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
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
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
answer'd Sect. 28. yet I have thought fit to make this further examination of it To the question then Where was your Church before Luther D. Lawd answers Where ours is now Answ If by ours he means the particular Church of Rome I must confess his answer to be true for the particular Church of Rome is a part or member af the Roman Catholike Church and so were you before Luther but with him you have apostatiz'd and are fallen into Schism and He resie and instead of a Church you are become an Heretical and Schismatical Congregation Luther forsook the whole Church and those that soon after his Apostacy adhered to his Heresies followed him also in his Apostacy they having been all members of that Church which Luther had forsaken But this you will say was no separation but a reformation for that D. Lawd drives at One and the same Church still saith he one in substance but not one in condition of state and purity your part of the same Church by your part he means the Church of Rome remaining in corruption and our part of the same Church under Reformation Good God how can any society of men professing themselves Christians be one and the same Church and that in substante with that from which they separated both in Faith and communion Or what can be a separation if this be not If you have not separated your selves from the Catholique Church then were the Arrians Nestorians Macedontans Pelagians c. no Heretiques neither were they separated from the Catholique Church but were only under Reformation Do not you oppose and deny Doctrines of Faith as antiently and as universally receiv'd by the Church as those that the Arrians Nestorians Macedonians Pelagians c. oppos'd and denied What difference can you make between Arrius and Luther in respect of their apostasie Did not Luther set himself against the whole world as well as Arrius Did not the whole Christian world besides your selves upon your first Reformation as you call it detest your new Doctrines and abhor your communion Did not the pretended Greek Church it self into whose communion you were Petitioners to be admitted condemn your new Doctrines as Heretical and refuse to receive you into their communion Read the book entituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae and you shall there find the Greek Church maintaining and that against the Protestants the Doctrine of seven Sacraments cap. 7. of Transubstantiation and real presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrarmenâ— c. 10. of auricular confession c. 11. of the unbloudy propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass c. 13. of free will c. 18. of Traditions c. 20. of Invocation of Saints and Veneration of Images c. 21. Was there any one man in the whole world that profest your Foctrine before Luther and yet forsooth yours was no separation from the Catholique Church but a Reformation a blessed Reformation that must necessarily justifie all former Heresies that ever were condemn'd and all Heretiques and Schismatiques that ever separated themselves from Gods Church To say no more where is your succession of Bishops and Pastors which are essential to Gods Church If the consecration of your pretended Bishops was never valid then must also the Ordination of your pretended Priests be invalid and it never yet could nor ever can appear that you had either Bishop consecrated or Priest ordained either lawfully or validly since Queen Marye's days But I am sure there are most strong and pregnant arguments for the contrary I deny not but that perchance there might be some Priests ordained validly though sacrilegiously by that Apostate Bishop of Spalato in the time of his stay in England but what is that to a succession of Priests and Bishops I have now done with the first answer and pass to the second which because I find to consist principally of scurrilityes personal and malicious invectives and repetitions of former fallacies my reply will be the shorter since I shall in many things refer the Reader to my former answers and take notice here only of that which I shall find to be new matter 50. And here at the very first entrance I meet with an old fallacy a ridiculous argument already answered Sect. 5. to which I must refer the Reader I will here add this only That before S. Peter translated his Chair from Antioch to Rome the Catholique Church might be properly called the Church of Antioch which ever since has been called the Roman Church and ever will be until S. Peters Successor shall translate his Chair to some other place 51. After this follows a most notorious falshood viz. That in the time of S. Hilary of Poicteurs there was at Rome no Church no communion of Saints She and those in communion with her were â—eretical and complied with Arrius This is most apparently false by the Records of all Histories for at that time the Westerne Church was nothing so much infected with Arrianism as the Eastern besides S. Hilary in that place by you cited Sect. â—3 has not so much as named the Church of Rome and therefore has not in particular excluded it from the Catholique Church But from those words of the Father caeteris extra Gallias you would prove that all the world besides France was out of the Catholique Church for say you There was then no communion with Rome unless it can be prov'd that Rome was in France Sect. 23. But pray tell me Doctor Was Alexandria and Sardinia more in France then Rome and yet you here confess that at the very same time those were Catholike and Orthodox Churches so that it must necessarily follow either that Alexandria and Sardinia were in France or else that some other Churches besides France were Catholique and Orthodox and if so why not Rome especially since that Father did not in particular charge Rome with Arrianism more then Alexandria and Sardinia so that if you by those general words of the Father will exclude Rome I may also as well exclude Alexandria and Sardinia from the Catholique Church Wherefore you have forc't your self to interpret those words of the Father as I have done Sect. 34. or else you must unsay what you have said and deny Alexandria and Sardinia to have been at that time Catholique and Orthodox Churches unless you can prove that Alexandria and Sardinia are in France 52. Hitherto then you have shewed no Church at all distinct from the Roman Church in any age though you were pleas'd to say Sect. 3. of this second answer That your learning is such that you doe know such a Church and your charity such that you have shews it It seems you shewed it so well that M. T. B. was thereby fully satisfied that the Catholique Church never was nor can be distinct from the Church of Rome and has thereupon imbraced her communion and is by Gods grace become a good Catholique Thus has God been pleased to produce good out of evil to work his happiness out of your
