I desire you to take S. Augustives observation along with you upon those words Vnde notandum est saith he nonsolùm exâ—uâ—itionem sed invocationem dici aliquando quae non Dei sed hominum sunt Aug. in Gen. to 3. Whence we may observe that sometimes not only hearing but invocation also is spoken of as not belonging to God only but to men So likewise from the example of Moses Ex. 32. where the Angel of God appeared to him in a flaming bush S. Stephen himself interpreting it so Act. 7 30. Of Gedeon Iudg. 11. 6. Of Iosuah Ios 5. 15. who prostrate adored an Angel knowing him to be an Angel Of S. John Rev. 19. and Rev. 22. which places some of you have most ridiculously alledged against this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels For that blessed Apostle S. Iohn either knew him to be an Angel or not if he knew him not to be an Angel then he mistook the Angel for Christ as probably he might because the Angel spake in the person of Christ saying I am Alpha and Omega c. and then the Apostle might offer to adore him with divine worship which the Angel discovering himself to be but an Angel might justly reprove and this interpretation S. Augustine gives of it q. 61. in Gen. Or else S. John knew him to be but an Angel and if so then it cannot be reasonably suppos'd that the blessed Apostle could sin in worshipping the Angel because he having receiv'd the Holy Ghost as well as the rest of the Apostles and being so dear to our blessed Saviour insomuch that he is stiled beyond all the rest of the Apostles The beloved Disciple Jo. 16. 23. could not but know even as the Angel himself what worship was due to God and what to an Angel Besides if S. Iohn's adoration of the Angel had been reprov'd by the Angel as in it self simply unlawful can it be imagined that so great an Apostle so great a Prophet and Evangelist would a second time fall into the same error If then upon a mistake the Apostle adored the Angel for God those words of the Angel may be a prohibition or rebuke otherwise it was but a modest refusal of the Angel who seeing how dear S. Iohn was to Christ and what secret and sublime mysteries had been reveal'd unto him more then to any of the other Apostles plainly foresaw that the blessed Apostle should one day be exalted to an higher degree of glory in heaven and should be neerer to God then the Angel himself so that in brief besides the lawfulness of adoring Angels and consequently Saints there is nothing else from this place observeable but S. Iohn's humility in adoring the Angel and the Angels modestâ—y in refusing the adoration If then Abraham Lot Iacob Iosuah Gedeon and S. Iohn that great Apostle and beloved Disciple might lawfully adore and invocate Angels why may not we invocate the blessed Saints who together with the Angels see and praise God continually why may not we desire the assistance of their prayers to God for us 43. But perchance this Invocation of Saints is some new upstare Doctrine lately invented and brought in by the Church of Rome Answ As new as it is if either you Doctor or any Protestant in the world can shew but as much Antiquity for your Religion as I can for this Doctrine I will then shake hands with you and become a Protestant my self Let us then look back towards the Primitive times and examine the antient Doctrine and practise of the Church Theoderet who lived An. Christi 430. proves this Doctrine by the general practise of the Church in his time Qui in peregrinationem aliquam mittuntur saith he petunt instanter hos sanctos Martyres sieri viae comites duces itineris qui reditum nanciscuntur afferunt confessionem gratiae non ut Deos ipsos adâ—untes sed ut homines divinos orantes intercessores pro ipsis fieri postulantes Serm. 8. de curand Graecor affectionib sive de Martyribus Those that undertake any journey earnestly desire them the holy Martyrs to accompany and guide them in their journey and those that return in safety offer up an acknowledgment of their favours making their addresses unto them not as Gods but praying unto them as Divine men and beseeching them to become intercessors for them Let us hear Cyril of Alexandria speaking in the Councel of Ephesus held An. 431. where himself was Pope Celâ—stines Delegate Salve à nobis Dâ—ipara Maria per quam pretiâ—sa Cruâ— celâ—bratur adoratur universo â—rbe â—ail O Mary Mother of God by whom the precious Cross is reverenc't and ador'd through ut the whole world Let us hear S. Bâ—siâ— Epist 205. ad Iulian Apost who lived in the yeare of Christ 370. Sanctos Apostolos Prophetas Martyres iâ—â—oâ—o ut apud Deum suppliâ—ent characteres imaginum ipsorum honoro veneror his traditis à sanctis Apostolis I invocate the holy â—â—postles Prophets and Martyrs that they may pray to God for us I honor and reverence their Images these things being delivered unto