that she must be hereticall or schismaticall when Rome is so Rome as it is a particular Sea is but a member of the Church Catholike and therefore if she should by schism or heresie cut her selfe off from the Catholike Church yet would the Catholike Church remain in her integrity and purity as a man would not cease to be a man according to his essentiall parts though some corrupt and incurable member were cut off from the body but if you mean by Rome the Church of Rome and those in communion with her I then deny your supposition or your minor proposition as to that part for the Church of Rome in that latitude is not at all distinct from but is the very same with the Church Catholike which can never be hereticall or schismaticall wherefore if the Church of Rome ha's had sometimes two sometimes three pretended Bishops together as you seem to have learnt out of Platina and Onuphrius though you cite no particular place in those Authors yet there could be but one true Bishop of Rome one true Head of the church the rest being meerly pretenders and therefore they themselves and all those that adhered unto them were schismatiques and as long as they obstinately continued in their schism they were no members either of the Catholike Church or the particular Church of Rome the Catholique Church stil remaining pure and enâ—ire and the Sea of Rome a true member thereof 9. But the Doctor goes further and charges the Church of Rome with heresie even from the confession of her own men I must be bold to tell you Doctor that your charge is as false as your doctrine There was never any Catholike that confest the Church of Rome and those in communion with her to have been heretical for that had been to have confest the whole Catholique Church to be hereticall and so utterly extinct which is impossible neither was there ever any Catholike that confest the whole Diocesse or Sea of Rome was ever hereticall so that whether by Rome you mean the particular Church of Rome or the Roman Catholike Church your assertion is most impudent and false neither have you nam'd any one man that confest it 10. But perchance the Doctor intended these argunents for light skirmishes onely and ha's reserv'd his main force and reason for his last affault and with this reserve hopes to obtain a signall victory over the Church of Rome Let us then encounter it and try what force it brings with it If Rome sayes he be the Catholique Church if any thing be amisse in any particular the fault is Hers and She ought to mend it therefore Rome is not the Catholike Church What a wretched consequence is this certainly the Doctor ha's forgot all his Logick or found out some new which no body knows besides himself by the same â—idiculous consequence I will prove that the Parliament of England was never the Supreme Power of England Thus. If the Parliament of England were the Supreme Power if any thing were amisse in any particular the fault was in the Parliament and it ought to have mended it therefore the Parliament of England was never the Supreme Power of England Yet notwithstanding your ridiculous consequence I will grant your conclusion as being nothing to the purpose for your conclusion should have been this therefore the Church of Rome and these in communion with her are not the Catholike Church And if we examine the sequell of the Antecedent we shall find it as ridiculous as the whole consequence for why should the church be blam'd for any thing that is a misse in any particular point of doctrine or discipline and that in any particular church or member of the Church Catholike for by particular you must mean one of those but which I know not Arius denied an high point of Catholike Faith and many of the Eastern church would not observe Easter-day according to the Apostolique custom of the Catholike Church but I cannot see why the blasphemy of the one or the Judaizing of the other should be imputed to the Church of Rome and those in communion with her which is the Catholique Church she used all her power and endeavours to reclaim both and when heretikes have forsaken her faith or schismatiques her communion she ha's always used that power and authority wherewith God ha's invested her to cause them to return to their faith and obedience but if the schismatike shall persist in his schism or the hererique in his heresie the fault is in them noâ— in the church that you Doctor most obstinately continue in your heresie the fault is yours not the churches she ha's imployed her utmost endeavours to reclaim you and therefore cannot justly be blamed for your heresie or schisme but if any particular Bishops or Pastors have been negligent in reclaiming heretiques or schismatiques they must answer for it still the church is blamelesse 10. In the next place the Doctor discourses concerning the Visibility of the Catholique Church which he grants to have been alwayes visible both in and from the time of the Apostles to this present day but he will not grant it alwayes visible in one and the same place no not to Rome it self nor to every eye Answ The Doctor will be alwayes proving that which was never question'd but by his leave the Catholique Church ha's been alwayes visible at Rome even from its first conversion to the Christian Faith to this present day as far as the Catholique Church can be visible in any particular branch or member but who ever said or thought that the whole Catholike Church was at any time visible at Rome that City we know was never so capacious as to be able to contain all the Catholikes that have been for these many agâ—s living at the same time in Europe Asia and Africa 11. And that it haâ—s not been alwayes visible to every eye who ever said it was he endeavours to prove because Elijah saw not the church of Israel in his time and because the church was not visible to many in the days of Rehoboam of Ahaz and Manasses Answ If that church were sometimes so obscured that it might be invisible to many nay to most of that Nation for it could not be and be totally obscured and invisible to all eys yet good Doctor you cannot deny but that the church was apparently visible both before and after Elijah before and after Rehoboam before and after Ahaz before and after Manasses but neither you nor all the Protestants in the world can shew that at any time not only for these 1100. yeares last past but for 1600. years even from S. Peters to these our dayes there was any Catholique Church distinct from the church of Rome and those in communion with her whereas that church ha's beene most perspicuously and apparently visible to the world in all ages since the Apostles time to this present time Besides that the Catholike Church should be
