alleadge for this that the books of Scripture like the Sun shew themselves to be such to him who hath the spirit But I would ask at such why the Rev. St. James Epistle the second of St. Peter and two of St. John did not shew themselves to be Scripture to Luther that spiritual man and the Protestants very first Apostle in the work of reformation in the end you say Let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be your rule and determiner or the dictats of self contradicting creatures Where you seem to rubbe on Catholicks But Sir this toucheth not them at all for they profess not to believe self-contradicting creatures but the unanimous consent of Councils and fathers or the Catholick Church known to be the only Church established by Christ and his Apostles and by the continued succession of Popes Bishops and Pastors the unity universality and gifts of miracles in all ages c. Which Christ hath called the ground and pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and against which he assureth us the gates of hell shal not prevail Math. 16. 18. and which he hath commanded us to hear otherwise to be holden as heathens and publicans Math. 18. 17. so you see that the written word maketh the Church our judge which we should obey and that ye who make so much of the written word do not believe it when ye do not obey her And here I remarke that Protestant Ministers and preachers deceive the people in that they ground their faith on the written word only and Roman Catholicks say they on humane tradition and their Churches authority which being composed of men is subject to errour Whereas the contrar is true for Roman Catholicks believe nothing which the written word believing both the tradition of the Church and Apostles doth not expresly warrand As for the Church what is more expresly said then what I have cited both to prove that we are bound to hear her Mat. 18. 18. and hold her authority infallible Math. 16. 18 and the house of God which is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. Neither doth it avail you to say this is not said of the Roman Church which is not the universal Church but a particular one a strumpet c. For we speak not of any particular Church when we say that the Church is infallible nor when we say the Roman the Catholick do we understand the particular Church at Rome But that Church which professeth constantly the Romans faith spread in saint Pauls time through all the world As we call yet the Roman Empire that which hath its seat in Vien of Austria Yea Protestants calling their own the reformed Church cannot say but we have one Church on earth which Christ commanded us to hear constantly And if the reformed Church be the true Church then she must have taken the place from that church which was deformed and had fallen into an errour and so deserved no more to be called the pillar and ground of truth or to be heard Moreover the very pillars of the Protestant Religion grant all the world to be in an errour before themselves and so against the express written Word must deny the infallibility of any Church whatever For Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 18. saith they made all the Kings and People of the earth drunk from the first to the last and Hospinian epist 41. saith Luthers separation was from all the world White in his defence chap. 37. saith Popery was a leprosie breeding so universally in the church that there was no visible company of men free from it Jewel in his Sermon on Luke 11. The whole world Princes and people were overwhelmed by ignorance and bound by oath to the Pope which if it be true that the Church in former ages did erre the reformed Church may erre that themselves do not deny Thence it followeth clearly that the Protestant Church is not the house of GOD called the pillar and ground of truth that she is not Christs Church against which the gates of hell shal not prevail that none are bound to hear her in matters of faith being subject to errour And so Protestants may well desire men to read the Scripture and believe what they found there but not urge any man to follow their doctrine but in so far as they find it conforme to Scripture which all Roman Catholicks protest they do not As for traditions are we not commanded to hold them in the clear written Word 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold the traditions which ye have learned whither by word or our epistle Protestants read documents but documents by word and traditions are the same thing on which place Chrysost saith It is evident that the Apostle did not deliver all things by writ but many things by word which are worthy of credit as wel as the other That is Christs word as well as his writ therefore we call them divine and Apostolical traditions Aug. lib. 