unanimiter nobiscum conspirat Basil Epist 293. Here you see the whole Western Church vindicated from that Heresie which doubtless S. Hilary well knew Those then in France that retain'd their antient Faith kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholique Church from whose communion never yet any separated but Schismatiques and Heretiques 34. The nâ—xâ— Father of the Church that I mâ—et with is Arch-bishop Lawd as you are pleas'd to call him whose authority you have often cited which I cannot but wondâ—r at since he was so far from being a Father that he neither livâ—d nor died a Son of the Church but the Doctor out of that pretended Aâ—ch-bishops book charges â—hâ— Church of Rome with four opinions â—â—pugnant to thâ— plâ—in words of Scripture viz. 1. â—ransubstanâ—â—ation 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind 3. Invoâ—ation of Saints 4. Adoration of Images Answ Though it be not much pertinent to our present purpâ—se to examine these Dâ—ctâ—ines according to Scripture since the Doctor confâ—ssâ—s that the Church of Rome nâ—twithstanding her errors is a trâ—â— Church and a member of the one Catholique Sect. 12. yet because he bâ—lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with thâ—se â—nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines as â—â— is pleased to caâ—â— them I could not pass them by but shall endeavour as briefly as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false câ—lumnie 35 First then Transubstantiation according to the Roman Catholike Doctrine is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine after and by viâ—â—ue of the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest into the true reall and substantial Body and Blood of Christ Let us now examine how this Doctrine is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Our blessed Saviour saith Matth. 26. 26 and Maâ— 14. 22. This is my Body and This is my Blood The words are plain and being taken literally must necessarily import a change For that which was before Bread and Wine after our Saviours consecration is according to the proper and literal sense of the words the very Body and Blood of Christ Where is then the Repugnancy between this Doctrine and the plain words of Scripture Christ sayes of that which was Bread and Wine This is my Body and This is my Blood The Church of Rome sayes so â—oo Instead then of a Repugnancy here is a fulâ— consent and agreement between the plain wordâ— of our Saviâ—ur and thâ— Doctrine of the Church of Rome Well but the words are not to be taken literally but figuratively Be it so Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant at the most but to the figurative sense not to the plain words or literal sense of Scripture But to come closer If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture that shall be but halfe as plain for the Metaphorical or figurative sense or that the Creatures of ' Bread and Wine are not really and substantially changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration but retain their former nature and substance of Bread and Wine as these words of Christ are for such a change I' will then for my part give the cause and turn Protesiant too or any thing else that Doctor Boughen shall command me to be But if he cannot produce any such Text as most certainly he cannot then is the Doctâ—ine of the Protestants and not that of the Church of Rome repugnant to the plain words of Scripture 36 But to justifie your selves and to avoid the Catholike Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation you thus interpret those words This is my Body c. viz. This is a signe or figure of my Body but what Scripture have you for it What authority What Catholique Father what Councel did ever give that interpetation of those words I confess if there be no true and real change of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament then will I also admit of that interpretation For if there be no such change then of necessity those creatures of Brâ—ad and Wine can be but bare signes and figures onely of Christs Body and Blood But behold Gods Providence over his Church The Holy Ghost fore seeing the evasions and shifts that some men would use to delude the world and to poison the Church with their Heretical Doctrines in opposition to Gods sacred Truth has in St. Lukes Gospel 22. 19 20 utterly cut you off even from that very glosse and interpretation The words of the Evangelist are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup is shed for you These are the words in the Original Language of St. Lukes Gospel And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative which may seem to refer to Blood as well as to Cup yet in the Greek it is very plain that it must refer to Cup. If then that which was câ—â—â—ain'd in the cup was that which was shâ—d for the sins of the world how could it be Wine oâ— a sign or figuâ—e â—â—ly of Christs bloud or any thing else but the true and real bloud of Christ For no sign oâ— sigure of bloud but Christs true and real precious bloud was shed for the sins of the world I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plaine by this Syllogism That which was shed for the sins of the world was the true and real precious bloud of Christ But that which was in the cup was that which was shed for the fins of the world Ergo. That which was in the cup was the true and real precious bloud of Christ The Major Proposition cannot be denied without blasphemy the Minor is most plain by the words of the Text and therefore the conclusion must necessarily follow Here is no