Vision Gods candle since it was first lighted by Christ and and his Apostles was never put under a bushell but from the candlestick wherein it was first set has given light to the world and all eyes that are not blinded with malice or interest must behold it You seeme to approve the Principles of Vinceutius Lyrinensis follow them and you are safe Let Antiquity and Vniversality be your guide and you cannot erre Let not some few scatter'd obscure and mis-understood places of some Fathers prevaile more with you then a thousand plaine places whole treatises and volumnes purposely pen'd in defence of Catholique truth Divest your soul of pride malice and interest and instead thereof let humility and impartiality take place and then Gods grace will sweetly invite you to a sincere and humble acknowledgment of your errors and you will with excessive joy and thankfulness of heart praise God for your deliverance from the bonds of darkness and the jawes of death Remember that the antient Fathers and Doctors of the church have condemn'd you the Councels both Oecumenical and Provincial have declar'd against you the universal doctrine and practise of the church both before and after Luthers Apostasie have given sentence against you And as for those Canons which you have alledged in your book you must needs know your self that some of them make against you others are impertinent but none of them impugne the power and authority of Christs Vicar the Bishop of Rome over the whole Catholique Church Weigh all the Authorities of holy Scripture and antiquity for both sides and see whether there be not a thousand plain places against you for one obscure for plain you have none for you Your eternal salvation lyes at stake rely not then on other mens nor your own fallacious judgment or fancy in those things that concern your salvation Let Gods holy church be your guide and interpreter of Scripture lest you wrest it as some did of whom S. Peter complains 2 Pet. 3. 16. to your own damnation consider that the best way to appease Gods wrath against you for your former misguiding and seducing poor ignorant souls to their eternal perdition is now by your good example in returning to your holy Mother the Roman Catholique Church to draw others after you into the house of God his Church Militant that so hereafter ye may meet in his Church Triumphant Let not those trifles of popular applause or worldly reputation flatter you to hell nor fear of the worlds censure fright you from heaven be but humble and impartial and it is as impossible for you not to be a Roman Catholique at least in judgment and opinion as it is for a man that has the benefit of sight to open his eys and not to see light at noon day And now Doctor If you have met with any tart language in this my answer you cannot justly be offended with me It proceeded not from any malice that I can bear your person For I profess upon the word of a Christian I never heard of your name to my remembrance before I saw this your book and I am still so much a stranger to you that I know neither the place of your abode nor the present condition of your life But I was somewhat provok't by your blesphemous speeches against Gods holy church by your unnecessary taunts and causless jeering of Mr. T. B. whose modesty in his letters to you was such that I am sure he gave you no just cause to break out into such scurrilous and unseemly speeches against him I shall heartily pray that instead of replying to this answer you may be reconcil'd to Gods holy Catholique Church Amen FINIS POSTSCRIPT IF the Doctor or or any of his Party be yet unsatisfied in this Controversie I propose that rather then bestow a Reply to these cursory Papers of mine the most Learned of them would considerately examine Mr. Cressy's Exomologesis or Motives of his conversion c. and Rushworths Dialogues in the last Edition as it is corrected and enlarged by Mr. Thomas White in a 80 of the Long-Primer letter both which they must acknowledge to be as much unanswerable as these light papers of Dr. Boughons are fully answered ERRATA PAge 17. line 23. read at Rome p. 36. l. 18. r. were a great p. 59. l. 18. r. coâ—tanean p. 63. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 65. l. 23. r. but a. p. 67. l. 24. r. verùm and l. 25. non â—ide p. 78. l. 7. r. as well as p. 79 l. 27. r. offerunâ— p. 82. l. 8. r. prayers made at p. 86. l. 10. r. is it p. 114. l. 7. r. sixth Century p. 115. l. 13. r. nor Apos p. 118. l. 11. r. odious and l. last r. your taxing p. 119. l. 17. r. clâ—fia p. 126. l. 13. dele of p. 127. l. 28. r. ad p. 137. l. 27. r. makes no.