5. de Trinit cap. 23. speaking of rebaptization The Apostle saith he commanded nothing of it but that customâ— which is believed to proceed from the Apostle is opposed against Cyprian in it as many things are which the whole Church holdeth and therefore are believed to be commanded by the Apostles though not written Aâ—d in the first age saint Dennis chap. 1. speaking of the Ecclesiastick hierarchy saith These our chief captains of Priestly function did deliver to us the chiefest and supersubstantial points partly in written partly in unwritten institutions Epiph. Haeres 61. is of the same minde we must hold traditions saith he for the Scripture hâ—th not all things and Tertullian de praescrip grounds his faith on the authority of the Church and what tradition I believe saith he I received from the present Church the present Church from the primitive that from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Here I hope you see you must either admit traditions as necessar in themselves and infallible in their authority or else disclaim both Scripture and Fathers All that Protestants can say either against the authority of the Church in general Councils or Apostolick traditions delivered by her is that all her decisions and traditions flow from men and so are not infallible But I answer neither were the Prophets Apostles Evangelists who penned the Scripture but men yet I hope their writtings are not fallible or subject to errour Because they were inspired directly and assisted by the Spirit of God The Fathers of the Church have to this day that promise verified to them Math. 28. 20. which was made as well to their successours as to themselves As for that some Protestante speak of an invisible Church composed of the Elect it is but a shift to delude the ignorant for as it is a Maxime of law Idem est non esse non apparere i. e. it is the same not to be and not to appear to be in the matter of any
Christians seeme to be nothing inferiour to Pagans in adoration of their Idols they make them with as much vanity and adore them with as much devotion From Scripture reason antiquity the confession and concession of adverâ—arieâ— it is sure and clear that Papists commit gross Idolatrie from which all good Christians should flee and make their escape Fifthly Ye mulitat the Sacrament of the § 5. Inst Supper contrar to the institution of Jesus Christ Matth. 26. 27. by with-holding the Cup from the people yea contrar to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul which be received from the Lord 1. Cor. 11. 25. where all the Communicants for the most were common Professours And albâ—iâ— our Lord command this to be done till he come again without any substantial alteration yet acrilegiously hoc non obstante as saith your Council of Constance ye with-hold the Câ—p â—rom the people and give them only the Bread The answer given to this is as followeth that Papists Reply Protestants in denying real Presence against the express words of Scripture This is my Body this is my Blood which is shed for you not only mutilat the Sacrament but take it clear away You give sufficient occasion to other Haereticks to say that Christ was no otherwise in the Crib or the Cross then ye say that he is in the Sacrament Scripture not being more clear for the one then the other So that denying the real presence ye destroy and ruine in a manner the incarnation and very ground of Christianity But Catholicks neither take it away from any nor give it mutilat Seeing they profess to give Christs glorious and living Body which is not seperat from the Blood and who so receiveth the one receiveth the other It was instituted not only for a Sacrament but for a sacrifice and so I grant that both kynds is requisit on the Altar but it should nor be given to every one otherwise the very Disciples of the Apostles had not known how it should be given For St. Dennis lib. de Ecclesia he asserteth the communion of Saints under one kind and St. Cyprian de Lapsis affirmeth the same of the sick Yea when Christians in the Primitive Church in the time of persecution did carry it home they did eat it but under one kind as Tertullain telleth lib. ad Uxorem More Christ himself did give it under one kind Luke 24. verse 30. as learned Fathers expound And the Apostles Acts 2. 42. and Acts 20. 