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
the antient Catholique Faith So that in K. Edw. VI. days the Nation might be said to be heretical but the Church was even at that time Catholike otherwise it could not have been a church and in Q. Maryes daies both church and Nation were Catholique But you cannot prove that ever the Roman Nation much less the Roman Church was heretical since their first conversion to the Christian faith And if the Pope and with him all the bishops of Italy had at the same time forsaken the Catholique faith yet the Church of Rome might still have retain'd her prerogative of being the Mother church and Head of all particular churches in the world And though the Pope might have forfeited all his Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction and so ceast to be Head of the church yet the right of S. Peters Chair had always remained in the Church of Rome for since the bishop is not the church formally nor the church formally in the bishop the church cannot formally erre with the bishop neither must the church formally taken be there fore heretical because the bishop thereof is so Now I hope I have done with this â—edious and frivolous argument 65. That the Church of Rome imposes a new sense on the articles of the Câ—eeds is a meer calumny spoken gratis without any colour or shew of proof That the Church of Rome and you agree in the letter not in the Exposition is true The Church of Rome following the Exposition of the Universal Tradition and practise of the church and you your new phantastical and heretical Exposition but though you did agree with the Roman Church in the Exposition as well as in the letter yet could you not be excus'd from heresie because you oppose other Doctrines of Faith that are not contain'd in the three Creeds for not all points of faith that are necessary for all sorts of men to be believed are comprehended in the three Creeds either joyntly or severally 66. And whereas you charge the Church of Rome with imposing a new Creed of Pius 4. upon the church against a canon of the Councel of Ephesus I answer first That which you mean is but a profession of Faith wherein are contained certain Doctrines of faith that are not expresly comprehended in the Creeds It can no more properly be called a Creed then your book of Articles which is your Profession of faith and as not all but some certain persons only amongst you were bound by your Statutes to subscribe to that Profession so likewise not every man but some certain persons only are bound to subscribe to the other Secondly that Profession was agreed upon by the whole Councel and confirm'd by Pope Pius 4. It was neither compos'd nor commanded by the Pope alone but by him joyntly wiâ—h the Councel Thirdly there is not one Article of that Profession contrary or repugnant to any one article of the former Creeds and although this had been a new Creed as you call it yet had it not been against any canon of the Councel of Ephesus that Councel at the most for bidding only private persons to set forth or publish any Creed that should contain in it any Doctrine contrary to any article of belief in those former Creeds Neither indeed could the church in the Councel of Ephesus debar the church in future ages of that power and authority which the church in former ages assumed and exercised Why should it be more unlawful for the church assembled in the Councel of Trent to set forth a new form of Profession of Faith then it was for the church assembled in the Councel of Nice or Constantinople No Councel can rob the church of that power which Christ hath given her And by this Profession of Faith the Roman Church has neither alter'd the letter nor sense of former Creeds though you dare be bold to say She has strangely alter'd the sense I confess you are bold to say any thing but you have prov'd nothing 67. And whereas you say you take the Rule of Faith in the literal sense let us see to give but one instance since you make Scripture the sole Rule of your faith whether you take those words of our blessed Saviour Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. and Luc. 22. 19. in the literal sense Our B Saviour there takes Bread and Wine and sayes This is my Body which is given or broken for you This is my Bloud which is shed for you which you thus interpret This is a sign only of my Body and this is a sign only of my Bloud You deny that the bread and wine which our B. Saviour took and blest was truly and substantially converted into his body and bloud and are not asham'd to say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Let all the world judg whether herein you take the Ruleâ— of Faith in the literal sense It is much more plain that you go against the very letter of the Gospel against the expositions of the antient Fathers both Greek and Latin the Declarations of Councels the antient and universal practise of the whole church which alwayes adored the B. Sacrament after consecration with divine worship 68. In Sect. 29. I meet with another absurd and impertinent distinction between errour in Faith and errour in matters of Faith as if errours in Faith and errours in matters of Faith were not all one They have hitherto been esteemed all one and that by those who have been far beyond you both in learning and judgment though your sharp understanding be able to divide and put a difference between them 69. Much like to this is that saying of yours Sect. 30. Every violation of the Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church but a false opinion of God does How then is that of S. Paul true Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God Can a man violate Faith though but in some one point and yet be a Catholique who ever thought so besides your â—elf by the same reason one and the same man may be at the same time both Catholique and Heretique But to prove your new opinion you produce an antient testimony of S. Augustine de fid Symb. c. 20. Haeretiâ—i de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant quapropter non pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam Heretiques by having a false opinion of God violate Faith it self wherefore they belong not to the Catholique Church Answ Here is now a fine proof if well examin'd You must know Doctor that the word Quapropter wherefore refers to the words immediately going before and then 't is plain that this testimony of the Father makes directly against you For if men be therefore cut off from the Catholique Church because they have violated the Faith then it necessarily follows that every violation of Faith cuts a man off from the Catholique Church But in favour to the Doctor let us once grant against all