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
Liberius is accus'd of Arianism but falsly for he never subscribed to that damnable Heresie never decreed taught or maintained it He subscribed only to the banishment of S. Athanasius to which the Emperor Constantius forâ—'t and compel'd him by torments as St. Athanasius himself testifies in both his Apologies where he clearly acquits him of Heresie And if St. Athanasius in an other place and St. Hierom charge him with subscâ—ibing to Arrianism it is to be understood interpretative only in that he subscribed to S. Athanasius's banishment which was procur'd by the Arrians and externally communicated with some Arrian Bishops especially since not only those ancient Authors Socrates lib 2. Eccief Hist c. 29. Sozomen lib. 4. c. 10. Theodoret lib. 2. c. 16 17. but also S. Athanasius himself in the fore-cited places testifies that he was no Heretique and that he did nothing in compliance with the Arrians but what he was compell'd unto by a tedious banishment and force of torments And that all Italy and Spain should side with this Pope in that Heresie as you afterwards charge them Sect. 23. is most notoriously false spoken gratis without any authority or ground whatsoever 23. The second Pope that stands charg'd with Heresie is Honorius but what his heresie was the Doctor declares not T is true some Heretiques have charg'd this Pope upon what ground I know not with joyning with the Monothelites in their heresie but it cannot appear that ever he held or taught that Heresie either publickly or privatly His errors were at the most but conjectured by some private Letters which after his death were published in his name But that in his life time he renounc't that Heresie appears Epist Honor. ad Sergium Act. 13. sext Synod Yet suppose Honorius had erred what was that to the Church of Rome she notwithstanding might be free from error And that de facto she was free and persecuted that heresie Pirrhus Patriarch of Constantinople being at her suit banish't by Hâ—raclius the Emperor appears plainly by Platina in Honor. 1. and Sabellicus Aenead 8. lib 6. 24. In the next place comes in Zepherinus charg'd with Montanism but most unjustly He was no Montanist only out of a candid and peaceable disposition he endeavoured to make peace between the Catholiques and the Montanists and this was all his Heresie That plrce of Lyra by you cited in Mat. 16. makes rather against you then for you He sayes there that some Popes have Apostatiz'd and thence concludes that the Church depends not on any particular mans person but consists in those that profess the true faith of Christ He sees not your consequence That because the Bishop of Rome falls into Heresie therefore the Church of Rome must be Heretical but maintains the contrary 25. But behold Marcellinus an Idolater who denyed Christ and offred sacrifice to Idols Answ So also did S. Peter deny his Master Marcellinus externally denyed Christ for fear of torments so did St. Peter for fear of the Jews yet they both confest Christ in their hearts though they both grievously sinned in their external denying of him But as S. Peter repented and afterward became a glorious Martyr so likewise did this blessed Pope follow S. Pâ—ter both in his Repentance and Martyrdom But what is this to the Church of Rome Did all the rest of the Apostles deny Christ because S. Peter denyed him I suppose no man of reason will say so and if not why should the whole Church of Rome be said to forsake her faith because her Bishop for fear of torments denyed Christ in some exâ—â—â—ior action as S. Peter had done before him by oaths and execrations Perchance you will say that S. Peter was not as truly chief of the Apostles and head of that Church which was then in being when he denyed his Master as Marcellinus was Bishop of Rome To this I answer that our blessed Saviour had then founded his Church viz. the night before S. Peters denial when he gave an end to the legal types and ceremonies and instituted the substance the blessed Sacrament of his pretious body and bloud The Church thus founded S. Peter must necessarily be the head thereof and consequently chief of all the Apostles unless you will deny the Apostles to be part of that Church which was then in being And he that shall deny S. Peter â—o be heâ—â— thâ—reof gives Christ the lye who formerly had made that promise to S. Peter in plain and express words Matth. 16. 