7. who then can challenge a necessity of takâ—ng both kinds What St. Paul did then was lawful But what Christ and his Apostles did was no less which sheweth that the Church way follow either of these examples for good reasons as she thinketh â—iâ— Answer Your mutilation of the Sacrament is so clear that I admire how you can deny Prote ∣ stants Duply it did not the Council of Constance establish it hoc non obstante i. e. notwithstanding the institution c. Your citations for proof are mismarshalled For first you cite St. Dennis Cyprian Tertullian and then Scripture which sheweth your respects for the word But I cannot follow your Method in this Therefore know that the place Luke 24. v. 30. maketh nothing for you You say Fathers interpret it so but tell us not who they are so their interpretation is no more but your word but to shew that there be no mention in that place of the Sacrament First There was no cup at all there at least none is mentioned How then can you make it a Sacrament seeing you say to us that both kinds are necessar to a sacrifice and the Sacrament of the Supper is such say you Reconcile your self with your self if you can Here there was no Sacrifice Ergo no Sacrament Secondly It is sure this was an ordinary meal honoured with Christ his presence And for proof of this read Jansenius on these words There be some saith he who would take an argument from this place that it is lawful under one kind to give or receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which opinion is neither certain nor hath it any liklyhood of truth We are commanded to eat and drink at that table how we shal make eating eating and drinking too saith he can hardly be perceived That breaking of bread Acts. 2. 46. is interpreted to be eating their meat at home with gladness and singleness of heart Oecumenius Lyra Cajetan Carthusian say it is only meaned de communi victu non de Eucharistia So saith Lorinus also on the text Existimo hic de Eucharistia non esse sermonem sed de victu quotidiano vel convivio quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant So that place Acts 20. Lyra Carthusianus Cajetanus make it corporal refection only for they say the Disciples did conveen to eat with Paul before he went away and this is proved from the 11. v. But grant that place Acts 20. to be meaned of the Sacrament which is probably mantained by others it will no more follow that the Apostle did mutilat it there then that he preached without Prayer seeing the one is no more mentioned then the other Lorinus saith he could not make use of this text for Communion sub una specie against an adversary Your citation from St. Dennis maketh little for you For supposing his testimony to be â—eal the administration of it to Infants was contrary to the institution as well as under one kind We know Infants can drink before they can eat if any such thing was it is liker an administration to Infants then to discerning Christians It is true that they used to carry home the bread as you imply from Tertullian and Cyprian but did alwayes take the cup in praesentia But to put this out of doubt see Cassander Consult 22. Communion under one kind was not in the Church saith he till Aquinas his time anno 1265. And is it not against your light and reason then to argue so against the institution of Jesus Christ Our judgement about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament will be heard a none but it will be no ground for you to mutilat divine ordinances and clip treacherously the King of Saints his coin Sixthly Ye adde to the Sarament of Baptism § 6. Inst Matthew 3. 11. Here your Reply is that there is no command Papists Reply of Christ against it and if it be against Christs command because he hath not commanded it then it will follow that to call Baptism a Sacrament is against Christs command for neither hath he commanded this but by his Church which also commanded that Answer Here we have consitentem reum that 〈◊〉 Christ hath not commanded salt Prote ∣ stants Answer 〈◊〉 c. to be added in the administration of the Sacrament If it were a circumsâ—â—â—ce of the action the true Gospel Church 〈◊〉 command theâ—e But it is a material point of the work and by parity of reason ye may â—â—de â—â—lt spâ—â—tle oyle
lamentable that ye resolve your faith into humane testimony yea into that which is a very lie the Popes infallibility Were it not safer to make Scripture your ground then to build upon this sandie foundation and so river your selves incurably into errour Reply You runne out upon the Popes titles till in the end you make him a Demi-God Papist Reply imputing this as that by way of calumny to us Whereas all the Apostles were equal in power and dignity say you Matth. 20. 26. Where brist only forbiddeth spiritual Superiours to exercise that power with pride and tyrrany as did the Princes of the Gentiles but with humility and meekness as himself did Yet he there expresseth a greater and a lesser a superiour and inferiour amongst them as he saith more clearly in Luke 22. 