over all the parts of the Christian world and as being the great Metropolitan of the world infuses unity into all particular Churches and Christians She is in this her largest amplitude properly and truly call'd the Catholique Church And because the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error in faith or any other damnable error whatsoever nor teach Doctrines superstitious sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture because she is and ever shall be guided by Gods Holy Spirit which hitherto has and ever shall lead her into all truth therefore it cannot be truly said that the Roman Church being this Catholique Church ever was or can be guilty of errors in faith or of superstitious sacrilegious or any damnable Doctrines whatsoever 73. Besides when Luther first for sook the communion of the Roman Church did he not stand alone was he not divided from the world even from those that were not in communion with the Church of Rome as well as from those that were did he communicate in the Sacraments or external worship with any particular Church Congregation People Nation or Sect professing the name of Christ can any man separate himself from that church in whose communion he once liv'd whose Faith and Doctrine he imbrac't and joyn himself to no other congregation in the whole world professing the name of Christ either in doctrine or external communion and yet be no Schismatique If so then there never was or can be any Schism If then Luther was Schismatical in being divided from the Whole Christian world in Faith and communion it necessarily follows that all those who first adhered to him forsaking the communion of that church whereof they had formerly been members and all those who have since followed Luther and have not joyn'd themselves to any church or Christian Congregation whatsoever besides themselves must be guilty of the same Schism How then is it possible for you to avoid the guilt of Schism since you have forsaken the communion of the Church of Rome with whom you once communicated as you confess Sect. 19. and have not joyn'd your selves to any other Christian Congregation whatsoever You abhor the communion of the Roman Church and that which you call the Greek Church abhors you Will you say that the Protestants are the whole Catholique Church then you contradict your self who grant Sect. 12. that Rome her self is a Church a member of the one Catholique You must also then confess that the Greek Church as you call it is no part of the Catholique Church and the truth is you have good reason so to do since she refused to receive you into her communioâ— abhorring and detesting your new Doctrines as heretical If then all those of the Protestant Sect be Schismatical as it most plainly appears they are certainly the Protestants of England must necessarily be involv'd in the same Schism 74. Let us now see how you can vindicate your selves from heresie I will not look beyond those four Doctrines wherewith you have charg'd the Church of Rome as being fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture viz. Transubstantiation Administration of the B. Sacrament to the Laity in one kind Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images And by your opposing these doctrines as they are held and taught by the Roman Church I shall endeavour to make it appear to the world that you cannot avoid the just imputation of Heresie First then I demand whether the Fathers assembled in the four first General Councels were not competent and lawful Judges of the heresies of those times as the Arrian Macedonian Nestorian Eutychian c. and whether they had not power to condemn those heresies and to anathematize those that held and taught them as heretiques If they had no such power then did they most injuriously and tyrannically usurp a power and Jurisdiction which of right belonged not unto them But this cannot be prudently suppos'd that so many holy reverend and learned Fathers should usurp an authority or arrogate to themselves that power which was not lawfully deriv'd upon them by Christ and his holy church They were the selected Pastors of the whole church men renowned for their piety and learning and could not therefore be ignorant how far the Jurisdiction and authority of a lawful Councel might extend neither would their piety suffer them to transgress the limits of that authority If then those four first Councels had power to judg of and to declaâ—e and define doctrines of faith and to anathematize all those that should oppose them how came the Councels in succeeeding ages to be depriv'd of this power How came the church to lose that authority wherewith she was once invested was her power but temporary and after some few ages to expire or did Christ foresee thaâ— after some few ages his church would be no more infested with Schismatiques or heretiques but we plainly find that such have molested the church in all ages and therefore doubtless in all ages has this power continued in the church and if so why was it not as lawful for the second Councel of Nice which was held above 800. years since to judg and define what reverence and honor is due to holy Images and to condemn