AN ANSWER To a Book entituled AN ACCOVNT OF THE Church Catholike Where it was before the Reformation And whether Rome were or be the Church Catholike Wherein is proved That the Catholike Church never was nor can be distinct from that which is now called The Church of Rome By R. T. Esquire Concordes omnes sumus unum idem sentientes quare qui societatem nostram devitat is nè lateat sinceritatem vestram quòd seipsum à tota Ecclesia abrumpit Basil Eust Printed at Paris 1654. AN ANSWER TO A late Book Entituled An Account of the CHURCH CATHOLIKE c. THough every idle Pamphlet deserves not the pains of an answer yet since new and dangerous Doctrines have so far over-spread this Nation and taken such firm root in the hearts of the people that any defence thereof though never so weak shall be readily imbrac't and highly magnified I esteemed it not altogether un-necessary to endeavour by this Reply to undeceive the dâ—luded multitude wâ—o are commonly carried away rather by the authority of some person in their opinion eminent then by force of Argument I should much wonder that so woâ—thy a person as report ba's represented D. Boughen to the world should be the Author of so unworthy a Pamphlet did I not consider the horried effects of pride and malice how they not only tempt wretched souls out of the right path that leads to eternall felicity but spur them on also to a violent opposition of Gods sacred truth till at length they break out into open blasphemy against God and his holy Church for which God forsakes them leaving them to their impious and damnable errors to maintain which the most learned and subtill of all Heretiques are forc't to fly to fallacious and ridiculous Arguments which though to some unwary reader they may at the first appearance seem to carry some show of truth yet upon more mature examination they will be plainly discover'd to be but false and deceiptfull colours and such are all the Arguments in these Answers to the two Letters of Mr. T. B. which I doubt not but I shall evidently demonstrate to any impartiall reader Sect. 1. First then Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Catholike Church distinct from the Church of Rome and those in her Communion The Doctor answers That the particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike as a particular member is to the whole body and therefore as the whole body is distinct from a particular member or a particular member from the whole body so is the particular Church of Rome distinct from the whole Catholike Rub up your Logick Doctor or let me advise you to go once more to the University and converse while with the young Sophisters who will tell you of a fallacy call'd Ignoratio Elenchi which indeed runs through almost your whole book For let us set these two Propositions against each other and then see whether we can discover any contradiction between them 1. Prop. The Catholike Church is not distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her 2. Prop. The particular Church of Rome is as distinct from the whole Catholike as a particular member is from the whole body Where is the contradiction if both these Propositions may be true as certainly they are where is the conclusion contradictory to the Proposition But let us help the Doctor and form his Argument into a Syllogism and then perchance we may discover a contradiction Ma. Every particular member is distinct from the whole body Min. But the particular Church of Rome is a member of the whole body Concl. Therefore the particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole body I must here ask again where is the contradictory Conclusion to Proposition but perchance we wrong the Doctor in making that his conclusion which he intended for his argument to the conclusion contradictory Let us try that way then and see what will follow The particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike as a particular member is to the whole body Ergo The Catholike Church is distinct from the Church of Rome and those Communion with her An excellent consequence which every young Sophister will laugh at But let us try one way more for I would fain make something of it let us help the Doctor with another Syllogism Ma. The particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole Catholike But Min. The Church of Rome and those in Communion with her is the particular Church of Rome Ergo The Church of Rome and those in Communion with her is distinct from the whole Catholiks Here I confesse is some apparency of contradiction in this conclusions but then what a ridiculous Minor is here By the same way of argumentation I will prove Westminster and the Suburbs of London to be within the walls of London Thus Ma. The particular City of London is within the walls of London But Min. The Suburbs of London and the City of Westminster adjoyning there unto are the particular City of London Ergo The Suburbs of London and City of Westminster adjoyning thereunto are within the walls of London If the Minor were as true as the Major the conclusion would necessarily be true but the Minor is as false as yours and yours as this for you must know good Doctor that the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her are as much distinct from the particular Church of Rome as the Suburbs of London and City of Westminster are from the City of London Sect. 2. Besides there is great difference between the Roman Church and the particular Church of Rome the Roman Church and the Catholike being Synonama's signifying one and the same thing And though in that demand of Mr. T. B. the Church of Rome may in sensu diviso be limited to the particular Church or Diocesse of Rome yet in sensu composito that is being joyned to the following words and those in Communion with her the Church of Rome is of as full and ample laâ—itude and extension as the whole Catholike Church And thus may be answer'd that triviall and childish objection against these words Roman Catholike as if they implied a contradiction they being but as I said before Synonima's both expressing the whole Church in her amplest latitude for the Church of God is Catholique in respect of her Faith Roman in respect of her denomination Catholike in respect of her doctrine Roman in respect of her discipline Catholike in regard she is not consin'd to one Nation People or Kingdome but invites the whole world to her Faith and Communion willingly imbracing all that will come unto her Roman in respect all particular Churches and persons whatsoever that are within the Communion of the Catholike Church are united in and subject to one Head the Bishop of the particular Church or Sea of Rome as being S. Peters Successor and appointed by Christ to be his Vicar on earth