18. Thou arâ— a rock and upâ—n this rock will I build my Church Christ said not thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church as you falsly translate to deceive the world but Thou art Cephas which in the Syrian language which our Saviour then spake signifies a Rock and upon this Cephas that is this Rock will I build my Church Our blessed Saviour used not two different words as you would make the world believe as Peter in one place and Rock in the other but in both places used the word Cephas which signifies a Rock that being the name which Christ gave to Peter when he first call'd him And though the Catholike Translaters of the New Testament who profess to follow exactly the vulgar Latin Edition as being more authentick then any Greek Copy now extant in the world have translated that place as you do viz. Thou art Peter c. yet have they dealt more ingeniously with the world in advertising that the word Peter signifies a Rock and that our blessed Saviour used not two but one and the same word Cephas which signifies a Rock in that promise made to S. Peter whereas you though professing to follow the Original yet when it makes against you forsake it and follow the Latin and when that makes against you then you pretend to follow the Original Thus you will alwayes have a shift to delude the world and your own souls for had you in that place followed the Original you should have translated it Thou art a Rock not Thou art Peter besides in the Greek the words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies a Rock as ruly and as properly as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So then Christ founded his Church on S. Peter as a Rock as the very connexion of the words demonstrate For in these words of our blessed Saviour I say unto thee Peter thou art a Rock and upon this Rock will I build my Church Can any reasonable man imagine that by those words This Rock Christ meant any other Rock then that whereof he made mention in the words immediately preceding viz. Thou art a Rock It is then most apparent that Christ built his Church on S. Peters person at least as to the Discipline and Government thereof and consequently upon his Successors For if our blessed Saviour knew that his Church even in her very infancy when the Apostles themselves inspired with the Holy Ghost where a great part
this Vigilius or of any other Pope whatsoever only in general terms he sayes That some Popes have apostatiz'd which is nothing to this purpose 28. To the Question where your Church was before the Reformation Sect. 19. I suppose Mr. T. B. used not the word Reformation but by it I conceive youmean your separation from the Roman Church To this Question you say it was answered In the Catholique Answ I confess the answer is most true when you were a Church you were in the Catholique Church so also were formerly the Arrians Macedonians Pelagians Nestorians Entychians Donatists c. all these before their respective Reformation that is before they fell into Heresie and Schism were within the walls of the Catholique Church before their separation they were all in communion with the Church of Rome and therefore true members of the Church Catholique so likewise were you and as the Arians c. by forsaking the communion of the Church of Rome and opposing her doctine and faith cut themselves off from the communion of the Catholique Church and so ceast to be members thereof even so have you now ceast to be any Church at all by separating your selves from your Mother Church the Church of Rome with whom you had been in communion for the space of almost a thousand years together even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith by S. Augustine to K. Henry the Eighth's apostosie 19. Before the Reformation you say we communicated with Rome and since we have not that 's no fault of ours ye will not suffer us to communicate with you unless we communicate with your errors Answ This is very fine who I pray shal judg of those errors Christ has made his Church Judg of your errours what Heretiques ever were there in the world that did not or might not have us'd the same Plea for their separation from Gods Church Was there ever any particular Church that presum'd to censme the doctrine of the Catholique Church Or was it not excessive pride if not madness in you to think that you were wiser then the whole Christian world had been for 1500. years before you Can you shew that in any age since the Apostlos the Catholique Church held and taught your doctrine can you prove that ever any particular Church or Nation taught or maintain'd the same nay I will go further can you produce any one man in any age from Christs Passion to Luthers Apostasia let him be of the Clergy or Laity either Catholique or Heretique that agreed with you in all points of your Faith and Doctrine wherein you now dissent from the Church of Rome if you cannot methinks your selves should condemn your selves for separating from that Church in whose Faith and communion all your Ancestorâ— for so many ages liv'd and died and imbracing a new Doctrine and that out of your owne judgement and fancy onely for which you have neither president nor authority 30. And yet I must confess that your Religion is not altogether now it is a Religion for the most part patcht up of old condemned Heresies though there were never any Heretiques before Luther that held all your Doctrine I know your ordinary pretence is to appeal â—o and to be judg'd by the Scripture but do you not first make your selves Judges of the Scripture do you not impose new senses and interpretations on Gods holy Word such as were never heard of before your Apostasie do you not against all reason interpret plain places of Scripture by obscure rather then the obscure by the plain and when by your corrupt translations false glosses and new interpretations you have made the Scripture speak what you please then you cry out The Scripture has given sentence for you against the Church of Rome I confess since you have made your selves Masters of the Holy Ghost you were very unwise if you would not make him speak as you would have him you have usurped a power that we dare not challenge we tremble at that fearful curse denounc't by S. Paul Gal. 1 against all those that shall teach new Doctrines We hearken to not consure the Church We imbrace her doctrine not charge her with errours But I would ask any reasonable man though there were no Obligation yet whether it were not