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
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
liv'd within the first 500. years of Christianity Sect. 35. 36. 37. 38. c. what can you say for your selves what can you plead for your selves that you who deny the Doctrines of the church should not incur the penalty of the curse 75. You will say perchance that these are not Doctrines and Declarations of the whole Church Catholique but of the Church of Rome only and those in communion with her which you say is but part of the Catholike Church But this wil not now serve your turn whether the Church of Rome and those in communion with her be a part only of the Catholike Church or the whole Catholike Church it self as I have sufficiently prov'd it is it matters not you cannot be excus'd from heresie For when Luther was a Fryer before he set himself against the church what church what congregation of Christians what Nation what people nay what man was there in the whole world professing the name of Christ that denied or opposed those or any one of those forementioned Doctrines These were doctrines receiv'd imbrac't and publikely profest by the whole Christian world Not the Church of Rome and those in communion with her only but those also that were out of her communion as the whole pretended Greek Church receiv'd and profest these doctrines in their universal publike and daily practise as appears by Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople in his sententia desinitiva de doctrina Religione Wittenberg en sium Protestantiâ—m as also in his Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae where you shall find a detestation of your opposite doctrines 76. But if those doctrineâ— be fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture where was the church that pillar and ground of truth when the whole Christian world before Luthers apostasie receiv'd held and maintain'd them and if those that shall thus separate themselves from and oppose the whole church in doctrines of faith receiv'd by the whole church as such and acknowledg'd by her to be of universal and Apostolical tradition be not heretiques there never was neither is it possible that there ever should be any heretique in the world And yet yours was no separation but a reformatson But what can be invented more absurd or ridiculous then that one single apostate in Germany or a few avaricious and flattering Courtiers in England should first forsake the communion of that church wherein they had liv'd from their Baptism and wherein all their forefathers for almost 1000. years liv'd and died and afterwards renounce doctrines of Faith universally receiv'd by the church and then take upon them to be Judges of the whole church which Christ has made the Supreme Judg of all controversies and to reform the whole church and that in matters of doctrine but you must know Doctor that the Catholique Church cannot teach or maintain sacrilegious doctrines or such as are repugnaut to plain words of Scripture For then she would cease to be holy and consequently to be a church holiness being essential to Gods church as appeares both by the Nicene and Apostles Creed If then the church should obtrude upon the world sacrilegious and idolatrous doctrines and such as are repugnant to plain words of Scripture instead of sacred and divine truths she could not possibly be holy Since then the whole Christian world when Luther was a Fryer taught and maintain'd those four foremention'd Doctrines which you are pleas'd to stile sacrilegious and repugnans to plain words of Scripture it must necessarily follow that either at that time God had no church at all which your self confess to be impossible or â—ls that those doctrines are not sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture but sacred and Apostolical truths and if so what are those that oppose and contradiet them 77. Hence it appears how false that is which you say Sect. 32. That you communicate with the Church of Rome in necessaries in Faith Hope and Charity c. since you oppose her in doctrines of Faith and by your schisme a sin directly against Charity have cut your selves off from her communion With what face then can you say Sect. 34. That you abhor not mutual communion with her in divine worship Do you not abhor to communicate with her in the Sacraments Do you not call her adoration of Christ in the B. Sacrament Idolatry And whereas you say there that you cannot endure that divine worship be given to any other then to the B. Trinity I would have you know that the Church of Rome gives not divive worship to any thing but God and if you will say that she does you will but proove your self very malicious or very ignorant 78. In your 35 Sect. I find nothing but what is either impertinent or already answered 79. In the next Sect. I meet with a bold challenge I challenge saies the Doctor the most able of your faction to shew me any one passage in our Common-Prayer Book that is not Catholique Answ If your Book of Common-Prayer be Catholique yet you have no great reason to boast of it you may thank the Church of Rome for it from whom you borrowed it which you know Doctor was the principal reason why those of the Puritan faction refus'd and abhor'd your Book of Common-Prayer as being Popish and super stitious But if all in that Book be Catholique it is rather an argument that the Church of Rome is Catholique from whence you took it then that you are so For all in that Book may be Catholique yet you may be Heretical You may oppose as you do other doctrines of Faith that are not contained in nor deducible from your Book of Common Prayer And if about the beginning of your defection some Catholiques frequented your Service it was because they esteemed it devout and pious as being all taken out of the Office and Missale of the Church of Rome They had not fully considered nor yet cleerly apprehended the unlawfulness thereof Wherefore it behoved the common Pastor of Gods Church to put them in mind how impious and sacrilegious it was for Catholiques to communicate with those who were guilty both of Schism and Heresie in divine Service 80. And whereas you alledg S. Paul to prove that in meats and matters of indifferency we are not to judge one another you must know Doctor that Doctrines of faith such as are Declarations and definitions of Generall Councells the lawes and Canons of the Vniversall Church made and generally receiv'd by the Church as the ancient Canons concerning Festivalls and Fasts are not matters of indifferency and cannot be violated without schism or Heresie 81. But I wonder with what face you can call your Congregation the Mother-Church of Catholiques Sect. 39. 'T is you that have forsaken your Mother-Church that Church wherein all your fore-fathers liv'd and died for about 1000. yeares together you confesse that once you communicated with the Church of Rome and that since you have forsaken her communion
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.