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
visible in times of hottest persecution and so visible that we can even at this day point at it and that afterwards when it was more glorious it should become invisible to all eyes as that church must be which was distinct from the church of Rome and those in communion with her and that for so many hundred yeares transcends any mans understanding but D. Boughens 12. It is more then probable saith he that there were in this very Island 7000. soules that were not tainted with Popish errours but he brings not so much as a probable argument for it By Popish Errours he means the antient doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church but it is most improbable that there were so many as seven besides such as were condemn'd for Heretikes and confest to be such even by Protestants themselves that before Luthers Apostaâ—ie were separated from the Roman church for there was not so much as one man or woman that followed Luther or Calvin or any other Protestant whatsoever in their new Doctrine or imbrac't their new Reformation as you call it but had been before a profest Roman Catholike 13. It is enough for us sayes the Doctor to prove them to be errours to be against Scripture and the received sense of the antient church Answ For shame Doctor recall your words I am sure that this speech must proceed from much impudence or ignorance they were never yet prov'd to be errors against Scripture some indeed have barkt against Gods church and blasphemed her faith and doctrine as you have done in this Pamphlet wresting the Scripture to their damnable purposes and I am sure that of all men you will never be able to prove them so But what can be more apparent to the world then that all Antiquity confirms the doctrine of the Roman church and condemns yours 14. That which you say concerning the Popes Liberius Honorius and Jo. 22. shall be answer'd hereafter in a more proper place 15. But the Doctor is sure that he ha's manifested that the Church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are not cannot be the Catholike Church Answ Indeed he ha's made it so manifest that no body can see it for if this conclusion The church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are not cannot be the Catholike Church be either expresly or implicitly in any thing that he ha's said before I will then lay down the â—â—dgells and never lift up my hand more against D. Boughen 16. In his following discourse I conâ—esse the Doctor seems to say more then ever he said before viz. That the church of Rome and those in communion with her might be a Catholike but not the Catholike Church a part but not the whole Answ But good Doctor saying is one thing and manifesting another this must not be beg'd but prov'd all that he said before was that Rome was a particular church and this too was but only said not prov'd at all and now he at least seems to draw neerer to the question and say that the church of Rome and those particular churches in her communion are but a part of the Catholike Church and that therefore the Catholike Church is of a larger extent and comprehends within her bounds more churches then those only that are in communion with the church of Rome This is easily said but where are your proofs where is your Scripture for it or where is your authority of Fathers or Councells for it can you or any man else shew that at any time between the times of the Apostles and Luthers Apostasie there was any particular church divided from the church of Rome and those in communion with her and yet acknowledged either by the church of Rome or any in communion with her or by any Catholique Father or any Catholique Councell to be a true member of the Catholike church if this cannot be shown as I am most certain it cannot why should we take it upon your word that the church of Rome and those in communion with her is not the Catholike Church but a part only thereof was there ever any particular church not in communion with the church of Rome that sent her Bishops and Prelats to any General Councel wherein the whole Catholike Church was represented or did ever any General Councell receive Bishops or permit them to sit and vote there that were sent from any such church or that would not acknowledge their subjection to the Bishop of Rome as the common Pastor and visible head of Gods church 't is very strange that there should be whole churches whole countryes and Nations all true members of the Catholike Church and so acknowledged that were not in communion with the church of Rome that is never acknowledged any subjection to the Sea or Bishop of Rome and yet that there should be no Records thereof that all these should be invisible to the world for these 1600. yeares together These are strong arguments against you Doctor what arguments you will hereafter bring for your selfe I know not but as yet I am sure you have brought none at all 17. I commend your wisdome in concealing the words of those Canons by you cited Sect. 10. for you plainly perceived that they made nothing for you That sixth canon of the Councel of Nice which seems most to strengthen your cause and ha's been so often objected by your party and so often answer'd ha's been prov'd upon diligent examination to make directly against you as appeares plainly Concil Calc Act. 16. 18. But the Doctor is much scandaliz'd at the maiming of the Lords Supper so that if there were no other cause then that he could not communicate with the Church of Rome Sect. 11. It seems Doctor Boughen cannot content himself with that wherewith the good Primitive Christians were all satisfied They could be contented to carry the blessed Sacrament to their houses and reserve it there for times of necessity under one Species They thought it sufficient to minister it to their sick under the Species of Bread onely to their children when that by some was thought necessary under the Species of Wine onely but the Doctor will have both or none None of the antient Fathers nor the most learned of all the Primitive Christians could ever find it in Scripture that Christ ordained the blessed Sacrament to be given in both kinds to all sorts of people but Doctor Boughen is so quick-sighted that he ha's discover'd that which the whole church for 1500. yeares together could not find out 19. But good Doctor how do we rob the Laity of Christs bloud if those creatures of Bread and Wine be after Consecration truly really and substantially chang'd into the body and blood of our blessed Saviour then those that receive his body receive his blood also for whosoever communicates under one Species only receives both the body and bloud And if there be no such change as I am sure according to your doctrine
