rome? as we shall presently see. The fifth Canon of the second General Council runs thus: The Bishop of Constantinople must have the honour of Primacy after the Bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome. Do 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 General, Act. 16. the Judges having heard the recital 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 Archbishop of old Rome. What Canons, I pray, but those of the two first General Councils, you have alleged? 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 General Council, expressly adds, that he should have power to order the Metropolitans in the Dioceses of the East: that the Bishops chosen by the Clergy, of whatsoever Metropolis of the East, be presented to the Archbishop 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 General Councils, endeavour to conclude a right in the Bishop of Constantinople to admit of appeals from all the East. Wherefore your exposition out of justellus 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 always 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 privileges to the See of old Rome, because it was the Imperial City: Their meaning is not, that the City's greatness was the immediate cause of the Primacy: For that was the being S. Peter's Successor, as appears by the Title they gave S. Leo's Epistle in their Speech to the Emperor, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the speech of Peter's Chair: and having read that Epistle, thus acclaymed, Peter spoke by the mouth of Leo: And in their relation given to Saint Leo, speaking of Dioscorus, who had dared to excommunicate the Pope in a false Council, called without the Pope's consent, which never was lawful: He showed, 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 fixed 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 Emperors Theodosius, and Valentinian in a Law made six years before the Council of Chalcedon, comprehend all the causes: saying, that three things established the See Apostolic: S. Peter's merit, who is Prince of the Apostolical College, the dignity of the City, and Synodical authority: that is, Divine, Ecclesiastical, and Civil right.  
52. The strict injunction you mention of the second General 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 Patriarches, and omitting the Roman, they showed 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 privileges with the Church of Rome. For besides the nullity of that surreptitious Canon, evidently proved by Cardinal Peròn to in his reply to K. james, & wholly rejected by S. Leo, those Fathers merely renewed the fifth Decree of the second General Council, which, as we have seen above, intended only 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 suppress, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as being the 
In Concil. Constanti●…op. 1. Can. 3.  second after the Roman. And Zonaras, though a Greek Schismatic, discoursing of the sense of these words, concludes thus: from hence it appears manifestly, that the preposition, after, signifies submission and inferiority. Those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, equal privileges, were afterwards foisted into the Decree by the practice of Anatolius, to increase his power. The Fathers of that Council never 
item Anal. Tomo 3. in Valent●…nia: jun. & The●…dos. fol. 31.  owned them: for when they besought Pope Leo to confirm their Canon, they mentioned to him no equal privileges, but only said, We have confirmed the Rule of the 150 Fathers assembled at Constantinople, that after your Apostolical 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 Patriarches, so the Bishop of Constantinople should have it next after him over all the Patriarches. justinian the Emperor, some seventy years after, gives the same sense to that Canon, saying, that as the holy Pope of old Rome is the first of all Prelacy, so the Archbishop of Constantinople, new Rome should have the second place after the See Apostolic of old Rome, and be preferred before all the other Sees. Novel. 131. and long after justinian the Emperor, Basilius the younger, and Eustathius Patriarch of Constantinople, consulting of a reunion with the Latins; desired, 
a 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 lawful for them to obtain with the consent of the Pope, that the Church of Constantinople might be called 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 ourselves 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 privileges?   

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 condemned it.  
Therefore he denied the Primacy of power to govern the whole Church.  
The Major doth so glitter, that it cannot be seen. For first, let the Title be never so true, may not a Bishop out of modesty lay it aside, but he must needs disown the power it signifies? were not the Apostles Masters of the world in regard of their Doctrine, and yet our Lord taught them not to affect that Title? Be not called Masters. Matth. 23. 10. Secondly, when a Title hath a double notion, and may for the literal 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 john 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 principality 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 Apostolic? In so much that the Protestants Friccius, Carion, Peter Martyr, Osiander, and the Centurists cited by Mr. Breerly in the Protestants Apology, show 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 Apostolic See is the head of all Churches. That the Bishop of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See. That S. Gregory challenged to himself power to command Arch-Bishops, to ordain or depose Bishops. This and much more is testified by the Protestants above cited: to which our Doctor Sanders adds many other texts: that all Bishops, if any fault be found in them. are subject to the See Apostolic: that she is the head of 
Libro 7. de ●…isibili Me●…archia num. 433. usque ad 541.  Faith, and of all the faithful members. That all those things are false that are taught contrary to the Doctrine of the Rom. ●…n Church. That to return from Schism to the Catholic 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 Apostolic.  
These and divers other Texts of S. Gregory's works so evidently convince his acknowledgement of the Pope's 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 perverseness of the Devil. To decline such a censure, Calvin chose rather to confess, 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 Apostolic, 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 Dioceses: 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 Catholic Church, than the Catholic 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 Catholic Church hath then no Head. Therefore, etc.  
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 Politic Bodies. Elective Princes, as the Germane Emperor, and the King of Polonia, be they not in Civil Government Heads of their Princedoms. If they de, the Princedom wants a Head till another be chosen. Is this a mystery? God governed his Church three hundred years without a General Council: may he not govern it a short space without a Pope? especially all other Bishops and inferior Pastors remaining still in full poss●…ssion of their authority over their several 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 Universal Church, or declared by a General Council, which is impossible. Otherwise in order to the Faithful, many Popes, no Pope. In the interim 'tis enough for them to stick to their known Doctrine, believing in general him to be Pope, who is Canonically chosen, without determining any in particular.  