26. he that is amongst you greatest let him be as the lesser and he who is chief as he who would serve them You cite Cyprian saying the Apostles were equal in dignity but suppresing the following words that Christ disposed the order of unity beginning with Peter whom in his epist ad Julianum he calleth both head and root of his Church All that followeth is that Moses spoke unadvisedly the Propher Elisha was ignorant of some things the Prophet Nathan made a retractation and St. Peter controuled the Heavenly vision To shew the Prophets and Apostles were not infallible save in penning the Scripture and so that the Pope is not such This is but a vain rapsodie to colour your own unsetled belief and contradiction in doctrine but nothing against us For suppose they had erred in these things that concerned not their doctrine all that you can inferre by comparison is that the Pope may erre in the like But as in penning the word of GOD they were infallible were they not also in preaching of it Or is not the high Bishop in all Councils as in the representative Church infallible in subscribing approving and confirming her decrees If the same decrees of the Council be infallible So that when you deny the Pope as head with the Bishops in general Councils as chief men to be infallible you deny the infallibility of the Church which I have sufficiently shewed reflecting on your sixth Answer Duply You labour to prove imparity amongst Prote ∣ stants Duply the Apostles from Luke 22. 26. and would have us to believe that the Papal Monarchy is there which is like the consequence of Mr. Vaux in his Catechism proving Image worship from the second Command For it is clear from verse 30. that albeit Kingly government was in the state yet it should not be so in the Church And that tyrranie is not the only thing forbidden here appeareth from this that somewhat is interdicted to Church-men which is granted to others but tyrrany is licensed to none Compare Matth. 20. 25. with Luke 22. 25. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the one place is expressed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the other Then it is not only inhibited here Beside the 20. Matth. which you call unclear is most clear he that will be greatest seeking to exalt himself shal be least for he shal be abased And be who is called greatest in Luke 22. is opposed to the youngest the word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the verse So by this opposition the greatest is the eldest or the greatest in gifts who should be humble self-denyed Ministers as if they were not so priviledged See 1. Peter 5. 3. To the place of Cyprian cited ye answer nothing Only you alleage that I suppress what followeth in stead of the citation you take your self to another place ad Julianum where he caâ—leth Peter first in order and this we do not deny But what will that make for his visible Monarchy For sure I am dic Ecclesiae Matth. 18. will resure that to the worldâ— end This is confirmed by Cyprians own practise for saith he Cyprian epist. 6. ad Clerum de cura Paup Ab initio Episcopatus mei nihil statui agere sine consensis cleri plebis See Cyprian epist 52. al Antonium and there you will perceive that your Pope is not like Cornelius of whom he speaketh for he was chosen Clericorum omnium testimonio plebis qui adfuit suffragio The faithful Martyr was much for peace unity and order and being infested with the Novatians he saith inde sunt nata schismata quod sacerdoti DEI non obtemperatur and telleth that by way of regrate But when he writteth to Cornelius he calleth him frater and no more Where then was your Popedom But ye equal your Pope to the Prophets and Apostles who penned the Scripture which is an odious comparison not worthy of an answer But forgetting your self you say the Pope in the Council then it is not the Pope alone of whose Monarchy we are here speaking and ridiculously you subjoyn if the Council be infallible what language is this The Pope is infallible in subscribing the decree of a counsel if the Council be infallible I say neither of them is infallible so your faith is resolved into a lie You would seem to hang the Popes infallibilitie on the sentence of a council if it be so the Pope sealing their decrees is infallible accidentally and relatively not in himself Others hang the infallibility of the Council on the Pope so a fallible council may consequently be infallible and if he ratifie the sentence of a Session it is all one with an Oecumenick-council All these crotcheâ—s are the pillars of your faith which are worm-eaten proppes to which I have spoken formerly in answer to your mentioned reflection 20. Ye make Christ as many Bodies aâ— their be administrations of the Supper § 20 Inst. by that your Transubstantiation Whereas Scripture giveth him but one natural Body which the Heaven must contain till the restitution of all things Act. 3. 21. And we believe in our Creed that he ascended to Heaven from thence he will come to judge quick and dead Ye break not the Bread contrar to the Scripture 1. Cor. 10. 