Fallacy Doctor in this Syllogism no more terms then ought to be in a Syllogism but to utterly debar you of your sign or figure I argue thus That which was shed for the sins of the world was not a sign or figure only of Christs bloud But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world Ergo. That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's bloud Those words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood cannot admit of this interpretation This Cup is a sign of my Blood unless you will grant that a bare sign of Christ's bloud was shed for the sins of the world which is high blasphemy For it is very plain by the express words of the Text That the very Cup which was the New Testament in Christ's Blood was shed for the sins of the world wheâ—efore that Cup could not be a sign onely but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour Whâ—t say you Doctor who now
maintains Doctrines repugnant to plain words of Scripture you or the Church of Rome you will say perehance that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were formerly but Marginal Note and are now crept into the Text and that all the Greek copies of S. Lukes Gospel are corrupted This indeed is the answer that one of your great and learned Reformers Beza has given though without any ground or colourable proof but he well knew that the words of the Text were so plain that they could not admit of any other shift or evasion and by this shift you may evade any authority of Scripture that may be brought against you and had truth no other way to defend it selâ— we also might thus answer any text of Scripture that can be alledged against any Doctrine of the Church of Rome 37. But let us now see what the antient Fathers say concerning this fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ's presence in the blessed Sacrament has these words Ecce eum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas Et tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre Ipse verò tibi concedit non tantum videre verùm manducare tangere intrate sumere Hom. â—o ad Pop. Antiochen Behold tâ—ou seest him Christ thou touchest him thou catest him thou desirest to see his garments and he is pleas'd that thou shouldest not only see him but also eat him touch him and receive him within thy body And that this seeing eating touching and receiving Christ is not in a bare figure only appears plainly by these words of the Father following in the same Homily Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt neque liberè audent intueri propter emicâ—ntem inde splendorem hoc nos pascimur That which the Angels tremble to behold and scarce dare presume to look upon by reason of iâ—s glorious splendor even this do we feed on Mark this good Doctor Angels tremble not at such mean creatures as Bread and Wine neither have these creatures as bare signs only of Christs body and bloud such glorious lustre and splendor Indeed Christs true body which good Catholiques feed on is a glorious body ten â—housand times more glorious then the Sun though the glory thereof as being a spiritual body cannot appear to mortal eyes And that you may not fly to your other shift and say that we receive and feed on Christs body by Faith and love only hear what the same Father sayes in the same Homily a little before the last words cited Neque enim illi satis fuit hominem fieri colaphis caedi crucifigi verùm ut semetipsum nobis commiscet nos fide tantùm verum ipsa re nos suum efficit corpus He Christ was not onely contented to become man to be buffeted and crucified but he also incorporates himselfe into us and makes us to be his own body not by Faith only but truly and really And Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio the same Father thus saith Vnum corpus eâ—â—icimur c. Vt itaque non tantùm per charitatem hoc â—iamus verum etiam ipsa re in illam misceamur carnem hoc namque per escam efficitur quam largitus est nobis We are become one and the same body with Christ viz by the power of the blessed Sacrament That then we may be so not by charity only but truly and really let us be incorporated into that flesh for this is brought to pass by that food which he has given us And now Doctor how is it possible that Bread and Wine should incorporare us into Christ's flesh or that bare figures should make us become one body with him and that not only spiritually and mystically but truly and really But let us hear the same Father speak once more Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Nos Ministrorum tenemus locum qui verò sanctificat â—a immutaâ— ipse est We supply the place of Ministâ—rs but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Here is a change and that by the power of Châ—ist not theâ— by the Faith of the commuâ—icant 38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose sayes de Sacram. â—i 4. c. 4. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Before the words of Consecration it is bread as soon as Consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Mark those words De pane of or from bread How can that which is bread become the Body of Christ by consecration And a little after Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there be so great poâ—er in the word of our Lord Iesus that those things which had no being should begin to have a being how much rather does it effect that those things which had a being should be chang'd into an other substance Here then is a change a substantial or essential change as appears plainly by those words in aliud commutentur And what does a substantial or an essential change differ from Transubstantiation and this change is wrought principally by Christs omnipotent power instrumentally by the words of Consecraâ—ion pronounc't by the Priest then doubtless not by the faith and charity of the communicant 39. Some of your Sect I know have been very forward to acknowledg Christ truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament nay that Christs body is really present there but how by faith but what you mean by that expression by Faith I know not howbelt I am sure you must understand either the manner or the means of Christs body being really present there If by those words you understand the manner of Christs body being present in the Sacrament then is his body present there apprehensively only for by Faith the soul apprehends Christs body which in that apprehension is spiritually present to the faithful and worthy communicant but how then can this be clear'd from a contradiction for to be present apprehensively only by faith is contradistinguisht from being truly and really present so that to say Christs body is truly and really in the blessed Sacrament by faith is in effect to say Christs body is truly and really in the Sacrament and Christs body is not truly and really in the Sacrament And if by Faith you understand the means that is either the meritorious pardon that word or instrumental cause of Christs body being really pâ—esent in the Sacrament or a necessary condition without which Christ's body cannot be really present there then first you contradict the forecited Fathers who say that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament by the omnipotent power of Christ in the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest Secondly
Vision Gods candle since it was first lighted by Christ and and his Apostles was never put under a bushell but from the candlestick wherein it was first set has given light to the world and all eyes that are not blinded with malice or interest must behold it You seeme to approve the Principles of Vinceutius Lyrinensis follow them and you are safe Let Antiquity and Vniversality be your guide and you cannot erre Let not some few scatter'd obscure and mis-understood places of some Fathers prevaile more with you then a thousand plaine places whole treatises and volumnes purposely pen'd in defence of Catholique truth Divest your soul of pride malice and interest and instead thereof let humility and impartiality take place and then Gods grace will sweetly invite you to a sincere and humble acknowledgment of your errors and you will with excessive joy and thankfulness of heart praise God for your deliverance from the bonds of darkness and the jawes of death Remember that the antient Fathers and Doctors of the church have condemn'd you the Councels both Oecumenical and Provincial have declar'd against you the universal doctrine and practise of the church both before and after Luthers Apostasie have given sentence against you And as for those Canons which you have alledged in your book you must needs know your self that some of them make against you others are impertinent but none of them impugne the power and authority of Christs Vicar the Bishop of Rome over the whole Catholique Church Weigh all the Authorities of holy Scripture and antiquity for both sides and see whether there be not a thousand plain places against you for one obscure for plain you have none for you Your eternal salvation lyes at stake rely not then on other mens nor your own fallacious judgment or fancy in those things that concern your salvation Let Gods holy church be your guide and interpreter of Scripture lest you wrest it as some did of whom S. Peter complains 2 Pet. 3. 16. to your own damnation consider that the best way to appease Gods wrath against you for your former misguiding and seducing poor ignorant souls to their eternal perdition is now by your good example in returning to your holy Mother the Roman Catholique Church to draw others after you into the house of God his Church Militant that so hereafter ye may meet in his Church Triumphant Let not those trifles of popular applause or worldly reputation flatter you to hell nor fear of the worlds censure fright you from heaven be but humble and impartial and it is as impossible for you not to be a Roman Catholique at least in judgment and opinion as it is for a man that has the benefit of sight to open his eys and not to see light at noon day And now Doctor If you have met with any tart language in this my answer you cannot justly be offended with me It proceeded not from any malice that I can bear your person For I profess upon the word of a Christian I never heard of your name to my remembrance before I saw this your book and I am still so much a stranger to you that I know neither the place of your abode nor the present condition of your life But I was somewhat provok't by your blesphemous speeches against Gods holy church by your unnecessary taunts and causless jeering of Mr. T. B. whose modesty in his letters to you was such that I am sure he gave you no just cause to break out into such scurrilous and unseemly speeches against him I shall heartily pray that instead of replying to this answer you may be reconcil'd to Gods holy Catholique Church Amen FINIS POSTSCRIPT IF the Doctor or or any of his Party be yet unsatisfied in this Controversie I propose that rather then bestow a Reply to these cursory Papers of mine the most Learned of them would considerately examine Mr. Cressy's Exomologesis or Motives of his conversion c. and Rushworths Dialogues in the last Edition as it is corrected and enlarged by Mr. Thomas White in a 80 of the Long-Primer letter both which they must acknowledge to be as much unanswerable as these light papers of Dr. Boughons are fully answered ERRATA PAge 17. line 23. read at Rome p. 36. l. 18. r. were a great p. 59. l. 18. r. coâ—tanean p. 63. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 65. l. 23. r. but a. p. 67. l. 24. r. verùm and l. 25. non â—ide p. 78. l. 7. r. as well as p. 79 l. 27. r. offerunâ— p. 82. l. 8. r. prayers made at p. 86. l. 10. r. is it p. 114. l. 7. r. sixth Century p. 115. l. 13. r. nor Apos p. 118. l. 11. r. odious and l. last r. your taxing p. 119. l. 17. r. clâ—fia p. 126. l. 13. dele of p. 127. l. 28. r. ad p. 137. l. 27. r. makes no.