But what if the Pope be heretical? hath not the Catholic 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 Dioceses? what if one amongst them should turn Arian, would not the crime lie upon the Diocese, 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. supreme head of the Church of England; If holding the Primacy he had fallen into Heresy, durst you have said that the glish Church had such a Head, as made her deserve to be beheaded? Do not you see whether this poisonous Doctrine leads?   

The tenth Demonstration.  
Page 21.  
55. Some Popes, even by the confession of Papists, have erred as private Doctors only, not as Universal Pastors of the Church, never defining heresy, or commanding heretical doctrine to be submitted unto, as to Divine truths.  
Therefore no Pope is Head of the Church.  
Nay, the most zealous and partial asserters of their Supreamacy, confess that Popes have been Heretics, and Heathens too: either by denying the Godhead of the Son, as Liberius; or lifting him above the other two Persons, as john the 22. or sacrificing to Idols, as Marcellinus; or being rejected by the Church for the crime of Heresy, as Anastasius the second. Therefore in the opinion of those zealous asserters of the Pope's Supreamacy, the Pope is not supreme Head of the Church. For to what end are those men's authorities alleged, if not to knock down the Pope's Headship with our own Clubs.  
56. Good God, what a heap of subtleties are here massed up, with much more craft, if not malice, than ingenuity? One only Pope subscribed to S. Athanasius' banishment, communicated outwardly with the Arians for fear of torments, but never subscribed to the Heresy itself; never taught, maintained, or defined it. Insomuch, that not only Soorates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, but also S. Athanasius himself in his two Apologies expressly say, he was no Heretic. Therefore Popes have denied the Divinity of Christ.  
One only Pope is without any ground accused by Stella, as holding the Son greater than the Father and the Holy Ghost: No other Writer in the world besides Stella ever charging him with such an error: no not Calvin himself, though he wanted not spleen enough to impose upon him most wrongfully the mortality of the Soul. Therefore Popes have lifted up the Son above the Father and the Holy Ghost.  
One only Pope, not for want of faith, but fea●…ing the cruel Emperor's 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 total Apostasy from Faith.  
One sole Pope was grievously slandered by the 
Eum integrū●…yncerumque in Catholica side permansiss●…, nullum est dubium. Baronius 497. in Spondano.  Schismatics, 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 Bishop's commemorated in the sac●…ed Mysteries. And these slanders once blown abroad by those Schismatics, were too inconsiderately, saith Baronius, registered in the Pope's lives. Therefore Popes have been rejected by the Church for heresy.  
Did ever Stella, Plat●…ina, or Onuphrius, say so? Do they infer out of the supposed fall of these few Popes amongst 234. others, that either the Popes were not supreme Governors of the Church, or that therefore the Roman Church erred in Faith? Do they not expressly assert the contrary? And that those Popes erred as private persons only, and not as Heads of the Church? Doth not Stella in the very same place add 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 err; 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 turned 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, persuading 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 you. Nay, your Doctor Boughen in his Answer to T. B. confesses, that when Arianisme prevailed ' at Rome, the Catholic 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 extol the constant Faith of his Country, for not communicating with the Arians, who were spread over many other parts of Europe. Otherwise, he saying expressly in the same Treatise, Episcopos Orientales stare sanos: that the Bishops of the East stood sound, would have expressly 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 published confessions of Popish writers touching the Papal usurpations and right of Kings (put together by Goldastus an heretic, proved 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 Supreme Authority of the Roman Bishop, cannot diminish the power thereof, but 
Epist. 89. similia habet. Epist. 83.  puffed up with the spirit of pride, plungeth himself headlong into Hell. What then? have these ten so well contrived Ratiocinations demonstrated nothing at all? yes Sir, they have demonstrated, that you are still guilty of Schism for disturbing the See Apostolicks quiet possession of Supremacy in England without a demonstration, that it was usurped. For'tis' evident from our solutions, that you have not demonstrated such an usurpation. And 'tis no less evident, that an authority of so high a concern for the peace and unity of the Church, so long a knowledged and obeyed in this Kingdom, as of Christ's institution, could not without open Schism be cast out, except it had been demonstratively proved an usurpation.    

Against the Infallibility of the Catholic or Roman Church.  

The eleventh Demonstration.  
Page 22.  
No Church can be infallible; to wit, as well incapable of error, as not erroneous, except it hath that infallibility, which is one of God's peculiar incommunicable Attributes. For where there is not omniscience, there must be ignorance in part, and where ignorance is, there may be error.  
But no Church can have that incommunicable Attribute.  
Therefore no Church can be infallible, much less the Roman.  
A high and massy discourse: As if there were no difference betwixt an intrinsical infallibility proper to the nature of an infinite Being, essentially identified with Omniscience, and an infallibilility extrinsecally communicated, relying upon the perpetual assistance of the Holy Ghost, promised by the word of God. Had Moses, and the Prophet's Gods incommunicable Attribute? were the Apostles Omniscient? And yet were they not infallible in what they preached, assisted by the spirit of God? was not S. Paul as well incapable of teaching the Church errors, as not erroneous, whilst 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 proof of Christ speaking in me, 2 Cor. 13, 3. Was not the humanity of Christ incapable of error and sin, as it was governed by his Divinity, and could not teach errors? and yet it was not identified with the increated Omniscience of God, nor with the incommunicable Attribute of infallibility. What mean some Protestant Doctors, when they grant the Universal Church cannot err in Fundamentals? Cannot God preserve from error as well in not-fundamentals taken in your sense, as Fundamentals? If so, that Church so preserved upon God's promise will be infallible in the sense intended by the Roman Church: and than what is become of your demonstration, drawn from the impossibility of the thing? Surely S. Cyprian had a better opinion of the Roman Church, when he said, Lib. 1. Epist. 3. The Romans are they, whose faith was praised by the mouth of the Apostle, and to whom misbelief can have no access. S. Jerome 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 means 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 error, 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, etc.  should say well, saith Luther, expressly against St. Austin's belief in his first Book against the Donanatists, chap. 7. who speaking of the rebaptisation of those that had been baptised by Heretics, he says, The obscurity of this question compelled men of great authority to stagger a long while, until that in a full Council of the whole world it was firmly decreed, what was most wholesomely to be held, all doubts removed. Which he could never have said, had he held the Church errable in her General Councils. Say what you please, all your certainty of Faith is finally resolved into the private spirit, though you cannot endure to be told so.   