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
thereof would stand in need of some supreme Head and Governour certainly he foresaw that when his Church should be more ample and numerous and more subject to divisions and factions it would stand in far greater need of an Vniversal Head wherein all particular Churches and members thereof might be united and therefore would not leave it without some common Pastor to guide and direct it And I desire you to take notice Doctor that herein all the Fathers both Greek and Latin Antient and modern unanimously agree and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christs Church ever was and ever must be S. Peters Successor who hithetâ—o ever since S. Peter plac't his Chair there has been the bishop of Rome and for ought we know ever will be till the end of the world And this those very Authors Stella and Lyra whom you have cited for your self will plainly tell you even in those very places which you have cited Besides who ever confirm'd the acts of any lawful General Councel but the Pope In his absence had he not his Delegates who saâ—e in the supreme place of the Councel though they were not alwayes Bishops and that even in the Easterne Church I could be more copious in this point but I here intend a reply only not a Treatise of Controversie 26. I come now to Pope John 22. who stands charg'd with a strange and monstrous Heresie viz. for affirming that God the Son is greater then God the Father and the Holy Ghost and Stella's authority is produc't to prove it Answ I confess Stella has accus'd him of it but I must be bold to excâ—pt against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact for it cannot appear that Stella spake this upon any just ground or probability for no man besides Stella either Catholique or Heretique that I could ever yet read or hear of ever charg'd Pope John 22. with that blasphemy 't is true some Heretiques and amongst the rest Calvin Just li. 4. c. 7. Sect. 28. have charged this Pope for affirming that the souls of men were mortal but most injuriously for he never taught nor held the mortality of the soul all that he held contrary to the opinion of the world was That the souls of the Just should not see God before the Resurrection This opinion was far from Heresie the Church never having defin'd the contrary and divers ancient Catholique Fathers being of the same opinion neither did he ever absolutely defend that opinion as an unquestionable truth For as Jo. Villanus Hisior li. 11. cap. 19. reports the day before his death he declar'd that he never had any intent to define it and that whensoever he discoursed of it his end was to find out the truth and added withall that he held the contrary opinion to be more probable and I am sure it is most improbable that Ockam his bitter enemy should charge him with this and Calvin with the other and yet neither of these should make any mention of that blasphemous Heresie which D. Boughen one of Stella layes to his charge if either he had been guilty or they could have found any probable argument or colourable ground that he might be guilty of that horrid blasphemy but suppose this had been true as it is far from all probability of truth what is this to the purpose What if Liberius Mâ—rcellinus and John 22. all Bishops of Rome had their private errors what is all this to the Church of Rome your Intelligencer Stella even in that place by you cited will tell you they erred as private persons only not as bishops of Rome or Heads of the Church they never decreed nor defin'd Heresie they never commanded any heretical Doctrine to be receiv'd as a divine truth by the whole Church They might fall into errors so likewise did Peter as Stella sayes even after Christ had prayed for him that his Faith should not fail But I suppose no man will be so unreasonable or blasphemous as to say Peters Faith failed after Christ had prayed that it should not fail though externally for fear of the Jews he denied it Peter then denied his Faith what was this to the other Apostles and the rest of Christs Disciples Liberius Marcellinus and Pope John 22. had their errors what was this to the Church of Rome had you read Stella but a very few lines further you would have found small incouragement to have cited his authority for your opinion for though he seems in some sense to grant your Minor Proposiâ—ion as you call it Sect. 18. in your missh pen Syllogism Sect. 17. viz. That Liberius Marcellinus and Iohn 22. erred in Faith yet he there plainly denies your conclusion viz. That therefore in their times the Church of Rome became no Church but was an Anti-christian Synagogue His words in Luc. 22. 31. the very place by you cited are these Ecclesia enim Autiochena Alexandrina Constantinopolitana saepe defecerunt à fide Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecil quia Christus ait Petro â—ravi pro te ut uon deficiat fides tua The Church saith he of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith but the Church of Rome never fell from her faith because Christ said to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not You see Doctor what a plain testimony here is against you out of the same Author which you have cited for you Stella was not so sharp-sighted as to see your consequence viz. That beause Marcellinus Liberius and John 22. had fallen from the true faith therefore the Church of Rome had forsaken her faith but the contrary he maintains exprefly viz. That although Liberius Marccllinus and John 22. all Popes of Rome denied the true Faith yet the Church of Rome never failed or fell from her faith He could not draw your Conclusion from such Premises as yours are and yet doubtless he knew a Syllogism and a rational consequence as well as you 27. But why should Vigilius be an Eutychian was it because out of reverence and respect to the Councel of Calcedon he could not be induc't neither by the perswasions nor threatnings of the Emperour to repeal an Act of that Councel in condemning those Tria Capitula which the Counccl had receiv'd as Orthodox nothing favouring the Heresie either of Nestorius or Eutyches one whereof was the Epistle of Ibas who publiquely in the Councel renounc't the Heresies both of Nestorius and Eutyches another the writings of Theodoret against Nestorius for which Theodoret had formerly been depos'd by the Eutychian Faction in that Latrocinal Councel at Ephesus and afterwards restor'd by the Catholiques I confess this is a very strong argument that he was no Eutychian but that he was one you only say it you alledg no reason you cite no authority nor testimony but that of Lyra whom I cannot find making any mention at all in the place by you cited in Mat. 16. either of