us by the holy Apostles Here we find that almost 1300. years since this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints and honouring their Images was receiv'd by the Church as an Apostolical Tradition and Calvin himself Instit li. 3. c. 20. n. 22. speaking of the third Councel of Carthage whereat S Augustine was present acknowledges that at that time Invocation of Saints was practis'd by the Church Eâ— tempestate saith he moris erat dicere sancta Maria aut sancte Petre or a pro nobis At that time it was a custome to say Saint Mary or Saint Peter pray for us S. Hierom Tom. 1. pa. 59. edit Paris and To. p. 122. edit Basiliens and S. Ambrose li. de viduis deduce and prove this Doctrine out of Scripture and certainly these holy and reverend Fathers could interpret Scripture as well as Iohn Calvin Neither is it imagineable that either these Fathers or Theodoret or S. Basil would maintain a Doctrine and that by Scripture which should be repugnant to plain words of Scripture Besides that Doctrine which has been confirm'd by the attestation of Divine Miracles must be true but this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints has been thus attested therefore it must be true The major is proved out of Scripture Mar. 6. 20. and cannot be denied or question'd without blasphemy and if you deny the minor you must give Theodoret S. Augustine the lye the former proving it in the forecited place li. 8. de Martyrib the later De civitat Dei li. 22. c. 8. where he recounts above a hundred Miracles of some whereof he was an eye-witness wrought by God upon the prayers at the Monument and Reliques of S. Stephen and that prayers were made to the Saints who also heard and understood the prayers of such as prayed unto them and the manner how they understand our prayers and
that they grant savours to those that pray unto them S. Augustine will tell you plainly in his 15. and 16. chap. de cur pro. mort babâ—nd Thus is Invocarion of Scints vindicated both from repugnancy to Scripture and novelty I come now to the fourth and last fond Doctrine wherewith the Church of Rome stands charg'd which is Adoration of Images 44. For the better clearing the Church from this charge I thought it necessary to declare the Doctrine of the Catholique Church concerning Images which is this The Images of Christ of the Mother of God and other Saints may be had and kept and due honour and reverence is to be given unto them aâ— appeares by the Profession of Faith compos'd and authoriz'd by the Councel of Trent Where are the plain words of Scripture to which this Doctriue is repugnant Where is it said in Scripture in plain and express words Thou shalt not give any worship honor or reuerence to the Images of Christ or of his Mother or of other Saints The Scripture in divers places forbids Divine worship to be given to Idols or false Gods as Exod. 20. Levit. 26. Deut. 5. Isay 40. c. but where is it said Thou shalt not worship honor or reverence the holy Images of Christ or of his Saints Those Texes of Scripture forbid only that the worship due to God should be given to creatures Idols or false Gods where then is the repugnancy between the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and plain words of Scripture The Scripture forbids Idolatry so does and ever did the Church of Rome The Scripture forbids Divine worship to be given to any thing but God so does the Church of Rome God forbids Graven Images that is Idols to be set up and adored with Divine worship and the Church of Rome commands due honor and reverence to be given to holy Images of Christ and his Saints I must again demand where is the repugnancy between this Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the plain words of Scripture If you say that those words Ex 20. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. Thou shalt not fall downe and worship it are plain against this Doctrine I will confess that they are as plain against it as any words of Scripture either of the Old or New Testament but if you argue from these words as many of your Sect have done that therefore it is not lawfull to honor or reverence the holy Images of Christ and his Saints here is then a double fallacy A dicto secundum quod ad dictum simpliciter For neither are all Images but only Idols nor all worship but only Divine worship forbidden in those words I may as well conclude that because it is said in Scripture God only is to be worshipt therefore we must not worship Kings Princes and Magistrates But good Doctor as there is a Divine worship due to God and to him only so there is a civil worship due to Kings Princes and Magistrates and another sort of worship due to Angels and Saints and so likewise there is a reverence and honor due to the holy Images of Christ and his Saints not a divine or absolute but a certain far inferiour worship and meerly relative Is it a greater sin in me to adore Christ in or before his image then it was in Iacob to adore Ioseph in his Rod or Sccpter S. Paul sayes Heb. 11. 