The twelfth Demonstration.  
61. The Tenet of Infallibility upon earth cannot be true, if errors in Faith spring up in the Church.  
But Novatianisme was hatched at Rome: Donatism 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, etc. and yet the Apostles in their Council at jerusalem 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 do Heresies prove the Fallibility of General Councils, lawfully called, to beat them down? would not such a Principle argue the Fallibility of Christ, because his Doctrine was opposed by the Jews?  
63. Novatianisme though hatched at Rome, yet the Egg was laid in Africa, and this no Author denies. For Novatus after a Schism raised against St. Cyprian, coming to Rome, joined with Novatianus a Roman Priest, against Pope Cornelius; and both together sowed the heresy held first by Montanus and Tertullian, that such as were fallen should not be readmitted into the Church after repentance. This heresy 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 adds, that every where through all Provinces the Bishops met against that error. Finally, the first Council of Nice offered peace to the Novatians, if renouncing their heresy they would return to the Church. How then does this heresy, 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 heresy 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.  
65. The Arians, 'tis true, spread for a while by power and violence, but were condemned by the first Council of Nice, and by julius' Pope, in a Roman Council, and by the Council of Sardica in Thracia, and of Arimini in Italy, and in many other Provincial Councils. Neither did that heresy ever reach to the breast of Pope Liberius, as I have showed before. At Sirmium, 'tis true, being called thither after two years' 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 years upon earth in all carnal pleasures: of this opinion was Cerinthus and his followers: and this is likely to have been condemned with the heresy 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 Egypt. The others addicted those thousand years to chaste and spiritual delights: and of this thought were some of the ancient Fathers, but not the whole Church: For many, saith S. justin, who are of the pure and pious sense of Christians, do not acknowledge that 
Dialog. cu●… Tryphone judao.  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 john Priests, Auditors of the Apostles: A doctrine unknown, and rather fabulous, saith Ensebius; But for my part, I think he took the spiritual and mystical 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, appears to have been of a mean and less capable wit. However this Chillianisme, as it was never defined by any General Council, or particular Synod, or any Roman Bishop: So with Cornelius à Lapide upon the twentieth of the Apocalypse: I dare not say 'tis an Heresy, because I have neither clear Scripture, nor Decrees of Councils, by which it is condemned as Heretical. The same saith S. Hierome upon jeremy, lib. 4. Neither do 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 carnal reign.  
68 Communion of Infants was never held absolutely necessary by the whole Church. For the ancient Fathers unanimously taught that Baptism 
Homil. 13.  takes away all sin. Baptism, saith S. Basil, is the the death of sin, the regeneration of the Soul, the reconciliation of the Kingdom 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 Baptism gives salvation and life everlasting. Hold most firmly, saith S. Fulgentius, that holy Baptism sufficeth little ones to salvation, as long as their age is not capable of reason. Where it is to be noted, that when Infant-Communion was in use: they were first Baptised, 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 Author 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 Baptism; affirming exexpressely 
De peccatorum menti●… & Remissione lib. 〈◊〉. cap. 2. & de Perseverantia sanctorum cap. 12.  that Children when they die are either saved by Baptism, or damned for Original sin. Hoc Catholica fides novit: This Catholic Faith knoweth. And again in his 59 Epistle, Infants by the Sacrament of Christian grace without doubt appertain to life everlasting and the Kingdom 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 implicitly containedin Baptism; For by Baptism the Child is inserted into the mystical Body of Christ, which mystical Body is represented by the holy Eucharist. Now because Christ our Saviour said, that without the eating of his flesh life is not to be had: hence the Saint proves against the Pelagians th●… absolute necessity of Baptism, not only to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, as they granted, but also to life everlasting, which they denied. For without Baptism none can eat Christ's 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 Blood of Christ, when in Baptism he is made a member of Christ; or that he is estranged from the Communion of that bread, although before he eats that bread and drinks that Cup, he departs this life in the union of Christ's 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 Baptism itself is the eating of Christ's Body. Neither does Maldonat say, that Infant-communion was either believed necessary, or practised by the whole Church: but only that S. Austin held it as of Faith, and as the Tenet of the whole Church. Nor does Maldonat deny that this very thought concerning Faith and the whole Church, was St. Austin's private opinion.  
71. Whence it follows, that albeit the practice in some parts of the Church might have lasted six hundred years, 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 rebaptisation of Heretics an Apostolical Tradition, and, as S. Austin says, would 
Lib. 2. co●…▪ Donatist. cap. 4.  have submitted to a General 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 its definition: the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may be allowed to be as old as the Lateran Council, held under Pope Innocent the third, somewhat more than four hundred years past.  
But according to you, if ye be serious and do not trifle, it's age may be measured by the first date of its definition.  
Therefore the doctrine of Transubstantiation is but somewhat more than four hundred years old, and was not so from the beginning.  