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
successor For no particular Church or person ever was or could be in communion with the Church of Rome that denied or questioned this Doctrine or that refused to yeeld obedience to the Sea of Rome as the Head and Mother of all Churches and to the Bishop thereof as Christs Vicar General on Earth How then came you in England to find out that at last which your Ancestors for almost 1000. years could not discover They all even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith by St. Augustine to K. Hen. eights Defection were subject to the Sea of Rome and to the Bishop thereof as Christs immediate Vicar and under him the supream head of the Catholike Church How come you to be wiser then all your fore-fathers and the whole world bâ—sides Can it be reasonably supposed that those great Patriarchs of the â—ast the Patriarch of Constantinople of Hierusalem of Antiech c. with all the Bishops of Asia Africa and Europe should profess and acknowledge themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome had they not thought that his power and Jurisdiction over the whole Catholique Church had been by Christs especial appointment and commission What colourable plea then can you alleadge for your separation 31. But I perceive the Doctor is flying to his old fallacy in taking for granted or rather indeed downright begging that the Church of Rome can be no more then a particular branch or member of the Church Catholique For his words immediatly following are these And yet we shall maâ—gre Satan communicate with the Catholique Church while with one minde and mouth we glorifie God c. Good Doctor deceive not your self the Devil doe's but laugh at you for that idle fancy You cannot truly glorifie God either in minde or mouth whilest you separate your selves from Gods Church Neither can you communicaâ—e with the Catholique Church whilest you keep your selves out of the communion of the Church of Rome I told you before Sect. 2. that the Roman Church and the Catholique Church are in some sense Synonymaes signifying one and the same thing The Church of Rome is that Catholike Church out of whose communion whosoever dyes shall never see the face of God Now in what sâ—nse the Roman Church is called the Catholique Church though I have already shewed you yet I will here somewhat farther explain it The Catholique Church may be considered First in respect of her Faith and Doctrine Secondly in respect of her Government or Discipline According to the first consideration all true particular Churches and Christians professing and united in one and the same Faith and Communion are truly and properly called the Catholique Church and this is formally the Church Catholique We say not that the Roman Church is thus that is formally Catholique She is in this sense a part or member only of the Catholique Church But if we consider the Catholique Church in respect of her Government then the Church of Rome may truly and properly be called Catholique though not formally yet causally because she being the Mother and Head of all other particular Churches of the Christian world in right of her Bishop who is St. Peters successor and appointed by Christ to be the supream Head and Governor of his whole Church is the fountain and centre of Vnity which she infuses into the whole Catholique Church causing all the particular members thereof to be united in one and the same supream earthly Head and Governor Those then that submit themselves to the Apostolique Sea of Rome and are in communion with the Bishop thereof by subjecting themselves to his Authority and Government acknowledging him Christs Vicar on earth the sole supream Head of his Church may most properly be termed Roman Catholiques The Province of Canterbury consisted of many particular Churches or Episcopal Seas all united in the Church or Sea of Canterbury which gave denomination to the whole Province Canterbury it self was not the whole Province but because it was the Metropolitan Sea the Head and Mother-Church of the whole Province wherein all the particular Seas of that Province were united and to whom they yeilded obedience the whole Province received its Denomination from her which notwithstanding being considered as a particular Church or Diocesse was but a part or member of the Province of Canterbury So likewise the Church of Rome being the Metropolitan Sea of the whole world the Head and mother-Mother-Church of the Christian world wherein all particular Seas and Churches whatsoever that are in communion with the Church Catholique are united every true Church in particular may be said to be within the universal Province or Church of Rome And the Roman Church comprehending under her all particular Churches whatsoever that are branches and members of the Catholique to whom they all owe obedience and subjection and in whom they are all united as in the grand Metropolitan Church of the Christian world may properly be styled the Catholique Church As then there was the particular Sea or Church of Canterbury and the whole Province of Canterbury so also there is the particular Sea or Church of Rome and the universal Church of Rome And as the particular Sea of Canterbury was a part of the Province of Canterbury so likewise the particular Church of Rome is but a part of the universal or Catholique Church of Rome the Church of Rome as truly comprehending all particular Churches of the Christian