visible in times of hottest persecution and so visible that we can even at this day point at it and that afterwards when it was more glorious it should become invisible to all eyes as that church must be which was distinct from the church of Rome and those in communion with her and that for so many hundred yeares transcends any mans understanding but D. Boughens 12. It is more then probable saith he that there were in this very Island 7000. soules that were not tainted with Popish errours but he brings not so much as a probable argument for it By Popish Errours he means the antient doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church but it is most improbable that there were so many as seven besides such as were condemn'd for Heretikes and confest to be such even by Protestants themselves that before Luthers Apostaâ—ie were separated from the Roman church for there was not so much as one man or woman that followed Luther or Calvin or any other Protestant whatsoever in their new Doctrine or imbrac't their new Reformation as you call it but had been before a profest Roman Catholike 13. It is enough for us sayes the Doctor to prove them to be errours to be against Scripture and the received sense of the antient church Answ For shame Doctor recall your words I am sure that this speech must proceed from much impudence or ignorance they were never yet prov'd to be errors against Scripture some indeed have barkt against Gods church and blasphemed her faith and doctrine as you have done in this Pamphlet wresting the Scripture to their damnable purposes and I am sure that of all men you will never be able to prove them so But what can be more apparent to the world then that all Antiquity confirms the doctrine of the Roman church and condemns yours 14. That which you say concerning the Popes Liberius Honorius and Jo. 22. shall be answer'd hereafter in a more proper place 15. But the Doctor is sure that he ha's manifested that the Church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are not cannot be the Catholike Church Answ Indeed he ha's made it so manifest that no body can see it for if this conclusion The church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are not cannot be the Catholike Church be either expresly or implicitly in any thing that he ha's said before I will then lay down the â—â—dgells and never lift up my hand more against D. Boughen 16. In his following discourse I conâ—esse the Doctor seems to say more then ever he said before viz. That the church of Rome and those in communion with her might be a Catholike but not the Catholike Church a part but not the whole Answ But good Doctor saying is one thing and manifesting another this must not be beg'd but prov'd all that he said before was that Rome was a particular church and this too was but only said not prov'd at all and now he at least seems to draw neerer to the question and say that the church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are but a part of the Catholike Church and that therefore the Catholike Church is of a larger extent and comprehends within her bounds more churches then those only that are in communion with the church of Rome This is easily said but where are your proofs where is your Scripture for it or where is your authority of Fathers or Councells for it can you or any man else shew that at any time between the times of the Apostles and Luthers Apostasie there was any particular church divided from the church of Rome and those in communion with her and yet acknowledged either by the church of Rome or any in communion with her or by any Catholique Father or any Catholique Councell to be a true member of the Catholike church if this cannot be shown as I am most certain it cannot why should we take it upon your word that the church of Rome and those in communion with her is not the Catholike Church but a part only thereof was there ever any particular church not in communion with the church of Rome that sent her Bishops and Prelats to any General Councel wherein the whole Catholike Church was represented or did ever any General Councell receive Bishops or permit them to sit and vote there that were sent from any such church or that would not acknowledge their subjection to the Bishop of Rome as the common Pastor and visible head of Gods church 't is very strange that there should be whole churches whole countryes and Nations all true members of the Catholike Church and so acknowledged that were not in communion with the church of Rome that is never acknowledged any subjection to the Sea or Bishop of Rome and yet that there should be no Records thereof that all these should be invisible to the world for these 1600. yeares together These are strong arguments against you Doctor what arguments you will hereafter bring for your selfe I know not but as yet I am sure you have brought none at all 17. I commend your wisdome in concealing the words of those Canons by you cited Sect. 10. for you plainly perceived that they made nothing for you That sixth canon of the Councel of Nice which seems most to strengthen your cause and ha's been so often objected by your party and so often answer'd ha's been prov'd upon diligent examination to make directly against you as appeares plainly Concil Calc Act. 16. 