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
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-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-christian Synagogue Answ What an 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-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-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
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
against the Arrians and that Faelix was appointed to succeed him in the Papacy who was Arrianae Sectae addictus but there is not one word there of Rome's being Arrian Socrat. li. 2. c. â—9 And if Faelix did perchance sometimes favour the Arrian Faction yet was it before he was elected Pope not afterwards as appears plainly by Sozomen in the very place by you cited li. 4. c. 10. Liberius Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopatu privatus est cui praefuïtur Faelix illius Cleri Diaconus quem aiunt Fidei Concilii Nicaeni semper consensisse omnino quantum pertinebat ad Religionem reprehensione caruisse Liberius saith he was depriv'd of the Bishoprick of the Roman Church to which Faelix a Deacon of that Clergy was preferred who is â—said to have alwayes consented to the Faith of the Nicene Councel and was never blameable for any thing that concerned Religion These are the very words of Sozomen and in the very same place cited by the Doctor Nothing there concerning Faelix or Rome's being Arrian Thus the Reader may see how fraudulently the Doctor has dealt with the world Well but Faelix or dained divers Arrians what then must he therefore be an Arrian himself or must he necessarily know them to be such But he communicated with Arrians and must he therefore be an Arrian Do not Catholiques at this time communicate with Heretiques in England France Germany c. in outward conversation and civil commerce though not in their Heresie and you neither have prov'd nor ever can prove that Faelix communicated with the Arrians in their heretical and blasphemous Doctrine but in outward conversation only which is and ever was lawful for any Catholique 61. To pass by your impertinent distinction between a profest and a close Heretique as being nothing to the purpose I come to your other passage wherein you say and cite some Canons for it That the communion of the Church is estimated by communicating with the Bishop and if any whether Priest or other shall sever themselves from the Canonical Bishop they are censur'd to be Heretiques Answ This is to be understood when the Bishop is Catholique and keeps himself within the communion of the Catholique Church but if the Bishop be heretical and the Church shall communicate with him in his Heresie the Church also becomes heretical be the Bishop thereof a profest or close Heretique it matters not but by this your own Rule you must confess your selves Heretiques because you did originally sâ—ver your selves from your Canonical Catholique Bishops and followed your owne and other mens new inventions and when all your pretended bishops were heretical you communicated with them and their heresies 62. But the bishop may be either a profest or close Heretique and yet the Church may be Catholique and this your self expresly grant in your following Sect. 22. where you say That you believe that the King of England and Arch-bishop of Cauterbury â—ither or both of them may be Heretiques and this Church not so since it is not their being but our complying that makes us heretical Herein you have fully contradicted your self and granted whatsoever I have said concerning this point For if the Church of England may be Catholique though both King and Metropolitan thereof be Heretiques why may not the Church of Rome be Catholique though the bishop thereof be heretical 63. But say you if all our Bishops be of the same Religion with them this Church is in an ill case Answ I say so too yet it may be Catholique All your pretended bishops may be heretical as they were all for about these 100. years together last past and yet there may be a Catholique Church in England It is possible that the particular members of each Diocess may not comply with their bishop in his Heresie and then according to your own saying they are not heretical The inferiour Priests and people may preserve their faith though all the bishops fall from it but what is all this to the purpose Were ever all the bishops that were subject to the Patriarchal Sea of Rome at one and the same time Heretiques I suppose no man besides your self was ever possest with such a ridiculous imagination What if your Archbishop of Canterbury alone had been an Heretique and all the other bishops within his Province Catholique will you therefore conclude that the particular Church or Diocess of Canterbury must necessarily have been heretical If you say so you plainly contradict your self who even now said that it is not the Kings or Arch-bishops being heretical but our complying with them that makes us heretical Sect. 22. 64. But the Doctor pursues this argument close and endeavours to prove that when the King and Priest joyn together it hath a strange influence upon the people for good or bad Answ What then must the people therefore of necessity be good or bad according as the King and Priest are cannot Gods grace overcome this influence and preserve the people from infection but you say When King Ahaz and Urijah the Priest professed I dolatry though many good men were resident among them yet was the City and people accounted heretical Answ First it appears not by the Text that they were so accompted Secondly if they were accompted heretical does it herefore necessarily follow that they were so Does truth and falshood depend on the opinions of men if so then every man in his own opinion would be Catholique and all the world besides that concur not with him in his judgment would be Heretiques It is not necessary that every one must be good or bad catholique or heretique according as some men perchance out of error either in doctrine or fact shall esteem him but what if that city and people were not only accompted but truly and really heretical must it therefore always follow that when the King and Priest are heretical the city and people must of necessity be so too What if Constantius the Emperor and Leonâ—ius the bishop What if Valens and Eudoxius by joyning together in heresie withdrew many partly by power pardly by example from the Catholique Faith does it therefore always necessarily follow that when the Prince and Priest joyn in heresie the people also must be heretical Must every thing come to pass because it may come to pass No Doctor the young Sophisters will tell you that à posse esse non valet argumentum 65. And whereas you say that under King Edward VI. and Queen Mary the Religion of the church was judged of by the Governours I answer that the Religion of this Nation not of the church for 't is not the Religion of the Prince but the profession of the antient Catholique Faith that constitutes a church was judged of not by the Governours but by the Lawes that were made in K. Edw. VI. and Queen Maryes daies respectively either to establish a new upstart Religion never before heard of in the world or to re-establish