73. Sir, I suppose you could not choose but eve●… feel with your hands the lightness of this Argument, together with the train of bad consequences it draws after it. For hence must necessarily follow, that no point of Faith can be elder in itself, than 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, than the four first General Councils, by which they were first respectively defined above 300. years 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 expressly the fruit of the Vine. So was Eve called Adam's Bone, which then she was not, but had been: & Aaron's Rod, whilst it was a Serpent, still called a Rod: And Angels called 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 only, or necessarily, but whatsoever grows of the Vine, the Flowers, the Leaves, the Grapes, etc. Pag. 9 in the Margin you wrong Scotus, as if he held Transubstantiation not a point of Faith before the Lateran Council, whereas he only says, (speaking of the like Definitions) that it was not explicitly 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 Authors, and Auditors?   

The fourteenth Demonstration.  
Making the Romanists ashamed 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 itself: then all those that join with them in the belief of the same Mystery, are made ashamed 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 itself.  
Therefore all that join with them in the belief of the same mystery, as all Romanists do, are made ashamed of their Doctrine.  
76. Surely this Demonstration will shame none but the owner of it. A Scholar and not blush to argue so? How many Mysteries do Christians believe, and yet the greatest Divines do 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 itself, because those two learned Schools 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 Christ's being in the Sacrament, as you would make your Auditors believe. They both agree that Christ is there definitively, all in all, and all in every part of the sacred Host: which way of existing S. Thomas calls Sacramental: Their difference is in a philosophical Question, whether a Body can be in two places at once circumscriptively: that is, with all it's local dimensions, answering to the extensive parts of the place. S. Thomas holds it cannot, as implying a division of the body from itself. 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: Add to this, saith he, that if a body cannot be locally in two places, truly neither Sacramentally. What is here to shame the Catholics? 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 yourself.  
78. You seem likewise to be unversed 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, Christ's 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 Paralogism 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 ago 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 proof! That in the time of Nicholas the second, Transubstantiation was not hammered out, as it is now believed, we easily grant: because it is as ancient as the time of Christ's last Supper. But that Pope Nicholas did not understand the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, is a mere forgery indeed, without a syllable of proof. Berengarius was held an Heretic for denying, not the word, but what is signified by Transubstantiation: & in that quality written against by the prime Divines of 
Lanfrank, Adelman●…us, etc.  those days: 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 joachim Camerarius in his Book Entitled 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 until the time of Berengarius, and the ●…ear of Christ, 1050  
80. This Berengarius twice recanted his error: 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 Blood 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 Blood 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 jesu Christi Domini nostri, & post Consecrationem esse verum Corpus Christi quod natum est de Virgin, etc. I Berengarius do believe with my heart, and onfesse with my mouth, that the Bread and Wine, that are put upon the Altar, by the Mystery of the holy prayer, & the words of our Redeemer, are substantially converted into the true, proper, and vivifying Flesh and Blood of jesus Christ our Lord, and that after Consecration are the true Body of Christ, that was borne of the Virgin.  
82. Note that he says, the Bread and Wine are substantially converted into the true Body and Blood of Christ: which Conversion, the Council of Lateran 136. years after expressed by the word Transubstantiation. So false it is, that the Doctrine itself 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 Patriarches of Constantinople and jerusalem in person; the two of Alexandria and Antioch by their Substitutes; the first being hindered by sickness, the second by the Turk; 70. Metropolitans, or Primates; 400. Bishops; 800. Abbots & Priors; The Ambassadors of the two Emperors 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 published, 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 mere figure of Christ's Body and Blood, as Protestants do, is a most desperate fancy.  
84. Truly the ancient Father's 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, confess 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 than the Council of Lateran. There you shall read, that Gregory the great, and Austin brought into England Transubstantiation: that chrysostom 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 Father's import some real 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 intrinsical imp●…ession upon Christ's Body, but only an extrinsecall denomination derived from the outward forms of Bread, as S. chrysostom 
Homil. 60. ad I'opulum.  expressed 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 appeared 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 do, 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 extremely of one Leg: for our Lord by those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Drink you all of it, intended only that all the twelve Apostles then present should drink of that individual Cup he had blessed, without pouring in, and consecrating more Wine. This intention of Christ is manifest: for he said not only, drink you all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, but having consecrated the Cup, he said, Drink ye all, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, of it. Secondly out of St. Mark, who adds, and they all drank of it. Could all present and future Christians drink of that individual Cup? Thirdly out of St. Luke; Take this, divide it amongst yourselves: 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 kinds with their own hands, as Priests do?  
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 adds presently, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgement to himself, not discerning our Lord's 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 Christ's living Body. It was therefore so from the beginning. For Christ our Lord, joan. 6. five times promiseth life everlasting to the Bread of life, not mentioning the Cup in those Texts. Himself according to divers 
a 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 etc.  Fathers gave the Sacrament in one kind to the two Disciples in Emaus. The 
b Luke 24. 30. Acts 2. 42. 46. item 20. 7. 11.  Apostles practised 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. 
c Euseb. l. 6. cap. 43.  S. Ambrose dying received in 
d Paulinus in vita ejus.  one kind. The Eremits 
e S. Basilius ad Caesaream P●…tritiam  carried the Sacrament to the Desert in clean Corporals, or Linen called Dominicalia, there to receive it fasting: & the Christians of Egypt kept it in their Houses. Satyrus, Saint 
f S. Ambr. Serm. de abitu fratris. 6. Serm. de Lapsis 6. Concil. Tolet. 11. ●…n. 11.  Ambrose his Brother took an Host with him in a Box about his neck, to receive it at Sea. To sucking Children the Cup was only given in S. 