world as the Province of Canterbury contained all the particular Seas of that Province In brief as the Sea of Canterbury was to all the particular Seas of that Province so is the Church of Rome to all the particular Churches of the whole world And by this you may perceive how frivoulous that trivial objection is which has been so often made against that expression Roman Catholique as if those words implyed a contradiction in signifying Particular and yet Vniversal 32. And that the Roman Church has ever bin in this sense the Catholique Church viz. as being the Head and Mother-Church of all other Christian Churches appears as plainly as any other point of Faith or Doctrine whatsoever Neither the Scriptures themselves nor any Doctrine or Article of Faith written or unwritten has descended unto us by a more full and ample Tradition then this Dâ—ctrine of the Primacy of the Apostolick Sea of Rome and Supremacy of the Bishop thereof over all Churches So that he that shall deny or question this may as well doubt of the Scriptures and consequently of Christs coming in the flesh and dying for the sins of the world Are noâ— the writings of the Ancient Fathers full of iâ— has not the universal practise of the Church in all ages made it shine bright even at this day to the world Read the Fathers examine the Councels view the practise of Gods Church in all ages and you will soon conâ—ess this to be an apparent and unquestionable Truth Besides consider that the Primacy and authority
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
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
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
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
charge Let us see then how they prove it Plarina and Onuphrius are produc't to prove that Schism was rais'd there What then Was the Church of Rome therefore Schismatical because some rais'd a Schism there I told you before that the Authors only of the Schism and those that adhere to them are the Schismatiques they have forsaken the Church they have cut themselves off from Christs body the Church it self remains still sound and entire But that Stella and Almain should charge the Church of Rome with Heresie to say no more is most false I must once more put you in mind what Stella sayes in the place by you cited Luc. 22. 31. Ecclesia Antiochena Alexandrina Constantinopolitana saepe defecerunt à fide Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecit The Church of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople have often fallen from the Faith but the Church of Rome 〈◊〉 fell from the Faith Remember 〈…〉 and never produce Stella 〈…〉 purpose And what if there 〈◊〉 many â—nd great sinners in the Church 〈…〉 what is this to her Faith and 〈…〉 What if She wanted Reformation 〈…〉 manners and Discipline what is that to Her belief What if sâ—me Popes have been vitious was the Church of Rome therefore vicious and what if some Popes of Rome had fallen from their Faith must the Church of Rome therefore forsake her Faith There was a time you say out of Baronius An. Christi 908. n. 5. and An. 931. n. 1. when Marozia and her Daughter a couple of lewd Strumpets disposed of the Popedome for many years so that none possessed that Chair but Boys Fools and Kuaves Answ I pray tell me Doctor did the Church of Rome at that time consist only of Boys Fools and Knaves When the Popes were Boys wasthere not one man woman or child in the whole Church of Rome Or when they were Fools or Knaves were there then no wise or honest men in that Church These consequences must follow as well as the other For if it follow that because some Popes have been vicious therefore the whole Church of Rome in those daies was also vicions or because Marcellinus Liberius and 10. 22. denied Iesus Christ to be the true God and Eternal Life therefore in those daies Rome was no Church but an Antichristian Synagogue as you infer Sect. 17. It follows as necessarily that because some Popes have been boys therefore in those times the Church of Rome consisted only of boys and that there were neither men women nor children in the whole Church as likewise because some Popes have been fools and knaves that therefore at that time there were no wise nor honest men in the Church of Rome To such miserable and ridiculous shifts are Heretiques driven whose pride and obstinacy is such that they will rather damn their own souls then confess their errors 47. But by the way Doctor I must desire you to observe that those Popes whom Bâ—ronius complains of in the places by you cited An. 908. nu 5. and An. 931. nu 1. were but Pseudo-Popes not lawfully elected but intruding into the Papacy by the power of the Marquesses of Tuscany his words are these Mortuo Stephano potentia Widonis Tusciae Marchionis Maroziae matris Sergii Pseudo-Popae exdicto scorto Marozia filius c. An. 931. where you find Sergius mention'd in your former citation An. 908. but a Pseâ—do-Pope a meer Usurper and his Bastard Iohn made Pope after Stephen by the power Wido Marquess os Tuscany and a little after he has these words It à planè tantae vires Marchionibus Tusciae in urbe erant ut pro arbitrio quos vellent â— Pontificiali sede deponerent alios intruderent Here you see those Princes so powerful in Rome that they could dispose and set up what Popes they pleas'd And I must desire you good Doctor to take this also along with you and that from Baronius that in all the time of those wicked usurping Schismatical Popes Gods providence was over his Church that notwithstanding these distracted and calamitous times yet the Roman Church was preserv'd free both from Schism and Heresie For had you cast your eye but a little farther from nu 5. to nu 7. you should have found these words Cùm tanta ista urgerent hoe saeculo mala scandala increbrescerent tamen non est inventus qui eâ de causâ se ab ipâ—â Ecclesiâ Romanâ abscinderet Schismate aut Heresi eandem impugnaret sed omnes ubiqueâ—entium eidem Fidei vinculo obedientiae foedere juncti persistebant An. 908. n. 7. You see then that Baronius could not see your consequence that because there were some tyrannical usurping and Schismatical Popes therefore the whole Church of Rome must fail or become Schismatical and I am somewhat confident that D. Boughen was the first that ever discover'd this undiscoverable consequence 48. Those other words that you produce our of Baronius An. 373. n. 21. whereby