more prudential for a man to build his salvation on the authority of the whole Church then of some particular persons not altogether agreeing amongst themselves and disagreeing from the whole world besides or whether it were not more reasonable to imbrace the doctrines and interpretations of Scripture that were universally receiv'd by the whole Church for 1500. years then those new doctrines and interpretations of Luther and his followers You confess that before your Reformation as you call it you communicated with the Church of Rome How came you to find that the Church wanted a Reformation and that in Doctrine for in matters of Discipline and manners you might have reform'd your selves and yet still have been in communion with the Church of Rome How came you to discover those errors which none in the whole Christian world besides your selves could perceive before your separation there was no particular branch or member of the Catholique Church but was in communion with the Church of Rome How then came you to see that light which none besides your selves could see Was all the world besides you blind Had you only the Scripture Or could you only interpret them But why do I speak of you as of a company or multitude For though Time has now made the difference to be between the Protestants and the Church of Rome yet originally it was between Luther and the whole Church you in England as all other Protestants are but Luthers followers The Church then went one way and Luther another and you very wisely have forsaken the whole Church and followed Luther Do but examine this according to the principles of common prudence and then tell me Doctor whether you have done discreetly You have forsaken the whole Christian world and followed one man who neither had nor pretended to any extraordinary calling He never wrought miracle in confirmation of his new Doctrines or to manifest to the world that God had revealed that Truth unto him which for many ages had been totally obscur'd and unknown to the world It is then your fault now that you communicate not with the Catholike Church since it was your fault formerly that you forsook her to follow one man If you will forsake that single Apostate and return to your faith and obedience you shall soon be receiv'd the Churches armes are alwayes open to imbrace you Before your pretended Reformation according to your own confession Sect. 19 you communicated with Rome that is you acknowledged your subjection to the Apostolike Sea of Rome You confest the Bishop thereof to be the supream visible Head of Christs Church appointed by Christ himself to be so as St. Peters
of St. Peter and his Successors the Bishops of Rome as it has been a Doctrine universally receiv'd so has it no known beginning since the time of the Apostles and therefore according to the principles of common Reason we ought to imbrace it as an Apostolical Tradition Were not all the churches in the world formerly united and subject to the Sea of Rome Does it not plainly appear in antient Records and Histories when the Eastern churches first separated from her communion and denied obedience to the Bishop of Rome Is it not apparent when and how often those pretended churches have been reconcil'd to the Roman Catholique Church Have not the Patriatchs of Constantinople themselves profest and acknowledg'd their obedience and subjection to the Bishop of Rome as S. Peters Successor and Supreme Head of Christs Church Was there ever any Society of men professing the name of Christ and divided from the Church of Rome that did not first separate themselves from her communion He then that is no Roman Catholique is none at all since by his Schisme he has cut himself off from the communion of the Catholique Church and to justifie his Schisme he must necessarily fall into Heresie by denying this Doctrine of Faith viz That the Roman Church is the Mother and Head of all churches and the Bishop thereof appointed by Christ as S. Peters Successor to be the Supreme Pastor and Governour of his Catholique Church I know you will deny this to be a Doctrine of Faith but you must then condemn the Fathers that taught it the Councels that declar'd it The learned Fathers of the Church S. Irenaeus li. 3. c. 3. S. Hierome Epist 57. S. Cyprian de Vnitat Eccles S. Basil concion de penitent S. Leo Serm. 1. in Natal Apostolor Petr. Paul Gelasius in decret cum 70. Episcopis S. Augustin Epist 92. as also the reverend Pastors of the church assembled in divers General Councels In the first General Councel of Nice Can. 6. in the Councel of Ephesus Act. 3. in the Councel of Calcedon Act. 16. and in the Epistle or relation sent to Pope Leo from the whole Councel in the Councel at Sardis Can. 3. could plainly see this Doctrine in Scripture and so might you too if you would but open your eyes and not onely there but in the Universal Tradition and practise of the church This Doctrine was receiv'd by the church of England for almost a 1000. years together without interruption How then come you to be wiser then all your Forefatheâ—s for so many ages You receiv'd the Scriptures from them and to think that they could noâ— inteâ—pret them as well as you is excessive pride and insolent madness A world of testimonies might be brought in confirmation of this Doctrine but it has been already so fully and so often prov'd by many learned Catholiques that it may be altogether unnecessary for me to add any further proofs especially since my intention is to contain my selfe within the bounds of â— short Râ—ply Wherefore the pretended Greek Church though it abhor and deâ—â—st your new Doctrines as damnable and Hâ—retical as appears evidently by the book entiâ—â—â—led â—â—remiae â—atriarchae 〈…〉 sententia definitiva â—â— Doctrâ—â—a Religione Wittenbergeâ—sium Theologorum c. An. 1586. is now no church at all as neither are you but a dead