21. that Iacob adored the top of Iosephs Rod wherein saith S. Chrisost Hom. 66. and Theodoret q. 108. in Gen. Iosephs dream was fulfilled viz. That his Father should worship him From Iacob under the Old let us come to the Fathers under the New Testament You have already heard S. Basil Epist. ad Iulian 205. publikely professing that he adored the Images of the holy Apostles Prophets and Martyrs and that this kind of Adoration of Images was an Apostolical Tradition You have heard what S. Cyril of A. lexandria delivered in his Homily before the Councel of Ephesus the third General Councel where himself was President under Pope Celestine it will not be impertinent to repeat his words Hail Mary mother of God by whom the precious Cross is reverenc't and adored throughout the whole world Here is the Image of the Holy Cross adored throughout the whole world according to S Cyril in relation to him that died on it and it is more then probable that the whole Church then represented in that Councel did practise that Adoration otherwise doubtless the Councel would have declar'd their dissent from S. Cyril and their dislike of his expression And now can any reasonable man imagine that those holy and learned Fathers S. Basil S. Cyril and S. Chrysostome Theodoret should maintain and the whole Councel of Ephesus approve of a Doctrine or practise repugnant to plain words of Scripture Besides it is not as lawful to adore the Images as the Reliques of Saints and is it not known to all the world with what holy zeale and bitterness S. Hierome inveigh's against Vigilantius for opposing and condemning that practise Does he not charge Vigilantius with Blasphemy for speaking against the Adoration of sacred Reliques Has not God by many apparent Miracles approv'd this holy practise August de Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. Tho testimonies that might be brought â—o confirm this Doctrine would swell to a large volume I will only add this that in the time of the second General Councel it was a custome to adorn Churches with Images as appears by S. Gregory Naziâ—nzen Epist 49. ad Olympium who sate in that Councel as also by this testimony out of Eusebius who sate in the first General Councel of Nice held about the year of Christ 325. that in his time and long before Images of Christ and his Apostles were made and adored Hist Eccles li. 7. c. 14. his words are these Et nos Apostolorum ipsius Christi imagines Pauli Petri ipsius etiam Christi vidimus per colores in picturis conservatâ—s antiquis ut par est immutabiliter solitis hoc modo honorare c. We also have seen the Images of Christs Apostles Paul and Peter as also of Christ himself preserv'd in Pictures by colours our Ancestors being wont as it is fit to honor them after this manner I pass by the authority of S. Gregory who very learnedly and copiously defends this Doctrine li. 9. Epist 9. of Leontius S. Gregories Coâ—tanean Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus who purposely wrote in defence of this Doctrine As also of the second General Councel of Nice which defin'd and declar'd this Doctrine to be an Apostolical Tradition condemning and anathematizing the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers as Heretiques I omit also the present practise of the pretended Greek Church which you may plainly read in Iâ—remias Patriarch of Constantinople Cersura Orient Eccles c. 21. where he maintains and vindicates this Doctrine of honoring and reverencing Images from superstition and Idolatry against
unanimiter nobiscum conspirat Basil Epist 293. Here you see the whole Western Church vindicated from that Heresie which doubtless S. Hilary well knew Those then in France that retain'd their antient Faith kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholique Church from whose communion never yet any separated but Schismatiques and Heretiques 34. The nâ—xâ— Father of the Church that I mâ—et with is Arch-bishop Lawd as you are pleas'd to call him whose authority you have often cited which I cannot but wondâ—r at since he was so far from being a Father that he neither livâ—d nor died a Son of the Church but the Doctor out of that pretended Aâ—ch-bishops book charges â—hâ— Church of Rome with four opinions â—â—pugnant to thâ— plâ—in words of Scripture viz. 1. â—ransubstanâ—â—ation 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind 3. Invoâ—ation of Saints 4. Adoration of Images Answ Though it be not much pertinent to our present purpâ—se to examine these Dâ—ctâ—ines according to Scripture since the Doctor confâ—ssâ—s that the Church of Rome nâ—twithstanding her errors