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.
AN ANSWER To a Book entituled AN ACCOVNT OF THE Church Catholike Where it was before the Reformation And whether Rome were or be the Church Catholike Wherein is proved That the Catholike Church never was nor can be distinct from that which is now called The Church of Rome By R. T. Esquire Concordes omnes sumus unum idem sentientes quare qui societatem nostram devitat is nè lateat sinceritatem vestram quòd seipsum à tota Ecclesia abrumpit Basil Eust Printed at Paris 1654. AN ANSWER TO A late Book Entituled An Account of the CHURCH CATHOLIKE c. THough every idle Pamphlet deserves not the pains of an answer yet since new and dangerous Doctrines have so far over-spread this Nation and taken such firm root in the hearts of the people that any defence thereof though never so weak shall be readily imbrac't and highly magnified I esteemed it not altogether un-necessary to endeavour by this Reply to undeceive the dâ—luded multitude wâ—o are commonly carried away rather by the authority of some person in their opinion eminent then by force of Argument I should much wonder that so woâ—thy a person as report ba's represented D. Boughen to the world should be the Author of so unworthy a Pamphlet did I not consider the horried effects of pride and malice how they not only tempt wretched souls out of the right path that leads to eternall felicity but spur them on also to a violent opposition of Gods sacred truth till at length they break out into open blasphemy against God and his holy Church for which God forsakes them leaving them to their impious and damnable errors to maintain which the most learned and subtill of all Heretiques are forc't to fly to fallacious and ridiculous Arguments which though to some unwary reader they may at the first appearance seem to carry some show of truth yet upon more mature examination they will be plainly discover'd to be but false and deceiptfull colours and such are all the Arguments in these Answers to the two Letters of Mr. T. B. which I doubt not but I shall evidently demonstrate to any impartiall reader Sect. 1. First then Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Catholike Church distinct from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion The Doctor answers That the particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike as a particular member is to the whole body and therefore as the whole body is distinct from a particular member or a particular member from the whole body so is the particular Church of Rome distinct from the whole Catholike Rub up your Logick Doctor or let me advise you to go once more to the University and converse while with the young Sophisters who will tell you of a fallacy call'd Ignoratio Elenchi which indeed runs through almost your whole book For let us set these two Propositions against each other and then see whether we can discover any contradiction between them 1. Prop. The Catholike Church is not distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her 2. Prop. The particular Church of Rome is as distinct from the whole Catholike as a particular member is from the whole body Where is the contradiction if both these Propositions may be true as certainly they are where is the conclusion contradictory to the Proposition But let us help the Doctor and form his Argument into a Syllogism and then perchance we may discover a contradiction Ma. Every particular member is distinct from the whole body Min. But the particular Church of Rome is a member of the whole body Concl. Therefore the particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole body I must here ask again where is the contradictory Conclusion to Proposition but perchance we wrong the Doctor in making that his conclusion which he intended for his argument to the conclusion contradictory Let us try that way then and see what will follow The particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike as a particular member is to the whole body Ergo The Catholike Church is distinct from the Church of Rome and those Communion with her An excellent consequence which every young Sophister will laugh at But let us try one way more for I would fain make something of it let us help the Doctor with another Syllogism Ma. The particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole Catholike But Min. The Church of Rome and those in Communion with her is the particular Church of Rome Ergo The Church of Rome and those in Communion with her is distinct from the whole Catholiks Here I confesse is some apparency of contradiction in this conclusions but then what a ridiculous Minor is here By the same way of argumentation I will prove Westminster and the Suburbs of London to be within the walls of London Thus Ma. The particular City of London is within the walls of London But Min. The Suburbs of London and the City of Westminster adjoyning there unto are the particular City of London Ergo The Suburbs of London and City of Westminster adjoyning thereunto are within the walls of London If the Minor were as true as the Major the conclusion would necessarily be true but the Minor is as false as yours and yours as this for you must know good Doctor that the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her are as much distinct from the particular Church of Rome as the Suburbs of London and City of Westminster are from the City of London Sect. 2. Besides there is great difference between the Roman Church and the particular Church of Rome the Roman Church and the Catholike being Synonama's signifying one and the same thing And though in that demand of Mr. T. B. the Church of Rome may in sensu diviso be limited to the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome yet in sensu composito that is being joyned to the following words and those in Communion with her the Church of Rome is of as full and ample laâ—itude and extension as the whole Catholike Church And thus may be answer'd that triviall and childish objection against these words Roman Catholike as if they implied a contradiction they being but as I said before Synonima's both expressing the whole Church in her amplest latitude for the Church of God is Catholique in respect of her Faith Roman in respect of her denomination Catholike in respect of her doctrine Roman in respect of her discipline Catholike in regard she is not consin'd to one Nation People or Kingdome but invites the whole world to her Faith and Communion willingly imbracing all that will come unto her Roman in respect all particular Churches and persons whatsoever that are within the Communion of the Catholike Church are united in and subject to one Head the Bishop of the particular Church or Sea of Rome as being S. Peters Successor and appointed by Christ to be his Vicar on earth