branch lop'd off by Schisme and Hâ—resie from the Tree of Life a corrupt member cuâ— off from Christs mystical body 33. But to justiâ—ie this your Schism you alledg certain Canons of the câ—uâ—ches which aâ—â—uâ—e you that every Provincial Synod is to order all things within the Province Answ If you mean by All things all things amiss in matters concerning manners and Discipline I can easily grant it but this will not satisfie you The Church you say did usually reform both in manners and faith by Diocesan and Provincial Councels Answ I confess the Pope has confirm'd the Acts and Decrâ—es of divers Provincial Councels even concerning matters of Faiâ—h as when they have condemn'd some apparent and notorious Heresie and anathematiz'd such Heretiques as have opposed either a Doctrine universally known and receiv'd by the whole church or els some Declaration and Definition of a former General Councel and this is all that you can gather either out of the African Code or the canons of any Councel either General oâ— Provincial As for the Code of the Universal Church by you cited you must know Doctor that it was compiled by Schismatiques and Heretiques who to diminish and derogate from the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome have apparently falâ—iâ—ied divers canons of the Councel of Sardiâ— But that General Doctrines universally receiv'd and taught by the whole Catholique Church as Doctrines descending by Vniversal Tradition from Christ and his Apostles and declar'd to be such by General Councels should be censur'd and condemn'd first by one single person and afterwards by those only that followed him in his Apostasie and Heresie for damnable errors must necessarily appear to any reasonable and impartial spirit not onely most unreasonable and temerarious but sacrilegious and damnable yet this you have done charging the whole world with gross and damnable errors and alledging Scripture to prove them so to which you appeal to justifie your Apostasie making your selves the sole Judges and Interpreters thereof 34. But I meet with a testimony of S. Hilary of Poicteurs to prove that Rome was once not only distinct from but not so much as a part of the Catholique Church his words cited are these Quidam ex vobis firmissima fidei constantia intra communionem se me am continentes se à coeteris extra Gallias abstinuerunt And hence you conclude that the Church of France at that time communicated not with Rome unless we can prove Rome to be in France Answ This is much like your former consequences S. Hilary was not so simple as to think the whole Catholique Church was at that time confin'd to one Country or Nation he only commended the constancy of his Countrymen in persevering in the Catholique Faith and not communicating with the Arrians which swarm'd in divers places out of France If then by those words coeteris extra Gallias you would exclude all the world besides France from the Catholique Church you will but make your self ridiculous to the world in making that great Pillar of the Gallican Church speak that which all the world knows to be false for at that time neither the Church of Rome nor any Westerne Church was infected with Arrianism as appears plainly by S. Basil who was S. Hilaries Cretanean and a Bishop in the Eastern Church viz. of Cappadocia his wordâ— are these Vos par erat intelligere quod per Dei gratiam quamplurimi sint qui sidem tuentur Orthodoxam à Patribus Nicaenis secundum picâ—â—tis regulam traditam neque vos per Orientem soli sitis relicti at verò universus quidem Occidens vobiscum
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
question'd But denies that this doctrine of your 19. Article can consist with your opinion who hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church a member of the Church Catholique though according to divers of your Articles cited by Mr. T. B. n. 3. She neither preaches the pure Word of God nor duly administers the Sacraments no not in all those things that of necessity are requisite for the same For how can that be essentially a part of the Catholique Church which observes not that which is essentiall to the Catholique Church as is the preaching of the pure Word of God and the due administration of the Sacraments according to that definition of the Church in your 19. Article Besides how can you vindicate that Church from heresie that for Doctrines of Faith necessary to salvation teaches blasphemous fables Art 31. Or that Sacrilegiously robs the Laity of Christ's bloud with which you charge the Church of Rome Sect. 11. of your first Answer Or that maintaines Doctrines repugnant to plaine words of Scripture Sect. 24. ib. Or that erres in Doctrine of faith as you tax the Church of Romeâ— Sect. 14. of your second Answer Or that gives divine worship to Images and Reliques wherewith you charge the Church of Rome Sect. 34. ib. Can any Church be blasphemous sacrilegious idolatrous repugnant in her Doctrines to plaine words of Scripture erroneus in Doctrines of Faith and yet not be heretical but continue still essentially a true Church But because you are pleas'd to extend your Charity beyond Reason towards the Church of Rome I will not quarrell with you about it onely I must take notice of the Argument which you bring to prove it God say you blames the Church of Pergamos for enduring the seat of Satan within her Diocesse as also for holding that â—didous Doctrine of the Nicolaitans and yet grants her to be a Church Answ Herein you are much mistaken Doctor for God blames not the Church but the Angell of the Church of Pergamos which by many Catholique Expositors both Ancient and Moderne as also by divers of your owne Sect and Religion is interpreted The bishop of the Church If the Church of Pergamos had held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans She had bin Hereticall and consequently no Church but it was the Bishop not the Church that was hereticall And if God may charge the Bishop of the Church of Pergamos with Heresie and yet grant Pergamos to be a true Church why may not the Church of Rome continue a true Church though the Bishop thereof fall into heresie 60. your taking the Church of Rome for maiming the blessed Sacrament Sect. 13. has been fully answer'd already Sect. 18. 