16. Yea ye deny that Bread is there after the consecration contrar both to sense and reason And whereas Christ entered within the Vail not that he should offer himself often An unbloody sacrifice expiatory of sin under the Gospel is contrar to Scripture Heb. 9. 22. Heb. 9. 25. And by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10. 14. Ye make as many bodily offerings of Jesus Christ both for dead and living as there be Masses Reply You have many false accusations Papists Reply as formerly but no witness or warrand It is to be altogether ignorant of our terms to say that we give Jesus Christ as many Bodies as there be administrations of the Sacrament of the Supper For as we teach one and the same Body is given in every one of our administrations So we believe that he ascended to Heaven that the Heaven containeth
with naked persecuted truth in our Church as the Marques of Galeacia Mr. Smeton c. yea sundry have gone to Rome been converted by taking a distaste at their worship and way Fourthly Our run awayes runagads have to mourn before the Lord for their Apostacie seeing they cannot deny that the Ordinances in our Church have been by the Lords blessing instrumental to beget children to God This they must graunt unless they will say that all the reformed Church is unconverted which they have no confidence to averre Now how gross is it to spit in the face of her who did bear and foster them which I wish the Lord may lay to the consciences of such revolters But not to insist further I desire you in the fear of God to pause and consider well whether you are going to heaven or hell and by what rule you walk If the will of man or the revealed will of God have the power of your consciences or whether it be safer to take the scriptures way in which the Prophets and Apostles walked to heaven or the way of your own traditions and vaine inventions He who walketh according to the scripture rule peace and mercy shall be upon him and upon the Israell of God Reply In your last answer you say our Papists Reply pelf and policie is greater then yours both which I grant but glories in neither Yet if Ministers augmentations hold on they will shortly equal our pelf but not our Christian policit in employing it so well our glorious and goodly edifices of Churches Hospitals Monasteries dispersing and distributing their rents to pious uses But the thrusting down of Churches Hospitals Monasteries dispersing and dissipating their rents testifie your want of policy blind avarice mad passion Secondly You say we give indulgencies for looseness as if in Catholick times there had been greater looseness then since the Reformation Whereas the keeping of Lent and Fasting dayes were abolished Pennance and satisfaction for sin taken away Celibacie in Church men thought a crime Laicks allowed after divorcement to marry all good works thought impossible the Commandments thought impossible to be keeped and that men sin of necessity in their best actions which as it excuseth all wickedness and sin so it giveth way to all looseness and prophainness Thirdly You say many quit Rome in the integrity of their heart such as the Marquess of Galeacia and closed on their peril with naked truth in your Church To which I answer that all Hereticks and Schismaticks have quit Rome not in the integritie of their heart but in the blindness of their mind and that with their own peril eternal damnation closing with a very naked faith and Religion not well cloathed with the least colour of truth but not with naked faith or belief which Catholicks confidently and constantly assert what ever you say to the contrar And it is no where else to be found for they know there is but one faith and one GOD and one true Church Consequentlie united in the same faith in all which points as she was established by Christ and his Apostles hath continued since their time visible in her Pastours and People in all Ages holy and incorrupted in her Doctrine religious in her Sacraments and ceremonies powerful and glorious in her wonders and miracles conversion of Infidels in the which the holy Fathers have lived and all true Martyrs have died Which only all new upstarts and Sects do persecute and oppose as Protestants at this day under the pretence of Reformation and upon the same ground of wresting Scripture against the common consent of the Church and Fathers with them For as all divisions in Christianity have been from the Roman Catholick Church so all have turned both their armes and pennes chiefly against her but in vain she is builded on a rock against which the gates of hell shal not prevail against her And so who return from you to her are neither run-awayes nor run-agads as you call them but like the forlorn child or lost sheep