Thus have we vindicated that expression of Roman Catholike from contradiction that denomination Roman added to the Church being as universall and having as large a signification as the word Catholike which not withstanding might have se med an unnecessary addition had it not been long since occasion'd by some Heretiques thereby to distinguish true from pretended Catholikes for those Heretiques well knew that they could neither justifie their new doctine nor draw people to their opinion but by usurping the name and tiâ—le of Catholikes therefore the word Roman was added to Catholike that those Heretiques that had forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church might not deceive the vulgar under the notion of Catholikes 3. And here by the way Doctor I desire you to observe that there was never any Schismatique or Heretique nor any Sect or Congregation of men professing the name of Christ divided from the Catholike Church but did either actually or originally seperate themselves from that Church which is now call'd and ever was since the Apostles times the Church of Rome and therefore must necessarily have formerly been in Communion with the same Church which is an argument unanswerable that there was never any Catholike Church distinct from that which is now call'd the Roman Church or Church of Rome 4. But in the examination of this discourse I have discover'd another fallacy in the Doctor which the Logicians call à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For though the Church of Rome in some respect viz. as she is the particular Diocesse or Sea of the Bishop of Rome may be call'd a particular Church yet as she is the Center and Fountain of Vnity in whom all the particular members of the Church Catholike are united she is and may be truly and properly call'd the Catholike Church And now good Doctor the discovery of these two fallacies might serve for a full and sufficient answer to almost your whole book But let us proceed 5. Now the Doctor begins to muster up his arguments against the Church of Rome to prove she is not the Catholike Church And first If the Church of Rome sayes he he the Catholike Church where was the Catholike Church before She became a Church Here I expected the Doctor would have begun to speak sense but it will not be Let us then examine the Argument There was a time before Rome was a Church therefore at this time the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her for those words Doctor must not be left out though you are pleased to take little notice of them is not the Catholike Church Or thus There was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church therefore now at this time the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her cannot be the Catholike Church What strange consequences are these as if the Catholike Church cannot take Her particular denomination from Rome though there were a Catholique Church before Rome was converted to the Christian Faith But to answer you in a word before S. Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome the Catholike Church could not take its denomination from Rome but afterwards it might and did and that denominanation of Roman it reâ—ains to this dâ—y and ever will till S. Peters Successor shall translate his Sea from Rome to some other City which in all probability neither you Doctor nor I shall ever live to see 6. But let us examine this argument a little further Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Catholike Church distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with Her The Doctor answers That there was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church and therefore that was not the Roman Here the Doctor ha's spoke something though nothing to the purpose for who ever question'd that conclusion The Doctor ha's forgot himself again for his conclusion should have been this Therefore the Catholike Church was distinct from the Church of Rome and those in communion with her and then let us see what a fine argument here will be There was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church therefore the Catholike Church was distinct from the Church of Rome and those in communion with her Very pretty Rome was no Church at all therefore the Church of Rome was distinct from the Catholique Church You must not say Doctor that I impose this conclusion upon you the argument is your own and you think it so strong that you urge it again Sect. 22. and though you have not thus set it down in expresse terms yet is it necessarily involv'd in your discourse 7. But I have not yet done with this monstrous argument Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Church Catholike distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her for the last 1100. yeares The Doctor answers that there was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church Here we shall have another fine consequence There was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church viz somewhat above 1600. years since Therefore the Catholike Church ha's been distinct from the Church of Rome and those in communion with her for thâ—se last 1100 years Most excellently concluded Mr. Doctor in brief the effect of the argument is this There was a time when Rome was no Church at all therefore for these 1100. years last past the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her have not been the Catholike Church Just so will I prove that D. Boughen has not been a Doctor of Divinity for these five years last past There was a time when D. Boughen was no Doctor at all therefore D Boughen has not been a Doctor of Divinity for these five years last past Into what a Labyrinth of absurdities has the poor Doctor cast himself 8. Let us now proceed to the next argument and sum it up as far as it is capable into a syllogisticall form If Rome be the Catholike Church then if she be Orthodox the Catholike Church is Orthodox if she be heretical or schismatical the whole Church must be heretical and schismatical but the Catholique Church was never heretical or schismatical and yet the Church of Rome has been miserably schismatical heretical schismatical as is to be seen in Platina Onuphrius when she had somtimes two somtimes three Bishops together a double a treble-headed a monstrous Church Therefore Rome cannot be the Catholike Church I am sure the Church of Rome was never so monstrous as this argument The Doctor is fallen so deep into a fallacy that he cannot tell how to get out M. T. B. demands one thing and the Doctor layes about him to prove another But let us examine the argument If by Rome you meane the particular Church or Sea of Rome first it is impertinent secondly I deny your consequence at least as to its latter part for the Catholike Church ha's not that necessary dependence on the particular Sea of Rome as