19. and. Sect. 41. 61. But the Doctor is very hot in proving that the Church must erre with her Bishop and therefore the Church of Rome was no Church when her Bishops were hereticall Such as the Bishop is saies he such is the Church presumed to be Answ I know none but Dr. Boughen that was ever guilty of so silly a Presumption But S. Cyprians Authority is urg'd to prove it who sayes that as the Bishop is in the Church so is the Church in the Bishop I consesse I find in S. Cyprian Epist lib. 4. Ep. 9. these words Christiani sunt Ecclesiae plebs Sacerdoti adunata Pastori suo grex adhaerens unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo Christians are a Church and Common people united to the Preist and a Flock adhering to its Pastor whence you must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop What is all this to the purpose The Bishop is in the Church as a King is in his Kingdome or a Generall in his Army and the Church likewise is in the Bishop not formally but communicativè all the particular members thereof being in communion with the Bishop as their Head And this is all that can be gather'd from those words of the Father Since then the Church cannot be Formally in the Bishop but onely by way of communion subjection government or Discipline why may not the Church be Catholique though the Bishop be Hereticall But from this false ground the Doctor will prosecute his old fallacy and will still be endeavouring to prove that the Church of Rome could not be Catholique when the Bishops thereof were heretiques Sect 19. All Heretiques sayes he while such both themselves and all that side with them are secluded from Ecclesiastical communion every way But divers Popes were Heretiques or Schismatiques therefore the Church of Rome while her Bishops were heretical was in an ill case Answ Is not this a sine conclusion from those Premises what form or consequence is this here of a Syllogism And if the conclusion did follow out of those Premises what were this to the purpose The Church may be in an ill case when the Bishop is in heresie yet not Hereticall But behold another argument to prove the Church of Rome not Catholique When all Episcopal Acts were voyd the Church could not possibly be Catholike But when the Bishops were Heretiques all Episcopall Acts were void therefore the Church could not possibly be Catholique Answ This consequence is much like the other All the Acts of Heretical Bishops are void therefore the Church cannot possibly be Catholique as if the Faith of the Church depended on the Acts of the Bishop But a confirmation thereof is brought from S. Hilaries testimony who professeth as you say That in these Western parts there was in his time no Christian communion but in France Answ You do well to put those words in these Western parts in a parenthesis for they are yours not S. Hilaries as may appear by his words by you cited Sect. 23. where those words caeteris extra Gallias may comprehend the Eastern as well as the Western Churches And if you read Ecclesiastical Histories you shall find that in S. Hilaries time the Eastern Churches were far more infected with Arrianism then the Western 62. Besides you may remember Doctor that in the beginning of this second answer you confest that in S. Hilaries time at that very time when Rome as you falsly say was Arrian Sardinia was a Catholique and Orthodox Church How can that agree with this which you here endeavour to prove out of S. Hilary Was not Sardinia part of the Western Church How then could all the Western parts be excluded from Christian communion besides France when Sardinia which is in these Western parts was as your self confess a Catholique and Orthodox Church How can these two possibly consist together It seems you have forgot your self Oportet mendacem esse memorem 60. After all the other Popes Faelix is brought in for communicating with Arrians and Socrates and Zozomen are alledged to prove that therefore Rome it self was then accounted Arrian What then says Socrates that Liberius was banish't for his constancy in defending the Catholique Faith
the antient Catholique Faith So that in K. Edw. VI. days the Nation might be said to be heretical but the Church was even at that time Catholike otherwise it could not have been a church and in Q. Maryes daies both church and Nation were Catholique But you cannot prove that ever the Roman Nation much less the Roman Church was heretical since their first conversion to the Christian faith And if the Pope and with him all the bishops of Italy had at the same time forsaken the Catholique faith yet the Church of Rome might still have retain'd her prerogative of being the Mother church and Head of all particular churches in the world And though the Pope might have forfeited all his Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction and so ceast to be Head of the church yet the right of S. Peters Chair had always remained in the Church of Rome for since the bishop is not the church formally nor the church formally in the bishop the church cannot formally erre with the bishop neither must the church formally taken be there fore heretical because the bishop thereof is so Now I hope I have done with this â—edious and frivolous argument 65. That the Church of Rome imposes a new sense on the articles of the Câ—eeds is a meer calumny spoken gratis without any colour or shew of proof That the Church of Rome and you agree in the letter not in the Exposition is true The