you would make the world believe that Baronius held an opinion that the Pope by his own authority might make and alter Decrees in matters of Faith as he pleas'd are to be understood only thus That the Pops with the advise of his Bishops may in a private Councel for the peace and quietness of the Church till a General Councel may be call'd publish Decrees concerning Doctrines of Faith as also revoke or alter such Decrees according as it shall be found necessary or convenient for the peace and unity of the Church But that the Pope can of himself revoke or alter the Decrees determinations or definitions of General Councels concerning Doctrines of Faith this Baronius never taught he was too great a Scholar and too good a Catholique to maintain such a temerarious I might say Heretical Doctrine and that this is the meaning of Baronius in that place may appear by the context of his Narration where he declares the readiness of S. Gregory Nazianzen to acquiesce and submit to the Decree of Pope Damasus who then govern'd the Church upon a supposition that the Pope had admitted the Apollinarians to the Councel at Rome which not withstanding was but a false pretence of the Apollinarians where you may observe Doctor that this blessed man was a Bishop in the Eastern Church and had formerly wrote sharply against the Apollinarians and yet upon a supposition though false that they were reconcil'd to the Pope and admitted to the Councel at Rome he profest that he would in all submission to the Pope acquiesce and not presume to censure or question any Act or determination of the Pope though it were concerning Doctrines of Faith 49. I have now past through your first answer and purposed to have here concluded but I meet with an impertinent authority of Doctor Lawd which though I might justly have past by without taking any notice thereof as having undertaken an answer to D. Boughen not D. Lawd especially since this of D. Lawd is already sufficiently
answer'd Sect. 28. yet I have thought fit to make this further examination of it To the question then Where was your Church before Luther D. Lawd answers Where ours is now Answ If by ours he means the particular Church of Rome I must confess his answer to be true for the particular Church of Rome is a part or member af the Roman Catholike Church and so were you before Luther but with him you have apostatiz'd and are fallen into Schism and He resie and instead of a Church you are become an Heretical and Schismatical Congregation Luther forsook the whole Church and those that soon after his Apostacy adhered to his Heresies followed him also in his Apostacy they having been all members of that Church which Luther had forsaken But this you will say was no separation but a reformation for that D. Lawd drives at One and the same Church still saith he one in substance but not one in condition of state and purity your part of the same Church by your part he means the Church of Rome remaining in corruption and our part of the same Church under Reformation Good God how can any society of men professing themselves Christians be one and the same Church and that in substante with that from which they separated both in Faith and communion Or what can be a separation if this be not If you have not separated your selves from the Catholique Church then were the Arrians Nestorians Macedontans Pelagians c. no Heretiques neither were they separated from the Catholique Church but were only under Reformation Do not you oppose and deny Doctrines of Faith as antiently and as universally receiv'd by the Church as those that the Arrians Nestorians Macedonians Pelagians c. oppos'd and denied What difference can you make between Arrius and Luther in respect of their apostasie Did not Luther set himself against the whole world as well as Arrius Did not the whole Christian world besides your selves upon your first Reformation as you call it detest your new Doctrines and abhor your communion Did not the pretended Greek Church it self into whose communion you were Petitioners to be admitted condemn your new Doctrines as Heretical and refuse to receive you into their communion Read the book entituled Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae and you shall there find the Greek Church maintaining and that against the Protestants the Doctrine of seven Sacraments cap. 7. of Transubstantiation and real presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrarmenâ— c. 10. of auricular confession c. 11. of the unbloudy propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass c. 13. of free will c. 18. of Traditions c. 20. of Invocation of Saints and Veneration of Images c. 21. Was there any one man in the whole world that profest your Foctrine before Luther and yet forsooth yours was no separation from the Catholique Church but a Reformation a blessed Reformation that must necessarily justifie all former Heresies that ever were condemn'd and all Heretiques and Schismatiques that ever separated themselves from Gods Church To say no more where is your succession of Bishops and Pastors which are essential to Gods Church If the consecration of your pretended Bishops was never valid then must also the Ordination of your pretended Priests be invalid and it never yet could nor ever can appear that you had either Bishop consecrated or Priest ordained either lawfully or validly since Queen Marye's days But I am sure there are most strong and pregnant arguments for the contrary I deny not but that perchance there might be some Priests ordained validly though sacrilegiously by that Apostate Bishop of Spalato in the time of his stay in England but what is that to a succession of Priests and Bishops I have now done with the first answer and pass to the second which because I find to consist principally of scurrilityes personal and malicious invectives and repetitions of former fallacies my reply will be the shorter since I shall in many things refer the Reader to my former answers and take notice here only of that which I shall find to be new matter 50. And here at the very first entrance I meet with an old fallacy a ridiculous argument already answered Sect. 5. to which I must refer the Reader I will here add this only That before S. Peter translated his Chair from Antioch to Rome the Catholique Church might be properly called the Church of Antioch which ever since has been called the Roman Church and ever