is a trâ—â— Church and a member of the one Catholique Sect. 12. yet because he bâ—lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with thâ—se â—nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines as â—â— is pleased to caâ—â— them I could not pass them by but shall endeavour as briefly as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false câ—lumnie 35 First then Transubstantiation according to the Roman Catholike Doctrine is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine after and by viâ—â—ue of the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest into the true reall and substantial Body and Blood of Christ Let us now examine how this Doctrine is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Our blessed Saviour saith Matth. 26. 26 and Maâ— 14. 22. This is my Body and This is my Blood The words are plain and being taken literally must necessarily import a change For that which was before Bread and Wine after our Saviours consecration is according to the proper and literal sense of the words the very Body and Blood of Christ Where is then the Repugnancy between this Doctrine and the plain words of Scripture Christ sayes of that which was Bread and Wine This is my Body and This is my Blood The Church of Rome sayes so â—oo Instead then of a Repugnancy here is a fulâ— consent and agreement between the plain wordâ— of our Saviâ—ur and thâ— Doctrine of the Church of Rome Well but the words are not to be taken literally but figuratively Be it so Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant at the most but to the figurative sense not to the plain words or literal sense of Scripture But to come closer If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture that shall be but halfe as plain for the Metaphorical or figurative sense or that the Creatures of ' Bread and Wine are not really and substantially changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration but retain their former nature and substance of Bread and Wine as these words of Christ are for such a change I' will then for my part give the cause and turn Protesiant too or any thing else that Doctor Boughen shall command me to be But if he cannot produce any such Text as most certainly he cannot then is the Doctâ—ine of the Protestants and not that of the Church of Rome repugnant to the plain words of Scripture 36 But to justifie your selves and to avoid the Catholike Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation you thus interpret those words This is my Body c. viz. This is a signe or figure of my Body but what Scripture have you for it What authority What Catholique Father what Councel did ever give that interpetation of those words I confess if there be no true and real change of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament then will I also admit of that interpretation For if there be no such change then of necessity those creatures of Brâ—ad and Wine can be but bare signes and figures onely of Christs Body and Blood But behold Gods Providence over his Church The Holy Ghost fore seeing the evasions and shifts that some men would use to delude the world and to poison the Church with their Heretical Doctrines in opposition to Gods sacred Truth has in St. Lukes Gospel 22. 19 20 utterly cut you off even from that very glosse and interpretation The words of the Evangelist are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup is shed for you These are the words in the Original Language of St. Lukes Gospel And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative which may seem to refer to Blood as well as to Cup yet in the Greek it is very plain that it must refer to Cup. If then that which was câ—â—â—ain'd in the cup was that which was shâ—d for the sins of the world how could it be Wine oâ— a sign or figuâ—e â—â—ly of Christs bloud or any thing else but the true and real bloud of Christ For no sign oâ— sigure of bloud but Christs true and real precious bloud was shed for the sins of the world I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plaine by this Syllogism That which was shed for the sins of the world was the true and real precious bloud of Christ But that which was in the cup was that which was shed for the fins of the world Ergo. That which was in the cup was the true and real precious bloud of Christ The Major Proposition cannot be denied without blasphemy the Minor is most plain by the words of the Text and therefore the conclusion must necessarily follow Here is no Fallacy Doctor in this Syllogism no more terms then ought to be in a Syllogism but to utterly debar you of your sign or figure I argue thus That which was shed for the sins of the world was not a sign or figure only of Christs bloud But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world Ergo. That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's bloud Those words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood cannot admit of this interpretation This Cup is a sign of my Blood unless you will grant that a bare sign of Christ's bloud was shed for the sins of the world which is high blasphemy For it is very plain by the express words of the Text That the very Cup which was the New Testament in Christ's Blood was shed for the sins of the world wheâ—efore that Cup could not be a sign onely but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour Whâ—t say you Doctor who now