Church of Rome following the Exposition of the Universal Tradition and practise of the church and you your new phantastical and heretical Exposition but though you did agree with the Roman Church in the Exposition as well as in the letter yet could you not be excus'd from heresie because you oppose other Doctrines of Faith that are not contain'd in the three Creeds for not all points of faith that are necessary for all sorts of men to be believed are comprehended in the three Creeds either joyntly or severally 66. And whereas you charge the Church of Rome with imposing a new Creed of Pius 4. upon the church against a canon of the Councel of Ephesus I answer first That which you mean is but a profession of Faith wherein are contained certain Doctrines of faith that are not expresly comprehended in the Creeds It can no more properly be called a Creed then your book of Articles which is your Profession of faith and as not all but some certain persons only amongst you were bound by your Statutes to subscribe to that Profession so likewise not every man but some certain persons only are bound to subscribe to the other Secondly that Profession was agreed upon by the whole Councel and confirm'd by Pope Pius 4. It was neither compos'd nor commanded by the Pope alone but by him joyntly wiâ—h the Councel Thirdly there is not one Article of that Profession contrary or repugnant to any one article of the former Creeds and although this had been a new Creed as you call it yet had it not been against any canon of the Councel of Ephesus that Councel at the most for bidding only private persons to set forth or publish any Creed that should contain in it any Doctrine contrary to any article of belief in those former Creeds Neither indeed could the church in the Councel of Ephesus debar the church in future ages of that power and authority which the church in former ages assumed and exercised Why should it be more unlawful for the church assembled in the Councel of Trent to set forth a new form of Profession of Faith then it was for the church assembled in the Councel of Nice or Constantinople No Councel can rob the church of that power which Christ hath given her And by this Profession of Faith the Roman Church has neither alter'd the letter nor sense of former Creeds though you dare be bold to say She has strangely alter'd the sense I confess you are bold to say any thing but you have prov'd nothing 67. And whereas you say you take the Rule of Faith in the literal sense let us see to give but one instance since you make Scripture the sole Rule of your faith whether you take those words of our blessed Saviour Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. and Luc. 22. 19. in the literal sense Our B Saviour there takes Bread and Wine and sayes This is my Body which is given or broken for you This is my Bloud which is shed for you which you thus interpret This is a sign only of my Body and this is a sign only of my Bloud You deny that the bread and wine which our B. Saviour took and blest was truly and substantially converted into his body and bloud and are not asham'd to say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Let all the world judg whether herein you take the Ruleâ— of Faith in the literal sense It is much more plain that you go against the very letter of the Gospel against the expositions of the antient Fathers both Greek and Latin the Declarations of Councels the antient and universal practise of the whole church which alwayes adored the B. Sacrament after consecration with divine worship 68. In Sect. 29. I meet with another absurd and impertinent distinction between errour in Faith and errour in matters of Faith as if errours in Faith and errours in matters of Faith were not all one They have hitherto been esteemed all one and that by those who have been far beyond you both in learning and judgment though your sharp understanding be able to divide and put a difference between them 69. Much like to this is that saying of yours Sect. 30. Every violation of the Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church but a false opinion of God does How then is that of S. Paul true Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God Can a man violate Faith though but in some one point and yet be a Catholique who ever thought so besides your â—elf by the same reason one and the same man may be at the same time both Catholique and Heretique But to prove your new opinion you produce an antient testimony of S. Augustine de fid Symb. c. 20. Haeretiâ—i de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant quapropter non pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam Heretiques by having a false opinion of God violate Faith it self wherefore they belong not to the Catholique Church Answ Here is now a fine proof if well examin'd You must know Doctor that the word Quapropter wherefore refers to the words immediately going before and then 't is plain that this testimony of the Father makes directly against you For if men be therefore cut off from the Catholique Church because they have violated the Faith then it necessarily follows that every violation of Faith cuts a man off from the Catholique Church But in favour to the Doctor let us once grant against all
