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
tenerent Wee thought fit c. that all our fellow bishops might stedfastly approve of and imbrace you and your communion that is the Catholique Churches unity and charity Is it not plaine by these words that the unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome And if there be no Catholique unity but in communion with the Bishop of Rome it is apparently impossible that any one can be united to the Catholique Church that is not in communion with the Bishop and the Church of Rome Besides that the Church is built upon S. Peter and his Successors I have already fully proved Sect. 25. and Sect. 58. to which I will add one testimonie more out of S. Cyprian Epist ad Quintinum Nam nec Petrus quem primum elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither Peter whom our Lord chose to be the first and upon whom he built his Church c. The like words he has Ser. 3. de bon pat whosoever then forsakes the foundation cannot be part of the house or building The whole building rests upon the foundation wherfore he that is separated from the foundation is separated also from the building which is the house the Church of God And you must remember Doctor that S. Cyprian liv'd in the yeare of Christ 250. and therefore long within the first 500. yeares to which you have appeal'd Sect. 27. so that you must either confesse the Prorestants to be out of the communion of the Catholique Church and consequently schismaticall at the least or else you must revoke and renounce your appeale If you will say that the sense of the whole Church appeares not fully in the writings of particular Fathers you shall heare the confession and acknowledgment of 520. Fathers assembled in the fourth Generall Councell at Calcedon in the yeare of Christ 451. who all unanimously acknowledge Pope Leo their head Their words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeras Over whom that is the Fathers assembled in the Councell thou wert as the Head over the members And it is to be observ'd that this Councell was held in the Easterne Church and consisted for the most part of the Fathers of that Church wherein notwithstanding Pope Leo's Delegates sate in the uppermost Seat and took place of the Patriarch of Constant inople himself even in his own Patriarchate which would never have been permited had not the Pope's Jurisdiction extended to the Eastern as wel as the Western Churches About 50. yeares after the Councell did not the Eastern bishops acknowledge that it was necessary for all Christians to communicate with the bishop and Church of Rome you have heard Sect. 58. that Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople excluded al from the communion of the Catholique Church that were divided from the Apostolique sea of Rome which doubtlesse the great Patriarch of the East would never have acknowledged had it not descended by universall Tradition that the Bishop of Rome was appointed by Christ to be the supreme Pastor and Governour of the whole Church Examine all this Patriarch's letters written to Pope Hormisda and you shall find them all directed to the Pope after this manner Domino mâ—o per omnia sanctissimo And can any reasonable man imagine that so great a Patriarch would have stiled the Pope his Lord if his power in the Easterne Church had been absolute and independent on the sea of Rome In like manner Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica in the Eastern Church in his Epistle to the same Pope has these words Ista nunc scripsi Beato Capiti nostro per Patricium c. These things have I now written by Patricius to our Blessed Head By this it plainly appeares that in those dayes within the first 600. yeares of Christ the Bishop of Rome was acknowledg'd the Head of the Eastern Churches as well as of the Western and that by the Eastern Bishops themselves even by their cheife and Head-Bishop the Patriarch of the East who likewise as you have already heard confest that all Catholique Communion flowes from the Apostolique sea of Rome as the Head and Fountain thereof And what better interpreter of Scripture or more faithful preserver of Apostolique Traditions can therebe then the antient and universal practise of the Church To the practise of former Ages and Declarations of antient Councels let us joyn the definiâ—ions of later times viz. of the Councel of Florence in the year 1439. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person and all the other Patriarchs either personally or by their Delegates Let us then hear the whole Church speaking in that Councel Item definimus Sanctam Apostolicam sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere primatum c. Concil Florent Act. ult Also we declare that the holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome hath the primacy over the whole world and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor who was chief of the Apostles and that he is Christ's true Vicar and Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that in S. Peter full power was given to him the Bishop of Rome by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed rule and govern the whole Church To this definition subscribed all the Patriarchs of the Church and amongst the rest the Patriarch of Constantinople himself You shall have his subscription as it is set down in the Acts of the Councel Joseph miserations divinâ Constantinopolis c. Florent An. 1439. I Joseph by the mercy of God Arch-bishop of Constantinople and new Rome and universal Patriarch because my life is almost at an end do therefore by the goodness of God according to my duty publish this my opinion to my beloved sons in this writing For all those things which our Lord Jesus Christs Catholique and Apostolique Church of Old Rome believes and imbraces I profess that I also do hold and believe and fully consent unto them And I grant that the blessed Father of Fathers and chief Priest the Pope of Old Rome is our Lord Iesus Christs Vcar and I deny not that there is a Purgatory for souls And note that this is the profession of a dying man past hope of life Here you see a concurrence of the later ages with the former Here you see all the churches of the world consenting to the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome Here you have seen the practise of the antient church the Declarations of former Councels and the Definitions of later then which nothing can better interpret Scripture or more faithfully preserve divine truths and Apostolical Doctrines to posterity Since then the Church of Rome is the Head and Mother-church of the world and consequently the Fountain of Unity whosoever shall separate himself from her communion cannot possibly be a member of the Catholique Church And since the Church of Rome by her power and Jurisdiction diffuses her self
there is not then we â—ob them at the most but of the sign or figure of Christs blood neither indeed is it in the power of the Priest or church to rob them of that for if the cup after consecration be but a bare sign or figure of Christs blood still retaining its former nature and substance of wine then may any one in spight of the Priest or church take a cup of wine when and where he please and make it to himselfe a sign of Christs blood and so it may be to him as perfect a Sacrament as if received it from the hands of the Priest Perchance you will say it is not a signe but by vertue of Consecration This may be easily said but can you prove it out oâ— Scripture which you make the sole rule of your Faith If you can then will I subscribe to your opinion if not as I am most certain you cannot then according to your owne Principle neither you nor I nor any man else is bound to believe it 20. But here I meet with two Authorities out of S. Cyprian to prove that none can be fit for Martyrdome that communicate not under the Species of Wine as well as of Bread certainly the Doctor to say no worse misunderstands S. Cyprian for he was too great a Scholar to maintaine so false and ridiculous a doctrine his words in the first place cited by the Doctor are these Quomodo ad Martyrii pâ—culum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum priùs in Ecclesia poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus Cypr. li. 1. Epist 2. I answer that all this Father intends inthis Epistle to Pope Cornelius is to desire the Pope that those who for fear of persecution had fallen from their faith might upon their repentance and reconciliation to the church be admitted to the holy communion that by the vertue and power of that Sacrament they might be the better able to encounter with and overcome a new persecution There is not so much as one word in the whole Epistle concerning the insufficiency of communicating under one Species onely or the necessity of communicating under both those words Poculum Domini the cup of our Lord signifying there the blessed Sacrament in generall in allusion to the former words Poculum Martyrii the cup of Martyrdome and this will most plainly appeare to any one that shall impartially â—ead that Epistlâ— all that can possibly be proved out of those words is that in some places in or about the time of S. Cyprian the Laity weâ—â— admitted to communicate under both kinds which no Catholike ever denied or question'd and that it was a custome even in S. Cyprians time to administer the Communion in one kind onely may easily be prov'd from those two miracles recorded by the same Father Serm. de Lapsis to which I refer the Reader The other place cited out of S. Cyprian has these words Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere qui sanguinâ— Christi crubescimus bibere Lib. 2. Ep. 3 Answ These words I confesse are S. Cyprians but they are lesse to the purpose then the former as I shall instantly make it appear There were certain Heretikes in S. Cyprians time who contrary to our blessed Saviours institution as this Father sayes would consecrate in wine alone without any mixture of water and others who would consecrate in water alone without wine against these latter S. Cyprian intends these words cited saying that such drink not the bloud of Christ since water cannot by vertue of consecration be chang'd into the bloud of Christ by reason of the defect of wine which is the true matter