the Protestants All these I purposely pass by because I will contain my self within the first five hundred years to which you have appealed You see then Doctor the practise and doctrine of the Church within five hundred years after Christs birth in the Fathers and Councels above-cited Be now as good as your word submit to their sentence for trial of the truth of Religion and you will by Gods grace soon return to your Mother the Roman Catholique Church Thus is that charge which you say Sect. 28. of your second answer We know not how to shift off fully answer'd 45. In the next Sect. 25. I meet with some Authorities against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome The first is of S. Irenaeus who sharply checked and reproved Bishop Victor for keeping such a stir about the observation of Easter and excommunicating divers Churches because they would not stoop to his lure Answ That Pope Victor who govern'd the Church about 200. years after the birth of our Saviour excommunicated the Churches of Asia for their too much Judaizing in the observation of Easter is a very strong argument against you For first S. Victor was a pious and blessed man and therefore it cannot be reasonably imagin'd that he would usurp a power which Christ never gave him Secondly those Churches of Asia never protested against his Jurisdiction over them which certainly they would have done had not the Church in those dayes esteemed the Bishop of Rome the common Pastor of Christs Church and appointed by Christ to be under him the supreme Head thereof Thirdly when S. Irenaeus expostulated with him for his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Churches he never charged him for transgressing the bounds of his Jurisdiction or for usurping a power which Christ never delegated unto him which in all probability he would have done had he not look't on the Bishop of Rome as the supreme visible Head of Christs Church But because he conceiv'd not their offence so â—ainous as to deserve so heavy a censure he therefore took upon him to reprove Pope Victor by way of friendly and fraternal correction as S. Paul somtimes did S. Peter and as S. Paul never question'd S. Peters Jurisdiction nor denied him to be the chief and Head of the Apostles so neither did S. Irenaeus nor any of the Eastern Church that were excommunicated by Pope Victor question or protest against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And those words of S. Cyprian in the Councel of Carthage are to be understood of the African Bishops only who being of equal authority could not excommunicate one another They exclude not the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome otherwise S. Cyprian had contradicted himself who sayes plainly Epist ad Quintinum and Serm. de â—on patient that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter and li. 4. ep 8. ad Cornel. that the Unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome His words you shall find hereafter Sect. 58. In the next place Sect. 26. enters an angry Bishop of Cappadoâ—ia Firmilianus speaking thus to Pope Stephen Teipsum excidisti noli te fallere Mistake noâ— thy self thou Bishop of Rome while thou goâ—st about to cast out others by this presumption thou hast cast off thy self from the body of Christ which is his Church Ans By your leave Doctor you misunderstand Firmilianus he speaks not as you would have him Indeed he was very angry with Pope Stephen because he excommunicated him for maintaining that Heretical Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretiques He never told Pope Stephen that he had cut himselfe off from the Church because he excommunicated Firmilianus or any other Bishopâ— but he was willing the world should think that Pope Stephen in defending the Baptism of Heretiques to be lawful had sided with them in their Heresies and had therefore cut himself off from the Church not because he had excommunicated any Heretical Bishop of the East but because as Firmilianus conceiv'd he too much complyed with Heretiques And you know Doctor the very same Doctrine for which Firmilianus was excommunicated was afterward in the first General Councel of Nice declar'd to bâ— Heretical 46. It is common say