g Concil. Laodic. Can. 49.  Cyprian's days. And 
h Concil. Trul. C●…n. 52.  in the Greek Church they were wont to consecrate the Eucharist only upon saturdays and Sundays, to be received the other days in the week during Lent. Now in those hot Countries 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 Laws of Charles the great, 800. years ago: Presbyter semper Eucharistiam 
Lib. 1. Legum, c. 160.  habeat paratam, etc. Let the Priest always 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 kind, and it was ever thought sufficient to salvation, that is, a whole Sacrament, not a Half-Communion, as you term it: You must then either demonstrate out of Scripture, the Church's restraint to these alone, or confess 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 jews 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 Saviour's time Syriack was, and had been 14. Generations before, the mother tongue of the jews, 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. Jerome says, 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, jewry and Capadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Phamphilia, 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 jews in Hebrew, or in Greek, & not Syriack, their vulgar tongue: nor is it known that ever the old Testament was by order of the jewish Church turned 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 Germane 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 Latin were not the vulgar tongues? And was it then translated by order of the Churches into Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, 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 Laity with leave of their Pastors; who are to judge into whose hands 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 Psalms) was under Henry the 8th. translated into English out of Latin, so many mad Sects would never have risen in it.    

Against public 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 public Prayers in a tongue unknown to the common people, is scandalously opposite to the plain sense of Scripture, 1 Cor. 14.  
Therefore the use of public Prayers in a tongue unknown to the Common people was not from the beginning.  
93. The Minor is undeniable, because you as●…rt it; but not a word of proof: 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, speaks of tongues in the public service, and administration of Sacraments proper to Pastors; 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 days. 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 Public 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 learned by industry, and not of Tongues divinely inspired, which neither the Pastors 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, if he understood the Tongues? for so he might of himself interpret by the help of his natural 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, remains fruitless. Now that the Apostle did not wholly dislike the speaking of unknown Tongues in the Church, but only prefer the gift of Prophecy (to wit of expounding hard points of Religion) before it; he co●…cludes thus: Therefore brethren be earnest to prophesy, 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 Latin, as appears by the ancient Liturgies: Hebrew amongst the Jews, though not understood by the common people: Greek in all the Churches of the East, where several 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, Brittany, Germany, Polonia, etc. But when Greek and Latin grew to be un-vulgar in the Nations where they were first natural; who, where, by what Churches order were the Liturgies translated into vulgar Tongues? read but the modest answer; or Epistle to the boisterous Author of the Animadversions upon 
Pag. 98.  FIAT LUX, and there you shall find what cyril, Archbishop of Trapesond a Grecian, answered Dr. Cousins at Paris, upon enquiry into the matter: to wit; that all the Liturgies, both those of S. Basil, S. chrysostom, and S. Gregory Nazianzen were ever kept in the Learned Greek, differing from the vulgar Language: and that Mass, 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 Schisms and Heresies, translated the Greek Liturgy into Ethiopian, Armenian, and some ●…ew other popular Tongues; but most of those having by length of time outlived the knowledge of the common people, we may truly aver, that in our days all the Churches in Christendom, except some few inconsiderable in regard of the rest, have the public 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 confess, that 
a 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, judaei 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 only 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 jews in public 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 publicly said, and the Koran, read in Arabic (which they think would be profaned, if translated into any other Tongue) even where the Arabic 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 public Service.  
99 I know no Nation of this age, where public Service in a vulgar Tongue was ever brought in by the Pope's approbation, as you say. In China there are two Languages, one for the Learned, and another for the generality. The Pope only granted that Mass ●…e said in the Language of the 
P●…lus Si●…tus.  Learned, because Latin sounds very harshly in that Nations ears. 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 says only, that it seemed not expedient to the Fathers, that 
Sect. 22. cap. 〈◊〉.  the Mass 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 public 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 only that every private Christian prays 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 days of Officiating, or sacrificing in the Temple or Tabernacle: though those Oblations were but beggarly Elements, Shadows, 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 dreadful Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, may have Wives: and the contrary was not from the beginning. To corroborate this proof are cited in your Margin, Thuanus, a French Lawyer, and as it appears by the whole thread of his History, little better than a Huguenot, Bishop Hall, a violent Protestant against Catholics, and Zonaras a Greek Schismatic. 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 chaste.  
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 Soldiers to God, but Bi●…hops and Priests, as Timothy was, to whom St. Paul says, No man being a Soldier to God, entangleth himself in the affairs of this life, that he may please him, who hath chosen him to be a Soldier. What affairs more secular than Wife and Children? who more entangled than Ministers, that, of their Benefices enjoyable only 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, etc. 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 expressed of living upon his Trade, to burden no body, and by the interpretation of Greek and Latin Fathers; who living so near the Apostles time, are rather to be credited then Luther and his Brood pleading for Wives. Why do you against the sense of antiquity turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 into a Wife, the word, especial 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. chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact, Tertullian, S. Ambrose, S. Jerome, 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 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 blameless, the Husband of one Wife. In which words, there is neither command nor counsel to have or use a Wife. Otherwise no man wifeless could be made Bishop, without disobeying the Apostles command, or counsel. Yet the words by their tenor sound a precept; but of what? that a Bishop may be a husband of one wife? that's a permission never dreamt 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; than it follows, that when S. Paul, 1 Tim. 5. 9 advices 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 jews or Gentiles. The true sense therefore is, that a Bishop must not be bigamus, or have had more than 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.  