the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers as it was for the former Councels to condemn the Arrians Nestorians c And why was it not as lawful for that great and glorious Councel of Lateran wherein were present both the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem to judg of and declare the true real and substantial conversion of the creatures of bread and wine after consecration into the true and real body and bloud of Christ and to declare the manner of that conversion as also to express the antient doctrine of the church by the proper signification of a new word Transubstantiation as it was for the first General Councel of Nice to judg of and declare Christs consubstantiality with the Father and to invent that new word to express the antient doctrine descending unto them by universal and in fallible Tradition of Christs co-eternal and co-equal Divinity with the Father You wil find in Vincentius Lyrinesis c. 32. that it was no new thing in his time for the church to invent new words to express old doctrines Why was it not lawful for the Councel of Constance Sess 13. to define and declare the indifferency and sufficiency of communicating the Laity under one kind only and to anathematize those that should pertinatiously oppose that doctrine Lastly why was it not lawful for the Councel of Trent Sess 25. to declare the lawfulness of invocating the blessed Saints and to denounce a curse against all obstinate opposers thereof Thus you see those four fond and sacrilegious doctrines and such as you say are repugnant to plain words of Scripture confirm'd declar'd and defin'd to be sacred truths and Apostolical Traditions by four General Councels You have also seen them held and practis'd by the antient Fathers that
that she must be hereticall or schismaticall when Rome is so Rome as it is a particular Sea is but a member of the Church Catholike and therefore if she should by schism or heresie cut her selfe off from the Catholike Church yet would the Catholike Church remain in her integrity and purity as a man would not cease to be a man according to his essentiall parts though some corrupt and incurable member were cut off from the body but if you mean by Rome the Church of Rome and those in communion with her I then deny your supposition or your minor proposition as to that part for the Church of Rome in that latitude is not at all distinct from but is the very same with the Church Catholike which can never be hereticall or schismaticall wherefore if the Church of Rome ha's had sometimes two sometimes three pretended Bishops together as you seem to have learnt out of Platina and Onuphrius though you cite no particular place in those Authors yet there could be but one true Bishop of Rome one true Head of the church the rest being meerly pretenders and therefore they themselves and all those that adhered unto them were schismatiques and as long as they obstinately continued in their schism they were no members either of the Catholike Church or the particular Church of Rome the Catholique Church stil remaining pure and enâ—ire and the Sea of Rome a true member thereof 9. But the Doctor goes further and charges the Church of Rome with heresie even from the confession of her own men I must be bold to tell you Doctor that your charge is as false as your doctrine There was never any Catholike that confest the Church of Rome and those in communion with her to have been heretical for that had been to have confest the whole Catholique Church to be hereticall and so utterly extinct which is impossible neither was there ever any Catholike that confest the whole Diocesse or Sea of Rome was ever hereticall so that whether by Rome you mean the particular Church of Rome or the Roman Catholike Church your assertion is most impudent and false neither have you nam'd any one man that confest it 10. But perchance the Doctor intended these argunents for light skirmishes onely and ha's reserv'd his main force and reason for his last affault and with this reserve hopes to obtain a signall victory over the Church of Rome Let us then encounter it and try what force it brings with it If Rome sayes he be the Catholique Church if any thing be amisse in any particular the fault is Hers and She ought to mend it therefore Rome is not the Catholike Church What a wretched consequence is this certainly the Doctor ha's forgot all his Logick or found out some new which no body knows besides himself by the same â—idiculous consequence I will prove that the Parliament of England was never the Supreme Power of England Thus. If the Parliament of England were the Supreme Power if any thing were amisse in any particular the fault was in the Parliament and it ought to have mended it therefore the Parliament of England was never the Supreme Power of England Yet notwithstanding your ridiculous consequence I will grant your conclusion as being nothing to the purpose for your conclusion should have been this therefore the Church of Rome and these in communion with her are not the Catholike Church And if we examine the sequell of the Antecedent we shall find it as ridiculous as the whole consequence for why should the church be blam'd for any thing that is a misse in any particular point of doctrine or discipline and that in any particular church or member of the Church Catholike for by particular you must mean one of those but which I know not Arius denied an high point of Catholike Faith and many of the Eastern church would not observe Easter-day according to the Apostolique custom of the Catholike Church but I cannot see why the blasphemy of the one or the Judaizing of the other should be imputed to the Church of Rome and those in communion with her which is the Catholique Church she used all her power and endeavours to reclaim both and when heretikes have forsaken her faith or schismatiques her communion she ha's always used that power and authority wherewith God ha's