18. But the Doctor is much scandaliz'd at the maiming of the Lords Supper so that if there were no other cause then that he could not communicate with the Church of Rome Sect. 11. It seems Doctor Boughen cannot content himself with that wherewith the good Primitive Christians were all satisfied They could be contented to carry the blessed Sacrament to their houses and reserve it there for times of necessity under one Species They thought it sufficient to minister it to their sick under the Species of Bread onely to their children when that by some was thought necessary under the Species of Wine onely but the Doctor will have both or none None of the antient Fathers nor the most learned of all the Primitive Christians could ever find it in Scripture that Christ ordained the blessed Sacrament to be given in both kinds to all sorts of people but Doctor Boughen is so quick-sighted that he ha's discover'd that which the whole church for 1500. yeares together could not find out 19. But good Doctor how do we rob the Laity of Christs bloud if those creatures of Bread and Wine be after Consecration truly really and substantially chang'd into the body and blood of our blessed Saviour then those that receive his body receive his blood also for whosoever communicates under one Species only receives both the body and bloud And if there be no such change as I am sure according to your doctrine
the Protestants All these I purposely pass by because I will contain my self within the first five hundred years to which you have appealed You see then Doctor the practise and doctrine of the Church within five hundred years after Christs birth in the Fathers and Councels above-cited Be now as good as your word submit to their sentence for trial of the truth of Religion and you will by Gods grace soon return to your Mother the Roman Catholique Church Thus is that charge which you say Sect. 28. of your second answer We know not how to shift off fully answer'd 45. In the next Sect. 25. I meet with some Authorities against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome The first is of S. Irenaeus who sharply checked and reproved Bishop Victor for keeping such a stir about the observation of Easter and excommunicating divers Churches because they would not stoop to his lure Answ That Pope Victor who govern'd the Church about 200. years after the birth of our Saviour excommunicated the Churches of Asia for their too much Judaizing in the observation of Easter is a very strong argument against you For first S. Victor was a pious and blessed man and therefore it cannot be reasonably imagin'd that he would usurp a power which Christ never gave him Secondly those Churches of Asia never protested against his Jurisdiction over them which certainly they would have done had not the Church in those dayes esteemed the Bishop of Rome the common Pastor of Christs Church and appointed by Christ to be under him the supreme Head thereof Thirdly when S. Irenaeus expostulated with him for his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Churches he never charged him for transgressing the bounds of his Jurisdiction or for usurping a power which Christ never delegated unto him which in all probability he would have done had he not look't on the Bishop of Rome as the supreme visible Head of Christs Church But because he conceiv'd not their offence so â—ainous as to deserve so heavy a censure he therefore took upon him to reprove Pope Victor by way of friendly and fraternal correction as S. Paul somtimes did S. Peter and as S. Paul never question'd S. Peters Jurisdiction nor denied him to be the chief and Head of the Apostles so neither did S. Irenaeus nor any of the Eastern Church that were excommunicated by Pope Victor question or protest against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And those words of S. Cyprian in the Councel of Carthage are to be understood of the African Bishops only who being of equal authority could not excommunicate one another They exclude not the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome otherwise S. Cyprian had contradicted himself who sayes plainly Epist ad Quintinum and Serm. de â—on patient that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter and li. 4. ep 8. ad Cornel. that the Unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome His words you shall find hereafter Sect. 58. In the next place Sect. 26. enters an angry Bishop of Cappadoâ—ia Firmilianus speaking thus to Pope Stephen Teipsum excidisti noli te fallere Mistake noâ— thy self thou Bishop of Rome while thou goâ—st about to cast out others by this presumption thou hast cast off thy self from the body of Christ which is his Church Ans By your leave Doctor you misunderstand Firmilianus he speaks not as you would have him Indeed he was very angry with Pope Stephen because he excommunicated him for maintaining that Heretical Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretiques He never told Pope Stephen that he had cut himselfe off from the Church because he excommunicated Firmilianus or any other Bishopâ— but he was willing the world should think that Pope Stephen in defending the