you in these daies even with tâ—â—se that conscientiously pretend to truth not to be content with the Rule of Faith whâ—â—â—â—as once delivered to the Saints and 〈◊〉 from them by the Primitive 〈…〉 transmitted â—o posterity bu◠〈…〉 after nâ—w invention◠〈…〉 â—hese courses I abhor with a 〈…〉 Ans Here Dâ—ctor you have directly given sentence against your self If you will but examine the Doctrines of the Roman Church and your Doctrines wherein you oppose and differ from her but according to S. Augustines Rule de Baptis li. 2. c. 23. and the principles of common reason you will soon discover which is the Rule of Faith deliver'd to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church so transmitted to posterity and which are those new inventions For it is impossible that either you or any Protestant in the world can shew or prove that any one Doctrine which the Roman Church at this day maintains and teaches had its beginning or crept into the Church since Christ and his Apostles Whereas on the contrary there is not one Doctrine wherein you differ from the Roman Church but may be and has been often already prov'd and demonstrated to have begun since the time of the Apostles How then do you abhor with a perfect hatred these courses since you have imbrac't new inventions and totally forsaken the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church and transmitted to Posterity If it can be clearly demonstrated that all your Doctrines wherein you differ from the Roman Church are new and if it cannot be proved that any one Doctrine of the Roman Church had its beginning since the Apostles either you abhor not these courses with a perfect hatred as you profess or else you must in all points imbrace the Doctrine of the Roman Church 47. But stay Here I meet with a brace of fierce Syllogismes that fly furiously at the very throat of the poor Church of Rome The first is this That Church which hath erred is not the Pillar and ground of truth But The Church of Rome hath erred Ergo The Church of Rome is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The minor is thus prov'd by the second Syllogism That Church which hath professed Montanism Arrianism Eutychianism hath erred But The Church of Rome hath professed all these Ergo The Church of Rome hath erred And this minor you say you have sufficiently proved Sect. 18. 27. But I have more sufficiently proved that you have there proved nothing at all but are forc't to fly to most ridiculous shifts and fallacies and those fallacies I meet with here again Sect. 3â— where the Church of Rome is charg'd with all sins almost imagineable and divers Authors are cited to prove that
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
over all the parts of the Christian world and as being the great Metropolitan of the world infuses unity into all particular Churches and Christians She is in this her largest amplitude properly and truly call'd the Catholique Church And because the Catholique Church cannot fall into any error in faith or any other damnable error whatsoever nor teach Doctrines superstitious sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture because she is and ever shall be guided by Gods Holy Spirit which hitherto has and ever shall lead her into all truth therefore it cannot be truly said that the Roman Church being this Catholique Church ever was or can be guilty of errors in faith or of superstitious sacrilegious or any damnable Doctrines whatsoever 73. Besides when Luther first for sook the communion of the Roman Church did he not stand alone was he not divided from the world even from those that were not in communion with the Church of Rome as well as from those that were did he communicate in the Sacraments or external worship with any particular Church Congregation People Nation or Sect professing the name of Christ can any man separate himself from that church in whose communion he once liv'd whose Faith and Doctrine he imbrac't and joyn himself to no other congregation in the whole world professing the name of Christ either in doctrine or external communion and yet be no Schismatique If so then there never was or can be any Schism If then Luther was Schismatical in being divided from the Whole Christian world in Faith and communion it necessarily follows that all those who first adhered to him forsaking the communion of that church whereof they had formerly been members and all those who have since followed Luther and have not joyn'd themselves to any church or Christian Congregation whatsoever besides themselves must be guilty of the same Schism How then is it possible for you to avoid the guilt of Schism since you have forsaken the communion of the Church of Rome with whom you once communicated as you confess Sect. 19. and have not joyn'd your selves to any other