return'd Whose example undoubtedly many more would follow if they would consider Faith without unity amongst Protestants a Church without a Head a Body without united Members a Law without a Judge a Temple without an Altar Religion without Sacrifice Divine service without Religious ceremonies Sacraments which do not sanctifie Doctrine without infallibility Belief without a ground Preachers without a call Commandments impossible to be keeped Exhortation to what is not in our power Reprobation without workes Reward without Merits Sin punished where there is no Free-will Scripture received or rejected upon the catalogue of the Jewes GODS word patched up by men Reformation without authority New-lights against old received veâ—iâ—ins the Privat-spirit against the whole Church single mens opinions against the unanimous consent of the Fathers in a word wavering Pastours unsetled Government unstable Faith In the post-script there be a parallel patched about our Reformations which being composed of the gall of bitterness without verity or reason deserveth no answer but that which Hezekiah commanded Is 36. 21. Duply You graunt that ye are rich and politick this is true there is much prophain Prote ∣ stants Duply 1 policie where Jesuited equivocation is mantained But tell me if this be like the Godly sinceritie and Gospell simplicitie which was the old Apostolick way and ground of their rejoicing 2. Cor. 1. 12. If ye exceed us in sumptuous buildings which politickly you mistake for the policie mentioned by me though your pelf be greater then ours we want not Hospitalls Bridges Temples according to our abilitie But what is that to the doctrine which is according to Godliness The Turks exceed you as farre that way as ye doe us And the Temple of Diana at Ephesus exceeded you and them also Secondly You deny that Poperie fostereth prophanness but it is too apparent and Duply 2. how can it be otherwise If indulgencies bought and sold like an horse in a market tend not ex natura operis in it self to make men loose and prophane let any sober man judge For thus may they reason shall I quite my lusts for a little money I know what will do the bussines and put me in favour with God Why should I pluck out my right eye and cut off my right hand when a little time in puâ—gatorie will do the turne and a soulemasse which I can have for the Legacie of a summe of money will free me thence But we with the scripture forbid men to deceive themselves for they who do such things shall not it herit the kingdom of heaven So with us nothing less will satisfie then Gospell repentance and the least ground of hope is not granted to those hereafter who turne not away hore from their iniquities How can this be denyed seeing your latest Casuists such as Escobar Busenbaius and Diana the Sicilian have purposly devised latitudes for rendring prophane men secure about Duells Sodomy and other acts of
the unlawfulness of it nor all the Rhetorick of Muretus can wipe off For as an excellent Poet saith on that subject Maribus ore oculis atque auribus undique ano Et pene erumpit qui tuus iste cruor Non tuus iste cruor sanctorum at caede cruorem Quâ—m ferus hausisti non poteras coquere Eighteenthly Ye call your selves the Universal Church which was never attributed § 18. Inst. to the Church of Rome in the Apostle Paul his time notwithstanding that then their faith was spoken of through all the world Rom. 1. 8. Beside ye are but a particular Church at best not so numerous as we and the Greek Church are with whom we joyn in one Confession except about the manner of the ProcessioÌ„ of the Holy Ghost As witnesseth their Confession set forth in the name of the Greek Church by Cyrillus Patriarch of CoÌ„stantinople and printed Anno 1633. which booke can easily be produced Whereas ye bragge of Unity ye are great Schismaticks renting the universall Church and taking the tittle from them to your selves Ye are miserably divided within as appeareth from the strong factions of the Councill of Trent and these hot skirmishes amongst Jesuâ—ts Dominicans and Jansenists lasting to this day Moreover the scripture calleth Rome Bâ—bylon the scarlet whore according to your own Interpreters upon Rev. 17. 