Baptism of Heretiques to be lawful had sided with them in their Heresies and had therefore cut himself off from the Church not because he had excommunicated any Heretical Bishop of the East but because as Firmilianus conceiv'd he too much complyed with Heretiques And you know Doctor the very same Doctrine for which Firmilianus was excommunicated was afterward in the first General Councel of Nice declar'd to bâ— Heretical 46. It is common say you in these daies even with tâ—â—se that conscientiously pretend to truth not to be content with the Rule of Faith whâ—â—â—â—as once delivered to the Saints and 〈◊〉 from them by the Primitive 〈…〉 transmitted â—o posterity bu◠〈…〉 after nâ—w invention◠〈…〉 â—hese courses I abhor with a 〈…〉 Ans Here Dâ—ctor you have directly given sentence against your self If you will but examine the Doctrines of the Roman Church and your Doctrines wherein you oppose and differ from her but according to S. Augustines Rule de Baptis li. 2. c. 23. and the principles of common reason you will soon discover which is the Rule of Faith deliver'd to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church so transmitted to posterity and which are those new inventions For it is impossible that either you or any Protestant in the world can shew or prove that any one Doctrine which the Roman Church at this day maintains and teaches had its beginning or crept into the Church since Christ and his Apostles Whereas on the contrary there is not one Doctrine wherein you differ from the Roman Church but may be and has been often already prov'd and demonstrated to have begun since the time of the Apostles How then do you abhor with a perfect hatred these courses since you have imbrac't new inventions and totally forsaken the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church and transmitted to Posterity If it can be clearly demonstrated that all your Doctrines wherein you differ from the Roman Church are new and if it cannot be proved that any one Doctrine of the Roman Church had its beginning since the Apostles either you abhor not these courses with a perfect hatred as you profess or else you must in all points imbrace the Doctrine of the Roman Church 47. But stay Here I meet with a brace of fierce Syllogismes that fly furiously at the very throat of the poor Church of Rome The first is this That Church which hath erred is not the Pillar and ground of truth But The Church of Rome hath erred Ergo The Church of Rome is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The minor is thus prov'd by the second Syllogism That Church which hath professed Montanism Arrianism Eutychianism hath erred But The Church of Rome hath professed all these Ergo The Church of Rome hath erred And this minor you say you have sufficiently proved Sect. 18. 27. But I have more sufficiently proved that you have there proved nothing at all but are forc't to fly to most ridiculous shifts and fallacies and those fallacies I meet with here again Sect. 3â— where the Church of Rome is charg'd with all sins almost imagineable and divers Authors are cited to prove that
successor For no particular Church or person ever was or could be in communion with the Church of Rome that denied or questioned this Doctrine or that refused to yeeld obedience to the Sea of Rome as the Head and Mother of all Churches and to the Bishop thereof as Christs Vicar General on Earth How then came you in England to find out that at last which your Ancestors for almost 1000. years could not discover They all even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith by St. Augustine to K. Hen. eights Defection were subject to the Sea of Rome and to the Bishop thereof as Christs immediate Vicar and under him the supream head of the Catholike Church How come you to be wiser then all your fore-fathers and the whole world bâ—sides Can it be reasonably supposed that those great Patriarchs of the â—ast the Patriarch of Constantinople of Hierusalem of Antiech c. with all the Bishops of Asia Africa and Europe should profess and acknowledge themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome had they not thought that his power and Jurisdiction over the whole Catholique Church had been by Christs especial appointment and commission What colourable plea then can you alleadge for your separation 31. But I perceive the Doctor is flying to his old fallacy in taking for granted or rather indeed downright begging that the Church of Rome can be no more then a particular branch or member of the Church Catholique For his words immediatly following are these And yet we shall maâ—gre Satan communicate with the Catholique Church while with one minde and mouth we glorifie God c. Good Doctor deceive not your self the Devil doe's but laugh at you for that idle fancy You cannot truly glorifie God either in minde or mouth whilest you separate your selves from Gods Church Neither can you communicaâ—e with the Catholique Church whilest you keep your selves out of the communion of the Church of Rome I told you before Sect. 2. that the Roman Church and the Catholique Church are in some sense Synonymaes signifying one and the same thing The Church of Rome is that Catholike Church out of whose communion whosoever dyes shall never see the face of God Now in what sâ—nse the Roman Church is called the Catholique Church though I have already shewed you yet I will here somewhat farther explain it The Catholique Church may be considered First in respect of her Faith and Doctrine Secondly in respect of her Government or Discipline According to the first consideration all true