of the Saâ—rament and therefore could not have the power and efficacy of the Sacrament to enable men to overcome those great difficulties and temptations of persecution and to lay down their lives for the faith of Christ But there is not one word in that whole Epistle concerning receiving the Sacrament under one or both Species 21. Now to passe by divers impertinencies and such things as have beene already answer'd let us come to the Doctors Master-argument for doubtlesse he esteemes it so otherwise he would not so much have insisted upon it and repeated it so often which to set forth in its full lustre he has at last adventur'd on this Syllogism If ye the Church of Rome have at any time denied Jesus Christ to be the true God and eternal life ye were at that time no church but an anti-Anti-christian Synagogue But this did Marcellinus and Liberius and Jo. 22. all Bishops of Rome Ergo In those times ye were no church but an anti-Anti-christian Synagogue Answ What an anti-Anti-christian Syllogism is here Anti-christ ha's not more heads then this Syllogism ha's termes But let us be once more favourable to the Doctor and help him to speak sense he means well thohgh he ha's forgot his Logick all then that I can make of it is this There was a time when Rome and all those in communion with her were no church at all but an anti-Anti-christian Synagogue Therefore the Catholike Church which never failed must be distinct from the Church of Rome and all those in communion with her This I confesse is a pretty good consequence but the Doctor may thank me for it Well then not to question the consequence we deny the antecedent which is prov'd thus Marcellinus and Liberius and â—o 22. all Bishops of Rome denied Jesus Christ to be the true God and eternall life Ergo There was a time when the Church of Rome and those in communion with her were no church but an anti-anti-christian Synagogue Ans This is your consequence Doctor not mine Would not you have laughed at me or any man that should have concluded the whole church of England to have been formealy heroticall and schismaticall because the King or Arch bishop of â—anterbury one whereof you acknowledged head of your pretended Church was Heretical or Schismatical Must every Church stand or fall with its Bishop Must the particular members of the Church of Rome necessarily forsake their faith if her Bishop fall into Herefie or Idolatry You confess pag. 9. 10. that there was a visible true Church of the Jews in those dayes when both their King and High Preist had forsaken the true God and committed Idolatry and must the Church of Rome totally perish if her Bishop forsake his faith Shall the Church of the Jews have a prerogative above the Church of Christ This is Logick I understand not 22. And though this might serve for a full and satisfactory answer to any judicious and impartial Reader yet since I find divers good Popes falsly charged with Heresie and Idolatry I shall endeavour Ex superabundanti to vindicate them from those foul aspersions and so destroy the Antecedent as well as the Consequence by shewing the Doctor is here as much out in his History as he was before in his Logick 22. First then Pope
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
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
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-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
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
Is it fit that the Church of Rome whom you have forsaken should stoop to you Is she bound to follow you that have forsaken her who made you Judges of Gods Church that you should take upon you to charge the whole Church of Rome with errours both in faith and manners by what rule have you done this you pretend Sect. 37. to walke by a sure rule but I am sure you walke not according to the rule of Christ's Catholique Church For she walks according to the rule of Gods Word interpreted by universall and Apostolicall tradition which you contemne and laugh at but you by the rule of Scripture interpreted by your own private fancies and deceiptfull imaginations 82. Now the Doctor begins to quarrel with the Language of the Church of Rome How do they saith he pray with the people who pray in a tongue the people understand not Answ And why may not Preist and people joyne in heart to God in prayer though the language of the Churches prayers be not understood by all present S. Paul confesses 1. Cor. 14. 14. that a man may pray in spirit in an unknowne tongue though not with his understanding The Priest and people of the Jewes could joyne together in prayer and prayers to God before Christ though their Service were perform'd in the Hebrew Tongue a language no more then understood by the vulgar Jewes then the Latin is now by the vulgar Christians why then may not the Christian Preist and people joyne together in prayer though the church Service be perform'd in a language which some of the vulgar Christians that are present understand not The Hebrew Greek and Latin Tongues wherein only the church Service has been perform'd throughout the whole Christian world ever since the time of the Apostles are languages well knowne to the world all men may learne them They are not such unknowne languages as those were which S. Paul speaks of 1. Cor. 14. which were miraculously infus'd into many of the Primitive Christians the end whereof was the edification of the church and the conversion of Infidells Now those tongues were neither understood by the people nor alwaies by those that spake them as appeares 1. Cor. 12. and 1. Cor. 14. 