invested her to cause them to return to their faith and obedience but if the schismatike shall persist in his schism or the hererique in his heresie the fault is in them noâ— in the church that you Doctor most obstinately continue in your heresie the fault is yours not the churches she ha's imployed her utmost endeavours to reclaim you and therefore cannot justly be blamed for your heresie or schisme but if any particular Bishops or Pastors have been negligent in reclaiming heretiques or schismatiques they must answer for it still the church is blamelesse 10. In the next place the Doctor discourses concerning the Visibility of the Catholique Church which he grants to have been alwayes visible both in and from the time of the Apostles to this present day but he will not grant it alwayes visible in one and the same place no not to Rome it self nor to every eye Answ The Doctor will be alwayes proving that which was never question'd but by his leave the Catholique Church ha's been alwayes visible at Rome even from its first conversion to the Christian Faith to this present day as far as the Catholique Church can be visible in any particular branch or member but who ever said or thought that the whole Catholike Church was at any time visible at Rome that City we know was never so capacious as to be able to contain all the Catholikes that have been for these many agâ—s living at the same time in Europe Asia and Africa 11. And that it haâ—s not been alwayes visible to every eye who ever said it was he endeavours to prove because Elijah saw not the church of Israel in his time and because the church was not visible to many in the days of Rehoboam of Ahaz and Manasses Answ If that church were sometimes so obscured that it might be invisible to many nay to most of that Nation for it could not be and be totally obscured and invisible to all eys yet good Doctor you cannot deny but that the church was apparently visible both before and after Elijah before and after Rehoboam before and after Ahaz before and after Manasses but neither you nor all the Protestants in the world can shew that at any time not only for these 1100. yeares last past but for 1600. years even from S. Peters to these our dayes there was any Catholique Church distinct from the church of Rome and those in communion with her whereas that church ha's beene most perspicuously and apparently visible to the world in all ages since the Apostles time to this present time Besides that the Catholike Church should be
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
thereof would stand in need of some supreme Head and Governour certainly he foresaw that when his Church should be more ample and numerous and more subject to divisions and factions it would stand in far greater need of an Vniversal Head wherein all particular Churches and members thereof might be united and therefore would not leave it without some common Pastor to guide and direct it And I desire you to take notice Doctor that herein all the Fathers both Greek and Latin Antient and modern unanimously agree and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christs Church ever was and ever must be S. Peters Successor who hithetâ—o ever since S. Peter plac't his Chair there has been the bishop of Rome and for ought we know ever will be till the end of the world And this those very Authors Stella and Lyra whom you have cited for your self will plainly tell you even in those very places which you have cited Besides who ever confirm'd the acts of any lawful General Councel but the Pope In his absence had he not his Delegates who saâ—e in the supreme place of the Councel though they were not alwayes Bishops and that even in the Easterne Church I could be more copious in this point but I here intend a reply only not a Treatise of Controversie 26. I come now to Pope John 22. who stands charg'd with a strange and monstrous Heresie viz. for affirming that God the Son is greater then God the Father and the Holy Ghost and Stella's authority is produc't to prove it Answ I confess Stella has accus'd him of it but I must be bold to excâ—pt against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact for it cannot appear that Stella spake this upon any just ground or probability for no man besides Stella either Catholique or Heretique that I could ever yet read or hear of ever charg'd Pope John 22. with that blasphemy 't is true some Heretiques and amongst the rest Calvin Just li. 4. c. 7. Sect. 28. have charged this Pope for affirming that the souls of men were mortal but most injuriously for he never taught nor held the mortality of the soul all that he held contrary to the opinion of the world was That the souls of the Just should not see God before the Resurrection This opinion was far from Heresie the Church never having defin'd the contrary and divers ancient Catholique Fathers being of the same opinion neither did he ever absolutely defend that opinion as an unquestionable truth For as Jo. Villanus Hisior li. 11. cap. 19. reports the day before his death he declar'd that he never had any intent to define it and that whensoever he discoursed of it his end was to find out the truth and added withall that he held the contrary opinion to be more probable and I am sure it is most improbable that Ockam his bitter enemy should charge him with this and Calvin with the other and yet neither of these should make any mention of that blasphemous Heresie which D. Boughen one of Stella layes to his charge if either he had been guilty or they could have found any probable argument or colourable ground that he might be guilty of that horrid blasphemy but suppose this had been true as it is far from all probability of truth what is this to the purpose What if Liberius Mâ—rcellinus and John 22. all Bishops of Rome had their private errors what is all this to the Church of Rome your Intelligencer Stella even in that place by you cited will tell