particular Churches and Christians professing and united in one and the same Faith and Communion are truly and properly called the Catholique Church and this is formally the Church Catholique We say not that the Roman Church is thus that is formally Catholique She is in this sense a part or member only of the Catholique Church But if we consider the Catholique Church in respect of her Government then the Church of Rome may truly and properly be called Catholique though not formally yet causally because she being the Mother and Head of all other particular Churches of the Christian world in right of her Bishop who is St. Peters successor and appointed by Christ to be the supream Head and Governor of his whole Church is the fountain and centre of Vnity which she infuses into the whole Catholique Church causing all the particular members thereof to be united in one and the same supream earthly Head and Governor Those then that submit themselves to the Apostolique Sea of Rome and are in communion with the Bishop thereof by subjecting themselves to his Authority and Government acknowledging him Christs Vicar on earth the sole supream Head of his Church may most properly be termed Roman Catholiques The Province of Canterbury consisted of many particular Churches or Episcopal Seas all united in the Church or Sea of Canterbury which gave denomination to the whole Province Canterbury it self was not the whole Province but because it was the Metropolitan Sea the Head and Mother-Church of the whole Province wherein all the particular Seas of that Province were united and to whom they yeilded obedience the whole Province received its Denomination from her which notwithstanding being considered as a particular Church or Diocesse was but a part or member of the Province of Canterbury So likewise the Church of Rome being the Metropolitan Sea of the whole world the Head and Mother-Church of the Christian world wherein all particular Seas and Churches whatsoever that are in communion with the Church Catholique are united every true Church in particular may be said to be within the universal Province or Church of Rome And the Roman Church comprehending under her all particular Churches whatsoever that are branches and members of the Catholique to whom they all owe obedience and subjection and in whom they are all united as in the grand Metropolitan Church of the Christian world may properly be styled the Catholique Church As then there was the particular Sea or Church of Canterbury and the whole Province of Canterbury so also there is the particular Sea or Church of Rome and the universal Church of Rome And as the particular Sea of Canterbury was a part of the Province of Canterbury so likewise the particular Church of Rome is but a part of the universal or Catholique Church of Rome the Church of Rome as truly comprehending all particular Churches of the Christian world as the Province of Canterbury contained all the particular Seas of that Province In brief as the Sea of Canterbury was to all the particular Seas of that Province so is the Church of Rome to all the particular Churches of the whole world And by this you may perceive how frivoulous that trivial objection is which has been so often made against that expression Roman Catholique as if those words implyed a contradiction in signifying Particular and yet Vniversal 32. And that the Roman Church has ever bin in this sense the Catholique Church viz. as being the Head and Mother-Church of all other Christian Churches appears as plainly as any other point of Faith or Doctrine whatsoever Neither the Scriptures themselves nor any Doctrine or Article of Faith written or unwritten has descended unto us by a more full and ample Tradition then this Dâ—ctrine of the Primacy of the Apostolick Sea of Rome and Supremacy of the Bishop thereof over all Churches So that he that shall deny or question this may as well doubt of the Scriptures and consequently of Christs coming in the flesh and dying for the sins of the world Are noâ— the writings of the Ancient Fathers full of iâ— has not the universal practise of the Church in all ages made it shine bright even at this day to the world Read the Fathers examine the Councels view the practise of Gods Church in all ages and you will soon conâ—ess this to be an apparent and unquestionable Truth Besides consider that the Primacy and authority
of St. Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome as it has been a Doctrine universally receiv'd so has it no known beginning since the time of the Apostles and therefore according to the principles of common Reason we ought to imbrace it as an Apostolical Tradition Were not all the churches in the world formerly united and subject to the Sea of Rome Does it not plainly appear in antient Records and Histories when the Eastern churches first separated from her communion and denied obedience to the Bishop of Rome Is it not apparent when and how often those pretended churches have been reconcil'd to the Roman Catholique Church Have not the Patriatchs of Constantinople themselves profest and acknowledg'd their obedience and subjection to the Bishop of Rome as S. Peters Successor and Supreme Head of Christs Church Was there ever any Society of men professing the name of Christ and divided from the Church of Rome that did not first separate themselves from her communion He then that is no Roman Catholique is none at all since by his Schisme he has cut himself off from the communion of the Catholique Church and to justifie his Schisme he must necessarily fall into Heresie by denying this