13. These languages miraculously infus'd by God the Primitive Christians used in their publique meetings first to instruct the ignorant secondly to convert Infidells where their instructions and prayers were alwayes extemporary according as they were immediately assisted by Gods holy Spirit But the publique prayers of the church are not in such unknowne languages Secondly they are said in the same languages wherein the publique Service of the church was ever performed in all ages since the Apostles as appeares by the antient Hebrew Greek and Latin Missales which is an argument unanswerable that such languages are not against S. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 14. nor any other place of Gods Word Thirdly the end of our present publique meetings in the church is not to instruct edifie or convert as those meetings were whereof S. Paul speakes in that chapter but to offer up to God the tribute of prayer and praises that is due unto him as also to draw downe Gods blessings both spirituall and temporall upon the people And to this end the people joyne with the Priest in their exteriour acts of devotion and Religion thereby professing their assent to the publique prayers and praises of the Church And can it be thought necessary for those ends that all the people present should expresly understand every word of the Churches Service which though it were in the vulgar language of every Nation would notwithstanding be impossible 83. Between the Eastern and Western Churches you say Sect. 40. there were many differences c. and yet for all these they grew up together comfortably and continued in the same body Answ When the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches were concerning such Doctrines as were not declar'd in any Generall Councell nor could appeare by the universall tradition or practise of the Church they were then only errours not heresies but when any of the Easterne Churches opposed the Western in such Doctrines as appear'd either in the practise of the Church or by universall tradition and consent of Nations or were declar'd and defin'd in a Generall Councell they then fell from errour into heresie and were thereby cut off from the Catholique Church Your 41. Sect. is answer'd Sect. 29. and Sect. 65. and Sect. 30. 84. In your 42. Sect. you say That the keyes were given to all the Apostles alike Answ This I confesse in some sense may be true but makes nothing for you That all the Apostles had the keyes of remitting and retaining sins is true I can grant also that they were all universall Bishops yet they had not all equally the keyes of externall government and Jurisdiction S. Iohn at Ephesus had not that power which S. Peter had at Antioch or afterwards at Rome For whatsoever S. Peter was he had a Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles as well as the whole Church besides which S. John never had Your 43. Sect. has been already fully answer'd Sect. 58. In your 44. Sect. you say out of S. Paul to Timothy 2. Timoth. 3 15. That the Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation and that you are resolved by Gods grace to accept of nothing but what is deduced from thence or proved thereby according to the interpretation of the ancient Fathers and Councells That of S. Paul I confesse and withall very glad that you have made so good a resolution If you shall constantly persist therein and shall receive no interpretation of Scripture but from the ancient Fathers Councells and the tradition of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis advises you ch 1â— you will soone become Roman Catholiques Your 45. and last Sect. containes nothing but what has been by you said before and by me sufficiently answer'd Sect. 18. and. Sect. 21. 29. c. I have done with your Answer and now crave leave to speake somewhat to you by way of exhortation in the Spirit of meeknesse You have hitherto been a guide to others let not a vaine feare or apprehension of any dishonour that may eclipse your former reputation by confessing your errours and that you have been a blind leader of the blind come between you and your eternall Salvation Let not the deceitfull lustre of vaine glory tempt you to pâ—eserve your credit in the world with the losse of Heaven You owe God your reputation as well as your life or whatsoever else is most deare unto you consider at how deare a rate Christ purchas'd the Redemption of your Soul destroy not then that soul for which Chrict died Let not pride prejudice or or malice cast a mist before the eyes of your understanding and you shall soone behold that light which will infallibly guide you to your last end God and the eternall friution of the Beatificall