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 Gnostics, Manicheans, and other heretics, forbid all men both Clergy and Laity 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 Authors, 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 suspicion: 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 lawfulness in the whole world.    

Against Divorce for other causes than 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 asked) 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 hundred-fold 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 scandalise us, that is, according to S. Hierome, persons never so dear, as Wives, etc. should tempt us very dangerously against faith, or the Law of God, we were bid to pull it out, and cast it from us, Mat. 5. 29.  
104. Does Maldonat aver such a separation, though not for Adultery, to be against the Law of Christ? Sir, you most unconscionably slander Maldonat and abuse your Auditors, upon persuasion, 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, heresy, or tempting to any grievous sin, in cap. 5. Matth. vers. 32. which you also quote, and so could not miss of seeing your imposture. In the text you cite out of Maldonat, he speaks 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 conjugal tye, not the knot itself, which consists in the mutual right of each party to the other; not in the actual exercise of that right, which may be hindered many ways. Else, if upon business the husband be long absent in a foreign Country, he dissolves the bond of wedlock, which to assert, is ridiculous.  
106. But now, good Doctor, you little think, that throwing stones at random 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 than fornication? The first is, in case the wife be froward, refusing conjugal right; Si non vult uxor, veniat ancilla, etc. 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 persuade the wife, or the wife the husband to any sin. The third, if a rich woman marry a poor man, and her friends disapprove the match. The fourth, if the wife brawl and scold, and will not live peaceably, in 1 Cor. 7. Ann. 1554. & lib. de causis Matrim. Ann. 1530.  
107. Calvin in his Institutions hugs 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 month's 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 public Crier, and 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 styles the most faithful Doctor of Christ's Church: The whole University of Cambridge, A Man most holy, and truly Divine: Doctor Whitgift, A Reverend, Learned, painful, and sound Father: And Sr. john Cheek, Quo majorem vix universus Orbis caperet: greater then whom the universal world scarce held.  
109. Hic vir, hic est. This is the man that professedly argues against your exposition of Christ's words: to wit, that as there is at this day like hardness of heart: so the distressed Wives ought to be relieved no less now, then in times past: that the Magistrate now hath no less authority in this matter then Moses 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 Nuptial 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, etc. in which Divorce with freedom to remarry may be lawful, 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 precontracts, where no consummation was; and in case either party turns Catholic. However, what more common in the whole Island then Divorce from Bed and Board allowed in certain Cases besides Fornication, by the Canons of your Church? Where then is the only Council of Trents heinous offence?  
111. By these therefore, and many more corruptions in point of practice, and doctrine too, which were no deviations from what had been from the beginning, but wrongfully imposed upon the whole Church united with their Head the Roman Bishop, and never confessed by the learned'st, or unlearned'st Sons of the same Church in their public Writings, the sensual part of the Christian world was moved to look for a deformation.  
112. What if Stapleton laments the vices of some Popes, who sat upon the Chair of Peter, as the Scribes and Pharisees upon the Chair of Moses: 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 Chair 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 Chair of wholesome Doctrine: in which Chair even ill men are enforced to speak good things.  
113. Now because page 31. you ingenuously confess, that corruption of manners in point of practice cannot justify a separation from the Roman Church, (and so your Sermon is to no other purpose stuffed with such pretended corruptions, but to spit your venom 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 over what you say of that kind in the same page, and come to your Demonstrations from corruption of Doctrine, to evince the lawfulness of your Separation. But first I must note, that this objecting humour Tertullian observed in the Heretics of his days, and stopped their mouths with telling them, they were Vitia conversationis, non praedicationis, 
Lib. de prescript.  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 Heretic Petilian: Why dost thou call the See Apostolic the Chair of Pestilence, etc.  
If we listed to retort, what a large field opens itself in the lives of your Patriarches, 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 entrenching on fundamentals, have been showed in the former Demonstrations, than the Schism is the Roman Church's, who gave the cause of Separation, not the Protestants, who did but separate when the cause was given.  
But the said corruptions of Doctrine have been showed in the former Demonstrations.  
Therefore the Schism is the Roman Church's, etc.  
115. No question, if those corruptions of Doctrine have been really demonstrated, in which appears not the least glimpse of evidence, no nor of probability neither: much less concerning corruptions entrenching upon fundamentals, whereof you spoke not a word before, nor ever told us which they were.  
116. Why may not all heretics in the world by this example pretend to let out Schism, and not to introduce it? Why not stand to it, as you here do, 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 Archbishop Laud joins with S. Austin, There can be no just cause to make a Schism 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 Battle, forsaken of all: Praefat, in 1 Tom. & contra Regem Angliae. And for this we have the express 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 Catholic Church, etc. cap. 5. pag. 274. So Calvin: it is absurd, that since we have been forced to divide ourselves from all the world, we should now in our very beginnings disagree amongst ourselves. 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. years the Popish Heresy spread itself over the whole world, and for many hundred years an universal Apostasy overspread the face of the whole earth. What else I pray? For if every point of Faith in which we differ from Protestants, as Mass, praying to Saints, use of Images, etc. be Heresy and Apostasy; all the Churches in the world besides Protestants were both Heretics 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 disclaim from it, and seek with Doctor Usher, the first English broacher of this new Heresy, in his Sermon at Wansted before King james An. 1624. to hook in, and matriculate in your Protestant Church the Greeks, Abyssines, Egyptians, jacobits, though differing never so much amongst themselves, and from you, and holding Heresies expressly 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 gratify 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 greatness of the matter revealed, then in denying God's veracity, equally engaged in points no●… fundamental.  