Doctrine of Faith viz That the Roman Church is the Mother and Head of all churches and the Bishop thereof appointed by Christ as S. Peters Successor to be the Supreme Pastor and Governour of his Catholique Church I know you will deny this to be a Doctrine of Faith but you must then condemn the Fathers that taught it the Councels that declar'd it The learned Fathers of the Church S. Irenaeus li. 3. c. 3. S. Hierome Epist 57. S. Cyprian de Vnitat Eccles S. Basil concion de penitent S. Leo Serm. 1. in Natal Apostolor Petr. Paul Gelasius in decret cum 70. Episcopis S. Augustin Epist 92. as also the reverend Pastors of the church assembled in divers General Councels In the first General Councel of Nice Can. 6. in the Councel of Ephesus Act. 3. in the Councel of Calcedon Act. 16. and in the Epistle or relation sent to Pope Leo from the whole Councel in the Councel at Sardis Can. 3. could plainly see this Doctrine in Scripture and so might you too if you would but open your eyes and not onely there but in the Universal Tradition and practise of the church This Doctrine was receiv'd by the church of England for almost a 1000. years together without interruption How then come you to be wiser then all your Forefatheâ—s for so many ages You receiv'd the Scriptures from them and to think that they could noâ— inteâ—pret them as well as you is excessive pride and insolent madness A world of testimonies might be brought in confirmation of this Doctrine but it has been already so fully and so often prov'd by many learned Catholiques that it may be altogether unnecessary for me to add any further proofs especially since my intention is to contain my selfe within the bounds of â— short Râ—ply Wherefore the pretended Greek Church though it abhor and deâ—â—st your new Doctrines as damnable and Hâ—retical as appears evidently by the book entiâ—â—â—led â—â—remiae â—atriarchae 〈…〉 sententia definitiva â—â— Doctrâ—â—a Religione Wittenbergeâ—sium Theologorum c. An. 1586. is now no church at all as neither are you but a dead branch lop'd off by Schisme and Hâ—resie from the Tree of Life a corrupt member cuâ— off from Christs mystical body 33. But to justiâ—ie this your Schism you alledg certain Canons of the câ—uâ—ches which aâ—â—uâ—e you that every Provincial Synod is to order all things within the Province Answ If you mean by All things all things amiss in matters concerning manners and Discipline I can easily grant it but this will not satisfie you The Church you say did usually reform both in manners and faith by Diocesan and Provincial Councels Answ I confess the Pope has confirm'd the Acts and Decrâ—es of divers Provincial Councels even concerning matters of Faiâ—h as when they have condemn'd some apparent and notorious Heresie and anathematiz'd such Heretiques as have opposed either a Doctrine universally known and receiv'd by the whole church or els some Declaration and Definition of a former General Councel and this is all that you can gather either out of the African Code or the canons of any Councel either General oâ— Provincial As for the Code of the Universal Church by you cited you must know Doctor that it was compiled by Schismatiques and Heretiques who to diminish and derogate from the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome have apparently falâ—iâ—ied divers canons of the Councel of Sardiâ— But that General Doctrines universally receiv'd and taught by the whole Catholique Church as Doctrines descending by Vniversal Tradition from Christ and his Apostles and declar'd to be such by General Councels should be censur'd and condemn'd first by one single person and afterwards by those only that followed him in his Apostasie and Heresie for damnable errors must necessarily appear to any reasonable and impartial spirit not onely most unreasonable and temerarious but sacrilegious and damnable yet this you have done charging the whole world with gross and damnable errors and alledging Scripture to prove them so to which you appeal to justifie your Apostasie making your selves the sole Judges and Interpreters thereof 34. But I meet with a testimony of S. Hilary of Poicteurs to prove that Rome was once not only distinct from but not so much as a part of the Catholique Church his words cited are these Quidam ex vobis firmissima fidei constantia intra communionem se me am continentes se à coeteris extra Gallias abstinuerunt And hence you conclude that the Church of France at that time communicated not with Rome unless we can prove Rome to be in France Answ This is much like your former consequences S. Hilary was not so simple as to think the whole Catholique Church was at that time confin'd to one Country or Nation he only commended the constancy of his Countrymen in persevering in the Catholique Faith and not communicating with the Arrians which swarm'd in divers places out of France If then by those words coeteris extra Gallias you would exclude all the world besides France from the Catholique Church you will but make your self ridiculous to the world in making that great Pillar of the Gallican Church speak that which all the world knows to be false for at that time neither the Church of Rome nor any Westerne Church was infected with Arrianism as appears plainly by S. Basil who was S. Hilaries Cretanean and a Bishop in the Eastern Church viz. of Cappadocia his wordâ— are these Vos par erat intelligere quod per Dei gratiam quamplurimi sint qui sidem tuentur Orthodoxam à Patribus Nicaenis secundum picâ—â—tis regulam traditam neque vos per Orientem soli sitis relicti at verò universus quidem Occidens vobiscum