you they erred as private persons only not as bishops of Rome or Heads of the Church they never decreed nor defin'd Heresie they never commanded any heretical Doctrine to be receiv'd as a divine truth by the whole Church They might fall into errors so likewise did Peter as Stella sayes even after Christ had prayed for him that his Faith should not fail But I suppose no man will be so unreasonable or blasphemous as to say Peters Faith failed after Christ had prayed that it should not fail though externally for fear of the Jews he denied it Peter then denied his Faith what was this to the other Apostles and the rest of Christs Disciples Liberius Marcellinus and Pope John 22. had their errors what was this to the Church of Rome had you read Stella but a very few lines further you would have found small incouragement to have cited his authority for your opinion for though he seems in some sense to grant your Minor Proposiâ—ion as you call it Sect. 18. in your missh pen Syllogism Sect. 17. viz. That Liberius Marcellinus and Iohn 22. erred in Faith yet he there plainly denies your conclusion viz. That therefore in their times the Church of Rome became no Church but was an Anti-christian Synagogue His words in Luc. 22. 31. the very place by you cited are these Ecclesia enim Autiochena Alexandrina Constantinopolitana saepe defecerunt à fide Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecil quia Christus ait Petro â—ravi pro te ut uon deficiat fides tua The Church saith he of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith but the Church of Rome never fell from her faith because Christ said to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not You see Doctor what a plain testimony here is against you out of the same Author which you have cited for you Stella was not so sharp-sighted as to see your consequence viz. That beause Marcellinus Liberius and John 22. had fallen from the true faith therefore the Church of Rome had forsaken her faith but the contrary he maintains exprefly viz. That although Liberius Marccllinus and John 22. all Popes of Rome denied the true Faith yet the Church of Rome never failed or fell from her faith He could not draw your Conclusion from such Premises as yours are and yet doubtless he knew a Syllogism and a rational consequence as well as you 27. But why should Vigilius be an Eutychian was it because out of reverence and respect to the Councel of Calcedon he could not be induc't neither by the perswasions nor threatnings of the Emperour to repeal an Act of that Councel in condemning those Tria Capitula which the Counccl had receiv'd as Orthodox nothing favouring the Heresie either of Nestorius or Eutyches one whereof was the Epistle of Ibas who publiquely in the Councel renounc't the Heresies both of Nestorius and Eutyches another the writings of Theodoret against Nestorius for which Theodoret had formerly been depos'd by the Eutychian Faction in that Latrocinal Councel at Ephesus and afterwards restor'd by the Catholiques I confess this is a very strong argument that he was no Eutychian but that he was one you only say it you alledg no reason you cite no authority nor testimony but that of Lyra whom I cannot find making any mention at all in the place by you cited in Mat. 16. either of
this Vigilius or of any other Pope whatsoever only in general terms he sayes That some Popes have apostatiz'd which is nothing to this purpose 28. To the Question where your Church was before the Reformation Sect. 19. I suppose Mr. T. B. used not the word Reformation but by it I conceive youmean your separation from the Roman Church To this Question you say it was answered In the Catholique Answ I confess the answer is most true when you were a Church you were in the Catholique Church so also were formerly the Arrians Macedonians Pelagians Nestorians Entychians Donatists c. all these before their respective Reformation that is before they fell into Heresie and Schism were within the walls of the Catholique Church before their separation they were all in communion with the Church of Rome and therefore true members of the Church Catholique so likewise were you and as the Arians c. by forsaking the communion of the Church of Rome and opposing her doctine and faith cut themselves off from the communion of the Catholique Church and so ceast to be members thereof even so have you now ceast to be any Church at all by separating your selves from your Mother Church the Church of Rome with whom you had been in communion for the space of almost a thousand years together even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith by S. Augustine to K. Henry the Eighth's apostosie 19. Before the Reformation you say we communicated with Rome and since we have not that 's no fault of ours ye will not suffer us to communicate with you unless we communicate with your errors Answ This is very fine who I pray shal judg of those errors Christ has made his Church Judg of your errours what Heretiques ever were there in the world that did not or might not have us'd the same Plea for their separation from Gods Church Was there ever any particular Church that presum'd to censme the doctrine of the Catholique Church Or was it not excessive pride if not madness in you to think that you were wiser then the whole Christian world had been for 1500. years before you Can you shew that in any age since the Apostlos the Catholique Church held and taught your doctrine can you prove that ever any particular Church or Nation taught or maintain'd the same nay I will go further can you produce any one man in any age from Christs Passion to Luthers Apostasia let him be of the Clergy or Laity either Catholique or Heretique that agreed with you in all points of your Faith and Doctrine wherein you now dissent from the Church of Rome if you cannot methinks your selves should condemn your selves for separating from that Church in whose Faith and communion all