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 arch-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
ignorance and to strengthen him by your weakness 53. I pass by your scurrilous speeches a-against M. T. B. as your comparing him to Seneca's wives fool your charging him for not being able to search the Scriptures Councels and Fathers to discover the antiquity and succession of your Doctrine there where no man ever yet did or can discover it I will only say this that M. T. B. has shewn more wit and judgment in one line then you have in all your Pamphlet and has said more in one sentence then you or all the Rabble of your Sect can answer in an age But let us see how you prove the antiquity of your Doctrine 54. The Doctrine you say of the Church of England is clear in your Book of Common-Prayer as for the positive part and in your book of Articles wherein much is Negattve Answ A very antient Doctrine then it must be your Book of Common-Prayer being made not much above 100. years since viz. 29. May 1549. in the reign of K. Edward the Sixth and your Book of Articles not much above half an hundred But was your book of Common-Prayer intended for a Confession of Faith or for publique Service and Devotion Is there any point of Faith or Doctrine absolutely declar'd and defin'd there You will say perchance that in the three Creeds are contain'd divers Declaratious and definitions of Faith I confess it but those Creeds are not inserted there meerly as definitions of Faith with a precept under a curse that all should believe whatsoever is there declard but as parts of your Publique Service that by frequent repetition thereof the vulgar people might know the principal points of Faith necessary for salvation I deny not but some Doctrines may be deducible thence though nothing positively declared it being a book which belongs rather to the Discipline then Doctrine of your pretended Church 55. The positive Doctrine you say of your Church contained in that Book was ever professed and is visible in all Catholique Writers Answ I confess that most if not all of the Doctrines deducible thence were ever professed and are visible in all Catholique Writers because they are the Doctrines of the Roman Catholike Church whence you have borrowed them as you have your whole book of Common-Prayer and the Scripture it self only you have taken the sacrilegious boldness to expunge out of both what your private phancies would not admit but if you can shew any one of your negative or positive Doctrines contain'd in your book of Articles and which is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in any one Catholique Writer Father or Councel from the time of the Apostles to Luthers Apostasie I here profess before all the world that I will then become a Protestant my self or whatsoever else you will command me to be 56. But whereas you say That the most skilful of the Roman Catholique Party are not able to shew a succession of men professing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the first 700. years of Christianity I am so amaz'd that I know not whether I should charge you with gross ignorance or hellish malice In plain terms you must be either a most ignorant animal or a malicious deceiver Is it possible that you should obtrude such a notorious falshood to the world and not blush certainly you never read the Fathers nor Councels nor therein examin'd the antient Doctrine and practise of the Church or if you have as you pretend your judgment is not sufficient to understand them or else malice and obstinacy hath so blinded you that you cannot see it there as the malicious and obstinate Jews could not see our blessed Saviours Divinity through so many stupendious miracles The Sun it self was never so clear at noon-day as the succession of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of men professing the same not only for the first 700. years of Christianity but from the time of the Apostles to this present day Has it not been already clearly shewn by divers learned Catholique Writers by you yet un-answer'd Has not Bellarmine Baronius Cardinal Peron D. Stratford c. most evidently manifested it to the world Were I not confin'd within the narrow precincts of a Reply I could most plainly demonstrate it my self but it would require a far larger volume then I have now time or opportunity to compose It is sufficient for me since you have appealed to the first 500. years after our Saviours birth that I have proved Sect. 44. that the Doctrine of those times is not different from but the very same with the present Doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church 57. Your Church of England you say has been visible since the first or second Conversion though not alwayes under Reformation Answ Which you mean by the first or second Conversion I know not but from the time of her last Conversion by S. Augustine the Monk which is commonly reputed her third conversion for almost 1000. years together you were an apparent visible part of the Church Catholique but when you began your blessed Reformation you then ceast to be a Church or a part of the Catholique Church For in K. Hen. eight's dayes you began your Schism separating your selves from the communion of your holy Mother the Church of Rome and the Bishop thereof the common Pastor of Christs Church and in K. Edw. the Sixths Reign your Schism begat Heresie and under this happy Reformation you have ever since continued But now Doctor where are your pretended Bishops what is become of your book of Common-Prayer who now subscribes to your 39. Articles You cannot reasonably deny but those who have lately reformed you had more authority and reason for it then you had to reform the whole Church or to censure Doctrines of Faith universally taught by Gods Church and receiv'd as such by all your Fore-fathers from the time of Englands conversion to the Christian Faith till after Luthers apostasie You considered not when under pretence of Reformation you forsook the whole Church that you did but leave a patern to your Successors how they also when they should think fit might forsake you and reform this your blessed Reformation as by Gods just judgments they have lately done For I am sure they walk by the same Rule of Scripture and are as competent Judges and as able interpreters thereof as ever you were or can be only they are not so tyrannical as you were who forced men against their consciences to subscribe to your Doctrine and Discipline which according to your own principles might be erroneous and superstitious 58. But you say Sect. 9. That you never read in Fathers or Councels That to communicate with Rome is either a sure or any token of a good Catholique Answ Then you never read S. Hieroms 57 Epist to Pope Damasus where you might have seen these words Ego Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri commumione consâ—â—ior super illam Petram