18. which Babylon is to be destroyed Reply You accuse us for calling our selves the Universal Church and yet would willingly Papists Reply take that title to your selves if the common practâ—se in all Ages to your shame and discreâ—it did not oppose it None acknowledging your Church under this title but all generâ—lly ours But I have heretofore told you why the Roman Church is called the Catholick as being the Mother Church constantly since the Apostles times which hath a power of head-ship and jurisdiction over all the rest holding communion with her through out the world Then you say we are but a particular Church not so numerous as ye and the Grecians with whom ye joyn in one Confession of Faith except about the manner of the procession of the Holy Ghost Which it seemeth you hold but as a trissle although it maketh no distinction betwixt the second and the third Person of the Trinity for where there is no Procession and relative opposition in the Trinitie there is no distinction say Divines after Iohn Damascene yet notwithstanding ye joine with this in the confession of faith albeit they plainly disclaim them in the censure of the Orientall Church where chap. 7. 12. 13. 21. they hold Transubstantiation seven Sacraments an unbloody sacrifice prayers to the saints and for the dead whatever you alleadge of that confession of faith printed only in the last year But however this sheweth the Protestants weaknes and wavering faith that they claim the Grecians and Lutherians albeit both do openly disclaim them Neither do you prove better our division amongst our selves seing all the parties in the Council of Trent subscrived the Canons thereof nor doth the hot skirmishes betwixt Jesuits and Dominicans in school questions hinder their Unity in all the tenets of the Catholick Church both being willing to subscribe them with their blood as amongst Jesuits many do to this day As for Jansenists we altogether disowne them and to make you more numerous if ye please are well content that in many things you call them yours I am content also Rome be called the scarlet whore Rev. 17. 18. viz. Rome under Pagan Empeâ—ours But was not the Church of Rome then in her greatest integrity and virginity under the Apostleâ— St. Peter and Paul who praising her faith as spoken of through the world both declare her Universality and speak of her preheminence Duply I had reason to challenge your usurpation Prote ∣ stants Duply of the Catholick title for your own Pighius Eccl. hierarch lib. 6. cap. 3. saith Quis unquam per Romanam Ecclesiam intellexis universalem He thinketh it absurd and repugnant and so it is As for the Grecians I can presently produce their Confession †See it set down after the Preface Printed not the last year but 30. years ago and upward wherein they disclaim seven Sacraments the unbloody service of the Masse prayers to Saints or for the Dead Purgatory Transubstantiation c. And Dr. Rivet in his 3. Tom. pag. 1257. setteth down at length how the Jesuits by money and moyen of the French Ambassadour accused the same Cyrillus of treason before the grand Segniour and said that he favoured the King of great BRITTAIN by which accusation he was for a time thrust out of charge and forced to flee anno 1627. but afterwards by the good providence of GOD restored the Greek Church would owne no other Patriarch during his absence and how sore he was persecuted thereafter see Hornbeck in his Summa Contro As for the Jansenists you gift us with them calling them ours So Augustin and the Dominicans are ours also in this so your unity and universality â—s not so much as you pretend You grant also that the scarlet whore Rev. 17. and Babylon is Rome but under the Heathen Emperour and not as it is now under the Pope Your own Ribera refuteth you fully in this for he saith †So saith Sixtus Senensis and Baronius also that it must be meaned of Apostat Rome in the time of Antichrist because she is called an adulteress the mother of harlots but there can be no adultery where Marriage was not once Secondly The people of GOD are required to leave her lest they partake of her plagues But they were never incorporated with Pagan Rome as Christians for they had no communion with Pagan Idols Ergo if your Church be the Mother of Fornications and less numerous then these who hold the Scripture for the rule in no sense can ye be called the Catholick Church Ninthteenthly Ye make the Pope Christs § 19. Inst. Vicâ—r on Earth Peters successour the head of the Church an infallible man a Demi-God Whereas all the Apostles were equal in power and dignity Matth. 20. 26. And Cyprian lib. 3. de unitate Ecclesiae saith hoc idem Petrus quod reliqui Apostoli pareâ— consortio dignitate Peter was one with the rest of the Apostles in dignity and fellowship Ambros de Sp. S. lib. 2. cap. ult Nec Paulus est inferior Petro. see August ad Hieron epist 97. and Hierom ad Evagr and Cyprian epist ad Quintum 71. Prophets and Apostles were not infallible except in penning the Scripture Did not Moses speak unadvisedly Psalm 106. 33. the Prophet Elisha professeth that the case of the Shunamit was hid from him 2. Kings 4. 27. Nathan gave forth a verdict to day and made a retractation to morrow 2. Sam. 7. Peter controuled the Heavenly vision and knew not what to do Acts 10. 17. And shal your sinful Popes then be infallible who will believe it Is it not then