your Ancestorâ— for so many ages liv'd and died and imbracing a new Doctrine and that out of your owne judgement and fancy onely for which you have neither president nor authority 30. And yet I must confess that your Religion is not altogether now it is a Religion for the most part patcht up of old condemned Heresies though there were never any Heretiques before Luther that held all your Doctrine I know your ordinary pretence is to appeal â—o and to be judg'd by the Scripture but do you not first make your selves Judges of the Scripture do you not impose new senses and interpretations on Gods holy Word such as were never heard of before your Apostasie do you not against all reason interpret plain places of Scripture by obscure rather then the obscure by the plain and when by your corrupt translations false glosses and new interpretations you have made the Scripture speak what you please then you cry out The Scripture has given sentence for you against the Church of Rome I confess since you have made your selves Masters of the Holy Ghost you were very unwise if you would not make him speak as you would have him you have usurped a power that we dare not challenge we tremble at that fearful curse denounc't by S. Paul Gal. 1 against all those that shall teach new Doctrines We hearken to not consure the Church We imbrace her doctrine not charge her with errours But I would ask any reasonable man though there were no Obligation yet whether it were not more prudential for a man to build his salvation on the authority of the whole Church then of some particular persons not altogether agreeing amongst themselves and disagreeing from the whole world besides or whether it were not more reasonable to imbrace the doctrines and interpretations of Scripture that were universally receiv'd by the whole Church for 1500. years then those new doctrines and interpretations of Luther and his followers You confess that before your Reformation as you call it you communicated with the Church of Rome How came you to find that the Church wanted a Reformation and that in Doctrine for in matters of Discipline and manners you might have reform'd your selves and yet still have been in communion with the Church of Rome How came you to discover those errors which none in the whole Christian world besides your selves could perceive before your separation there was no particular branch or member of the Catholique Church but was in communion with the Church of Rome How then came you to see that light which none besides your selves could see Was all the world besides you blind Had you only the Scripture Or could you only interpret them But why do I speak of you as of a company or multitude For though Time has now made the difference to be between the Protestants and the Church of Rome yet originally it was between Luther and the whole Church you in England as all other Protestants are but Luthers followers The Church then went one way and Luther another and you very wisely have forsaken the whole Church and followed Luther Do but examine this according to the principles of common prudence and then tell me Doctor whether you have done discreetly You have forsaken the whole Christian world and followed one man who neither had nor pretended to any extraordinary calling He never wrought miracle in confirmation of his new Doctrines or to manifest to the world that God had revealed that Truth unto him which for many ages had been totally obscur'd and unknown to the world It is then your fault now that you communicate not with the Catholike Church since it was your fault formerly that you forsook her to follow one man If you will forsake that single Apostate and return to your faith and obedience you shall soon be receiv'd the Churches armes are alwayes open to imbrace you Before your pretended Reformation according to your own confession Sect. 19 you communicated with Rome that is you acknowledged your subjection to the Apostolike Sea of Rome You confest the Bishop thereof to be the supream visible Head of Christs Church appointed by Christ himself to be so as St. Peters
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
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
question'd But denies that this doctrine of your 19. Article can consist with your opinion who hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church a member of the Church Catholique though according to divers of your Articles cited by Mr. T. B. n. 3. She neither preaches the pure Word of God nor duly administers the Sacraments no not in all those things that of necessity are requisite for the same For how can that be essentially a part of the Catholique Church which observes not that which is essentiall to the Catholique Church as is the preaching of the pure Word of God and the due administration of the Sacraments according to that definition of the Church in your 19. Article Besides how can you vindicate that Church from heresie that for Doctrines of Faith necessary to salvation teaches blasphemous fables Art 31. Or that Sacrilegiously robs the Laity of Christ's bloud with which you charge the Church of Rome Sect. 11. of your first Answer Or that maintaines Doctrines repugnant to plaine words of Scripture Sect. 24. ib. Or that erres in Doctrine of faith as you tax the Church of Romeâ— Sect. 14. of your second Answer Or that gives divine worship to Images and Reliques wherewith you charge the Church of Rome Sect. 34. ib. Can any Church be blasphemous sacrilegious idolatrous repugnant in her Doctrines to plaine words of Scripture erroneus in Doctrines of Faith and yet not be heretical but continue still essentially a true Church But because you are pleas'd to extend your Charity beyond Reason towards the Church of Rome I will not quarrell with you about it onely I must take notice of the Argument which you bring to prove it God say you blames the Church of Pergamos for enduring the seat of Satan within