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 Doctor Whitaker subscribes, lib. 3. cont. Dureum Sect. 3. He goe●… from the Gospel, who says 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 public 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 prevail. Neither did the Church thrust you out, as you say, but as Saint john fitly terms it, ex nobis exierunt: You went out from us by your wilful errors. Haeretici in semetipsos sententiam dicunt, suo arbitrio ab Ecclesia recedendo, saith Saint Hierome, In Epist. ad Tit. cap. 3. Heretics 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 General Councils departed from the Arians, Macedonians, Nestorians and Eutychians by their hostilities and anathemas, and not rather as Saint 
●…aenas quas meruerunt pependerunt ut à nobis non ejecti, ultrò se ejecerint, & de Ecclesia se expellerent. ep. 40.  Cyprian says of other Heretics: 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 confess, you were your own selfe-Devils, and 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 expelled. The excommunication was the punishment, not the crime. You were once under the spiritual government of the Roman Church, believed her Doctrine, avowed her practices. Of your own private 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or election, you renounced her authority, disbelieved her Doctrine, cast out her practices. Behold Schism at your door: that is, a voluntary recession from the former Authority, Faith, and Discipline of the Church, for nine hundred years acknowledged in the Land. The anathema following was both just, as thundering 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 answered, Anno Domini 1076. 1077. showing out of approved Authors of the same age, that William Bishop of Mastrecht, the chief stickler in that Schismatical Council at Worms, died a while after in despair, roaring out that he was damned for adhering to Henry the King against Pope Gregory: and that the rest of those Schismatical Bishops upon repentance, both writ to the Pope for pardon, and went themselves after the King into Italy, to be absolved from their Schism. He adds, that after the Pope had absolved the King, he said Mass, and before Communion taking the sacred Host 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 Schismatics, that if he were innocent, he might be freed from all suspicion: if guilty, be suddenly struck dead upon the place. That then the Pope received very confidently half the holy Host: and after the People's loud congratulation of his innocency, he turned to the King, inviting him to receive the other half of the Host, as a Canonical clearing himself from the crimes objected also against him: but that the King pretending an excuse, declined the trial. But if all were true that you cite out of Goldastus, whom Gretser charges with three hundred lies, 'twould only prove the misgovernment of one Pope, and nothing at all against the Roman Church, or Supreamacy of Saint Peter's Chair.  
122. In the last part of your work, where you should have proved the power of particular Nations to reform the Church in matters of Faith, or alter what is ordered by the universal 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 soothe your Auditors, you rake out of the Channel of sixteen hundred years a few examples in matter of fact, wherein Princes either entrenching upon the immunities of the Church, or asserting a pretended right, have sometimes clashed ●…ith the Roman Bishops, or meddled de facto, in Church affairs; but have they therefore in their several Kingdoms 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 sat 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 spiritual government of the Church? Have they challenged as born and inbred to their Crowns, Supreme power in all causes both Spiritual and Civil? Did they part from the Pope, the Papacy, the Roman Church, and all ancient Christian Churches in the world, or ever made Laws to reverse the Decrees of General Councils in matters of Faith, and not upon that very score been accounted Heretics? 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 compiled a nefandissimis hominibus, by most wicked men, saith Spondanus. And that unhappy Emperor, by meddling too much against his own rule, in Ecclesiastical affairs, ruined his Empire, fell into open Heresy, persecuted Orthodox Bishops, and died suddenly. Yet Baronius and others very probably judge, that his Laws concerning the Church were drawn up by Epiphanius and Menas, Patriarches of Constantinople, but published in the Emperor's name for the better observance. For first he often professeth, that in Ecclesiastical affairs he decreed nothing, but according to the holy Canons. Secondly, john the second, Pope, in a Letter to him confirms those Laws, as being informed by two Bishops, Hypathius and Demetrius, his Legates, that they were made by the consent of Bishops, in conformity to the See Apostolic, and Decre●… of the Fathers. Thirdly because the Emperou●… in the Code, Tit. 1. lege 8. says, he will 〈◊〉 suffer any thing to pass, concerning the affairs of the Church, which shall not be referred 〈◊〉 his Blessedness (the Pope) because he is He●… of all the holy Prelates. Zeno was a profess'●… Eutychian, who put out a profession of Faith called Henoticon, in which embracing the Fai●… of the three first General Councils, he left out the Council of Chalcedon. He was in fine bu●…ied alive.  
124. Charles the Great's respect to the See Apostolic 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 Laws 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.  Tom, he says, 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 Apostolic, and the Council of Bishops, he forbid Churchmen to bear Arms: there, Ordering that according to the Council of Nice, suits arising between the Clergy and the Laity, be decided in Provincial Councils. He adds; Yet without prejudice of 
Page 134.  the Roman Church; to whom in all causes reverence aught to be kept. Constantine the Great openly professed, that he could not judge of Bishops. 
Ru●…n. l. 1. Hist. cap. 2. Concil. Nic.  The designs of the two late Emperors 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 Catholic House of Austria had the least thought of reforming the Church in points of Faith, by their own authority. However, they might perhaps by the advice of learned men, propose to the Pope what they thought fit in present circumstances for quieting the Empire. Of twenty Kings of juda some were severely punished for intermeddling 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 jewish 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 Schism, Page 36. and the pages following.  
125. In a word, Sir, by the whole rhapsody of your Marginal Transcripts, you show 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, dissolved your Church.  
Therefore they had right to do it.  
If you abjure this consequence, to what end such a crowd in the margin, quoting Histories of what was done, but proving nothing of the right and power to do it?  