Christian Congregation whatsoever You abhor the communion of the Roman Church and that which you call the Greek Church abhors you Will you say that the Protestants are the whole Catholique Church then you contradict your self who grant Sect. 12. that Rome her self is a Church a member of the one Catholique You must also then confess that the Greek Church as you call it is no part of the Catholique Church and the truth is you have good reason so to do since she refused to receive you into her communioâ— abhorring and detesting your new Doctrines as heretical If then all those of the Protestant Sect be Schismatical as it most plainly appears they are certainly the Protestants of England must necessarily be involv'd in the same Schism 74. Let us now see how you can vindicate your selves from heresie I will not look beyond those four Doctrines wherewith you have charg'd the Church of Rome as being fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture viz. Transubstantiation Administration of the B. Sacrament to the Laity in one kind Invocation of Saints Adoration of Images And by your opposing these doctrines as they are held and taught by the Roman Church I shall endeavour to make it appear to the world that you cannot avoid the just imputation of Heresie First then I demand whether the Fathers assembled in the four first General Councels were not competent and lawful Judges of the heresies of those times as the Arrian Macedonian Nestorian Eutychian c. and whether they had not power to condemn those heresies and to anathematize those that held and taught them as heretiques If they had no such power then did they most injuriously and tyrannically usurp a power and Jurisdiction which of right belonged not unto them But this cannot be prudently suppos'd that so many holy reverend and learned Fathers should usurp an authority or arrogate to themselves that power which was not lawfully deriv'd upon them by Christ and his holy church They were the selected Pastors of the whole church men renowned for their piety and learning and could not therefore be ignorant how far the Jurisdiction and authority of a lawful Councel might extend neither would their piety suffer them to transgress the limits of that authority If then those four first Councels had power to judg of and to declaâ—e and define doctrines of faith and to anathematize all those that should oppose them how came the Councels in succeeeding ages to be depriv'd of this power How came the church to lose that authority wherewith she was once invested was her power but temporary and after some few ages to expire or did Christ foresee thaâ— after some few ages his church would be no more infested with Schismatiques or heretiques but we plainly find that such have molested the church in all ages and therefore doubtless in all ages has this power continued in the church and if so why was it not as lawful for the second Councel of Nice which was held above 800. years since to judg and define what reverence and honor is due to holy Images and to condemn the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers as it was for the former Councels to condemn the Arrians Nestorians c And why was it not as lawful for that great and glorious Councel of Lateran wherein were present both the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Hierusalem to judg of and declare the true real and substantial conversion of the creatures of bread and wine after consecration into the true and real body and bloud of Christ and to declare the manner of that conversion as also to express the antient doctrine of the church by the proper signification of a new word Transubstantiation as it was for the first General Councel of Nice to judg of and declare Christs consubstantiality with the Father and to invent that new word to express the antient doctrine descending unto them by universal and in fallible Tradition of Christs co-eternal and co-equal Divinity with the Father You wil find in Vincentius Lyrinesis c. 32. that it was no new thing in his time for the church to invent new words to express old doctrines Why was it not lawful for the Councel of Constance Sess 13. to define and declare the indifferency and sufficiency of communicating the Laity under one kind only and to anathematize those that should pertinatiously oppose that doctrine Lastly why was it not lawful for the Councel of Trent Sess 25. to declare the lawfulness of invocating the blessed Saints and to denounce a curse against all obstinate opposers thereof Thus you see those four fond and sacrilegious doctrines and such as you say are repugnant to plain words of Scripture confirm'd declar'd and defin'd to be sacred truths and Apostolical Traditions by four General Councels You have also seen them held and practis'd by the antient Fathers that