her Diocesse as also for holding that â—didous Doctrine of the Nicolaitans and yet grants her to be a Church Answ Herein you are much mistaken Doctor for God blames not the Church but the Angell of the Church of Pergamos which by many Catholique Expositors both Ancient and Moderne as also by divers of your owne Sect and Religion is interpreted The bishop of the Church If the Church of Pergamos had held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans She had bin Hereticall and consequently no Church but it was the Bishop not the Church that was hereticall And if God may charge the Bishop of the Church of Pergamos with Heresie and yet grant Pergamos to be a true Church why may not the Church of Rome continue a true Church though the Bishop thereof fall into heresie 60. your taking the Church of Rome for maiming the blessed Sacrament Sect. 13. has been fully answer'd already Sect. 18. 19. and. Sect. 41. 61. But the Doctor is very hot in proving that the Church must erre with her Bishop and therefore the Church of Rome was no Church when her Bishops were hereticall Such as the Bishop is saies he such is the Church presumed to be Answ I know none but Dr. Boughen that was ever guilty of so silly a Presumption But S. Cyprians Authority is urg'd to prove it who sayes that as the Bishop is in the Church so is the Church in the Bishop I consesse I find in S. Cyprian Epist lib. 4. Ep. 9. these words Christiani sunt Ecclesiae plebs Sacerdoti adunata Pastori suo grex adhaerens unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo Christians are a Church and Common people united to the Preist and a Flock adhering to its Pastor whence you must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop What is all this to the purpose The Bishop is in the Church as a King is in his Kingdome or a Generall in his Army and the Church likewise is in the Bishop not formally but communicativè all the particular members thereof being in communion with the Bishop as their Head And this is all that can be gather'd from those words of the Father Since then the Church cannot be Formally in the Bishop but onely by way of communion subjection government or Discipline why may not the Church be Catholique though the Bishop be Hereticall But from this false ground the Doctor will prosecute his old fallacy and will still be endeavouring to prove that the Church of Rome could not be Catholique when the Bishops thereof were heretiques Sect 19. All Heretiques sayes he while such both themselves and all that side with them are secluded from Ecclesiastical communion every way But divers Popes were Heretiques or Schismatiques therefore the Church of Rome while her Bishops were heretical was in an ill case Answ Is not this a sine conclusion from those Premises what form or consequence is this here of a Syllogism And if the conclusion did follow out of those Premises what were this to the purpose The Church may be in an ill case when the Bishop is in heresie yet not Hereticall But behold another argument to prove the Church of Rome not Catholique When all Episcopal Acts were voyd the Church could not possibly be Catholike But when the Bishops were Heretiques all Episcopall Acts were void therefore the Church could not possibly be Catholique Answ This consequence is much like the other All the Acts of Heretical Bishops are void therefore the Church cannot possibly be Catholique as if the Faith of the Church depended on the Acts of the Bishop But a confirmation thereof is brought from S. Hilaries testimony who professeth as you say That in these Western parts there was in his time no Christian communion but in France Answ You do well to put those words in these Western parts in a parenthesis for they are yours not S. Hilaries as may appear by his words by you cited Sect. 23. where those words caeteris extra Gallias may comprehend the Eastern as well as the Western Churches And if you read Ecclesiastical Histories you shall find that in S. Hilaries time the Eastern Churches were far more infected with Arrianism then the Western 62. Besides you may remember Doctor that in the beginning of this second answer you confest that in S. Hilaries time at that very time when Rome as you falsly say was Arrian Sardinia was a Catholique and Orthodox Church How can that agree with this which you here endeavour to prove out of S. Hilary Was not Sardinia part of the Western Church How then could all the Western parts be excluded from Christian communion besides France when Sardinia which is in these Western parts was as your self confess a Catholique and Orthodox Church How can these two possibly consist together It seems you have forgot your self Oportet mendacem esse memorem 60. After all the other Popes Faelix is brought in for communicating with Arrians and Socrates and Zozomen are alledged to prove that therefore Rome it self was then accounted Arrian What then says Socrates that Liberius was banish't for his constancy in defending the Catholique Faith
reason that the word Quapropter may refer to the former words and that the Father speaks as the Doctor would have him What shall we discover then even this consequence Heretiques by having a false opinion of God are cut off from the Catholique Church therefore every violation of Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church Most admirable this is just like the rest If this be a good consequence there was never any bad or fallacious Just so will I prove that every damnable sin excludes not a man from Gods favour Murther and Adultery exclude a man from Gods favour therefore not every damnable sin excludes a man from Gods favour You will say this is no good consequence I say so too but I am sure it is as good as yours the very same with yours 70. Now we come to examine who are in Schism the Church or Luthers followers or indeed rather whether there be any Schism or no between the Church of Rome and the Protestants which the Doctor