maintains Doctrines repugnant to plain words of Scripture you or the Church of Rome you will say perehance that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were formerly but Marginal Note and are now crept into the Text and that all the Greek copies of S. Lukes Gospel are corrupted This indeed is the answer that one of your great and learned Reformers Beza has given though without any ground or colourable proof but he well knew that the words of the Text were so plain that they could not admit of any other shift or evasion and by this shift you may evade any authority of Scripture that may be brought against you and had truth no other way to defend it selâ— we also might thus answer any text of Scripture that can be alledged against any Doctrine of the Church of Rome 37. But let us now see what the antient Fathers say concerning this fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ's presence in the blessed Sacrament has these words Ecce eum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas Et tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre Ipse verò tibi concedit non tantum videre verùm manducare tangere intrate sumere Hom. â—o ad Pop. Antiochen Behold tâ—ou seest him Christ thou touchest him thou catest him thou desirest to see his garments and he is pleas'd that thou shouldest not only see him but also eat him touch him and receive him within thy body And that this seeing eating touching and receiving Christ is not in a bare figure only appears plainly by these words of the Father following in the same Homily Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt neque liberè audent intueri propter emicâ—ntem inde splendorem hoc nos pascimur That which the Angels tremble to behold and scarce dare presume to look upon by reason of iâ—s glorious splendor even this do we feed on Mark this good Doctor Angels tremble not at such mean creatures as Bread and Wine neither have these creatures as bare signs only of Christs body and bloud such glorious lustre and splendor Indeed Christs true body which good Catholiques feed on is a glorious body ten â—housand times more glorious then the Sun though the glory thereof as being a spiritual body cannot appear to mortal eyes And that you may not fly to your other shift and say that we receive and feed on Christs body by Faith and love only hear what the same Father sayes in the same Homily a little before the last words cited Neque enim illi satis fuit hominem fieri colaphis caedi crucifigi verùm ut semetipsum nobis commiscet nos fide tantùm verum ipsa re nos suum efficit corpus He Christ was not onely contented to become man to be buffeted and crucified but he also incorporates himselfe into us and makes us to be his own body not by Faith only but truly and really And Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio the same Father thus saith Vnum corpus eâ—â—icimur c. Vt itaque non tantùm per charitatem hoc â—iamus verum etiam ipsa re in illam misceamur carnem hoc namque per escam efficitur quam largitus est nobis We are become one and the same body with Christ viz by the power of the blessed Sacrament That then we may be so not by charity only but truly and really let us be incorporated into that flesh for this is brought to pass by that food which he has given us And now Doctor how is it possible that Bread and Wine should incorporare us into Christ's flesh or that bare figures should make us become one body with him and that not only spiritually and mystically but truly and really But let us hear the same Father speak once more Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Nos Ministrorum tenemus locum qui verò sanctificat â—a immutaâ— ipse est We supply the place of Ministâ—rs but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Here is a change and that by the power of Châ—ist not theâ— by the Faith of the commuâ—icant 38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose sayes de Sacram. â—i 4. c. 4. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Before the words of Consecration it is bread as soon as Consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Mark those words De pane of or from bread How can that which is bread become the Body of Christ by consecration And a little after Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there be so great poâ—er in the word of our Lord Iesus that those things which had no being should begin to have a being how much rather does it effect that those things which had a being should be chang'd into an other substance Here then is a change a substantial or essential change as appears plainly by those words in aliud commutentur And what does a substantial or an essential change differ from Transubstantiation and this change is wrought principally by Christs omnipotent power instrumentally by the words of Consecraâ—ion pronounc't by the Priest then doubtless not by the faith and charity of the communicant 39. Some of your Sect I know have been very forward to acknowledg Christ truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament nay that Christs body is really present there but how by faith but what you mean by that expression by Faith I know not howbelt I am sure you must understand either the manner or the means of Christs body being really present there If by those words you understand the manner of Christs body being present in the Sacrament then is his body present there apprehensively only for by Faith the soul apprehends Christs body which in that apprehension is spiritually present to the faithful and worthy communicant but how then can this be clear'd from a contradiction for to be present apprehensively only by faith is contradistinguisht from being truly and really present so that to say Christs body is truly and really in the blessed Sacrament by faith is in effect to say Christs body is truly and really in the Sacrament and Christs body is not truly and really in the Sacrament And if by Faith you understand the means that is either the meritorious pardon that word or instrumental cause of Christs body being really pâ—esent in the Sacrament or a necessary condition without which Christ's body cannot be really present there then first you contradict the forecited Fathers who say that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament by the omnipotent power of Christ in the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest Secondly
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