126. Do the examples of some few secular Princes, unduly handling Church affairs, or actually opposing some exercise of the Pope's power, not the power itself, 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 herself, 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 Emperor? And the renowned Doctor S. Ambrose to Valentinian the younger, When have 
Lib. 2. ●…p. 13. See also the Epist. ad Marcelli●… Soror●….  you ever heard, most Clement Emperor, that Laymen did judge of Bishops in matters of Faith?  
128. 'Tis then an intolerable abuse to throng, and wrest Authors against their meaning, as if they favoured your unjustifiable Schism, 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 Pope's Supremacy.  
129. You need not put an (If) to the matter (If Sacrilege 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 blood, and cut her way through the very bowels of her mother, the Catholic Church, trampling over Crowns, profaning Churches, destroying Altars, violating Vows, and every where tearing the peace of Christianity. Read jerusalem and Babel, or the Image of both Churches, and you shall see this verified 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 Crowns and Sceptres. An hyperbole fetched from the horns of the Moon. When? where? what Crowns and Sceptres? At least the Roman Church made decrees with a non obstante to Apostolical Constitutions, not excepting even the Commandments of Christ You would persuade your Auditors, that by Apostolical Constitutions, the Pope means Constitutions made by the Apostles themselves: no more good Sir, then by Litterae Apostolicae are understood Letters penned by the Apostles. He means Constitutions made by Bishops of the S●… Apostolic, his predecessors, to whom he being equal in power, may upon occasion repeal their Decrees, as one Parliament can repeal the Acts of another. That, of the non exception of Christ's Commandments, is an empty fancy never dreamt of by the Pope. Was Christ's institution of the Eucharist under both kinds, a command to the Laity for both kinds? I have told you before, that your grand Patriarch Luther contradicts you.  
131. The Imperial Edict at Worms to set the Church in her wont posture, you call a cruel 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 wheel turned; Acts and Edicts were published 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 cruel, because they cross 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 Catholic Church of their days, 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 stains, the spots, the defilements stick upon you that left her. The Church is for ever tota 
Canticl. 4.  pulchra, all fair, and as her blessed Bridegroom tells her, Macula non est in te, there is no spot in thee.  
133. Now, Sir, by what hath hitherto been said, you may peradventure have seen, if passion, interest, or self-conceit do not blind you, that you neither spoke like a Preacher, nor demonstrated like a Scholar. 'Tis the office of a Preacher, to teach, move, and delight: to teach sacred verities: move to holiness of life, and delight with the fair descriptions of Christian duties and rewards. You taught indeed, but what? Falsities and Errors: you sent not a word to the heart, nor moved to aught but hatred of truth, and persecution of innocents': at least you endeavoured it. If you delighted any, 'twas very likely yourself, or such as love vanity, and seek lies, not your best and wisest Auditors.  
As to your demonstrative faculty, I appeal to any unpartial judge, whether a few scraps, or texts of Scripture, torn from their Context, taken upon the credit of the bare Letter, devested of circumstances, wracked, and wrested to the sense of every wild fancy, can ever aspire to rigorous evidence, the sole essence of demonstration. Much less then, a heap of quotations, some falsified, others of open enemies, or suspected friends, none at all precisely to the matter in question. Wherefore 'twas great weakness in you, if not worse than weakness, first to boast of demonstrations against us in your Sermon, and then to cover the shame of your non-performance, tell your Reader in the Dedicatory, that your marginal citations are the evidence and warrant of all the rest: And why? because forsooth, we cannot wit●… honour or safety contradict the public Confessions of our ablest Hyperaspistae. A pretty piece of Pedantry! Hyperaspistae! Are all your Demonstrations shrunk up to a few quotations of unclassical Authors? As if Polydore Virgil, and Erasmus, two Grammarians, Thuanus a Lawyer, Cassander a prohibited Author, and such like Riffe-Raffe, were the stoutest Champions of God's Church. But let us suppose they were indeed of the ablest Pens, does the Catholic Faith depend upon single men's opinions? Are Catholics obliged upon their honour to defend every particular Doctor's abberrations? Cannot we be safe in Conscience, if we stand immovably to the Scriptures expounded by the Church, and the Desinitions of General 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 pitiful case you are, by declaiming against the Novelties of the Roman Church, for the antiquity of whose Doctrines, a world of prime Protestant Writers apologise in the Protestants Apology. And truly, you that acknowledge no public infallible authority to decide matters of Faith ●…s we do, must rely much upon your private Doctors; of whom notwithstanding Mr. Chillingworth gives this censure in his ninth Motive to be a Catholic: The Protestant Cause is now, and ever hath been from the beginning maintained with gross falsifications and calumnies, whereof their prime Controversy-writers are notoriously, and in a high degree, guilty. In this judgement he still persevered even after his return to Protestants. For answering his own motives, he retracts it not, but says only that, Iliacoes 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 arepleased to call them? In what leaf, page, line or margin may we find him? you confess, pag. 31. that Corruptions in point of practice cannot justify 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 public 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 Catholic Author cited in your Sermon, clearly testifying, that the Pope's Supreamacy, the Church's Infallibility, Transubstantiation, Sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, Worship of Images, Invocation of Saints, and the lawfulness 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 mere Novelty, and not revealed from the beginning. This I am sure you can never do. But if you could, that man's, or men's authority 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 persuade any rational man, that the particular authority of one, or more private Doctors, how able soever, is a rigorous evidence, convincing the whole Roman Church of error in Faith, and such an evidence, as will in the eyes of God and Man justify 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 joannes. 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 june 1. r. Aug. 1.