seems to deny The truth is M. T. B. has so gravel'd the poor Doctor that he is forc't to fly to most miserable and ridiculous shifts M. T. B. very rationally and judiciously sayes by way of objection that Christs mystical Body is but one and although the Body be made up of divers members yet all these members must communicate one with another for if a member be separated but by Schism it is like an arm cut off from the Body or a branch from the Vine which makes that arm or branch no part of the Body or Vine To this the Doctor answers thus What though all this be granted will this make one of the two no Church I believe not Reply 'T is very likely Doctor that you believe so but what man of sense or understanding can believe so Can a particular church separate from the whole Catholique Church both in Doctrines of Faith and external communion and yet not be Schismatical but still continue a Catholique Church who ever before D. Boughen could say or think so Well but S. Pauls authority is alledged 1 Cor. 12. 25. where it is said that all the members of the body must communicate one with another in the same care one for another in the same sufferings and rejoycings one with another What then Is there no other communion necessary to avoid Schism This is just like your former consequences The members must communicate one with another in the same sufferings and rejoycings one with another therefore to avoid Schism there is no other communion necessary I am sure this is no necessary consequence but with such poor fallacies as these Heretiques have always endeavour'd to deceive the world Neither can that place of the Apostle advantage you at all for he there only compares Christ's mystical body the Church to the natural body and sayes that as all the members of the natural body mutually assist each other and without any Schism that is any division or discord joyntly concur to preserve the body so also in the Church which is Christs mystical body there are different orders functions and offices all which ought mutually to assist each other for the preservation of the whole church this is al that S. Paul intends in that place as by the context of the whole cha wil evidently appear to any indifferent Reader 71. We are not bound you say Sect. 32. to communicate with the Church of Rome in the same ceremonies gesture superstition or error Answ First I deny that the Roman Church is or ever was or can be guilty of superstition or error in faith Secondly I grant that you are bound not to communicate with any Nation or people in superstition or error As also that you are not bound to use the ceremonies of other Catholique Churches There be divers particular Churches that differ from each other in some ceremonies and yet are in perfect charity and communicate with each other As for example The Westerne Church consecrates in unleavened bread after the example of our B. Saviour who first instituted the blessed Sacrament and consecrated in unleavened bread but the Greeke Church has alwaies accustomed to consecrate in leavened bread besides these two Churches differ in divers ceremonies of the Masse though not in any substantiall or essentiall part thereof And yet these two churches are in perfect charity and communion with each other I speak here of the true Catholique Greek Church not of those schismatiqâ—es and Heretiques who have cut themselves off from the Catholique Church whom notwithstanding you are pleas'd to cal the Greeke Church Neither doe those churches abhorre each others ceremonies as superstitious or unlawfull but the particular members of each church are most ready to conforme to the ceremonies and discipline of each other according as any of them shall travell or passe from one church to the other As when a bishop or Priest of the Easterne church travells into any part of the Westerne he then makes me scruple to consecrate in unleavened bread as formerly in his own church he consecrated in leavened but when any two churches shall abhorâ—e and detest the Doctrine and ceremonies of each other as hereticall sacrilegious idolatrous and repugnant to plaine Scripture there is then a perfect schisme And since these two abhorre each others communion charging each other with sacrilegious idolatrous and damnable errours they cannot both meet in the Catholique Church and therefore one of them must necessarily be cut off from Christ's mysticall body either by heresie or schisme or both Wherefore in granting that assertion of Mr. T. B. you must also grant that either the Church of Rome or the Protestants are guilty of heresie or schisme or both and therefore no part of the Catholique Church 72. It is then now time to show who is the schismatique And that you are schismaticall I prove thus Those that have seperated themselves from the communion of the Catholique Church are schismaticall But you have separated your selves from the communion of the Catholique Church Ergo. You are Schismaticall The Major is evident and often granted by the Doctor the minor is thus prov'd Those that have separated themselves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome have separated themselves from the Catholique Church But you have seperated your selves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome Ergo. You have separated your selves from the communion of the Catholique Church The minor is acknowledg'd by the Doctor Sect. 19. of his first Answer The major is sufficiently proved Sect 25. and Sect. 58. wherefore I will here only add some few authentique testimonies more in proofe thereof S. Cyprian sayes li. 4. ep 8. a d Cornâ—l Pontif. Placuit ut per Episcopos reteniâ— Ã nobis rei veritate ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam c. ut te universi Collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter charitatem probarent firmiter
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.
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