will be until S. Peters Successor shall translate his Chair to some other place 51. After this follows a most notorious falshood viz. That in the time of S. Hilary of Poicteurs there was at Rome no Church no communion of Saints She and those in communion with her were â—eretical and complied with Arrius This is most apparently false by the Records of all Histories for at that time the Westerne Church was nothing so much infected with Arrianism as the Eastern besides S. Hilary in that place by you cited Sect. â—3 has not so much as named the Church of Rome and therefore has not in particular excluded it from the Catholique Church But from those words of the Father caeteris extra Gallias you would prove that all the world besides France was out of the Catholique Church for say you There was then no communion with Rome unless it can be prov'd that Rome was in France Sect. 23. But pray tell me Doctor Was Alexandria and Sardinia more in France then Rome and yet you here confess that at the very same time those were Catholike and Orthodox Churches so that it must necessarily follow either that Alexandria and Sardinia were in France or else that some other Churches besides France were Catholique and Orthodox and if so why not Rome especially since that Father did not in particular charge Rome with Arrianism more then Alexandria and Sardinia so that if you by those general words of the Father will exclude Rome I may also as well exclude Alexandria and Sardinia from the Catholique Church Wherefore you have forc't your self to interpret those words of the Father as I have done Sect. 34. or else you must unsay what you have said and deny Alexandria and Sardinia to have been at that time Catholique and Orthodox Churches unless you can prove that Alexandria and Sardinia are in France 52. Hitherto then you have shewed no Church at all distinct from the Roman Church in any age though you were pleas'd to say Sect. 3. of this second answer That your learning is such that you doe know such a Church and your charity such that you have shews it It seems you shewed it so well that M. T. B. was thereby fully satisfied that the Catholique Church never was nor can be distinct from the Church of Rome and has thereupon imbraced her communion and is by Gods grace become a good Catholique Thus has God been pleased to produce good out of evil to work his happiness out of your
ignorance and to strengthen him by your weakness 53. I pass by your scurrilous speeches a-against M. T. B. as your comparing him to Seneca's wives fool your charging him for not being able to search the Scriptures Councels and Fathers to discover the antiquity and succession of your Doctrine there where no man ever yet did or can discover it I will only say this that M. T. B. has shewn more wit and judgment in one line then you have in all your Pamphlet and has said more in one sentence then you or all the Rabble of your Sect can answer in an age But let us see how you prove the antiquity of your Doctrine 54. The Doctrine you say of the Church of England is clear in your Book of Common-Prayer as for the positive part and in your book of Articles wherein much is Negattve Answ A very antient Doctrine then it must be your Book of Common-Prayer being made not much above 100. years since viz. 29. May 1549. in the reign of K. Edward the Sixth and your Book of Articles not much above half an hundred But was your book of Common-Prayer intended for a Confession of Faith or for publique Service and Devotion Is there any point of Faith or Doctrine absolutely declar'd and defin'd there You will say perchance that in the three Creeds are contain'd divers Declaratious and definitions of Faith I confess it but those Creeds are not inserted there meerly as definitions of Faith with a precept under a curse that all should believe whatsoever is there declard but as parts of your Publique Service that by frequent repetition thereof the vulgar people might know the principal points of Faith necessary for salvation I deny not but some Doctrines may be deducible thence though nothing positively declared it being a book which belongs rather to the Discipline then Doctrine of your pretended Church 55. The positive Doctrine you say of your Church contained in that Book was ever professed and is visible in all Catholique Writers Answ I confess that most if not all of the Doctrines deducible thence were ever professed and are visible in all Catholique Writers because they are the Doctrines of the Roman Catholike Church whence you have borrowed them as you have your whole book of Common-Prayer and the Scripture it self only you have taken the sacrilegious boldness to expunge out of both what your private phancies would not admit but if you can shew any one of your negative or positive Doctrines contain'd in your book of Articles and which is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in any one Catholique Writer Father or Councel from the time of the Apostles to Luthers Apostasie I here profess before all the world that I will then become a Protestant my self or whatsoever else you will command me to be 56. But whereas you say That the most skilful of the Roman Catholique Party are not able to shew a succession of men professing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the first 700. years of Christianity I am so amaz'd that I know not whether I should charge you with gross ignorance or hellish malice In plain terms you must be either a most ignorant animal or a malicious deceiver Is it possible that you should obtrude such a notorious falshood to the world and not blush certainly you never read the Fathers nor Councels nor therein examin'd the antient Doctrine and practise of the Church or if you have as you pretend your judgment is not sufficient to understand them or else malice and obstinacy hath so blinded you that you cannot see it there as the malicious and obstinate Jews could not see our blessed Saviours Divinity through so many stupendious miracles The Sun it self was never so clear at noon-day as the succession of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and of men professing the same not only for the first 700. years of Christianity but from the time of the Apostles to this present day Has it not been already clearly shewn by divers learned Catholique Writers by you yet un-answer'd Has not Bellarmine Baronius Cardinal Peron D. Stratford c. most evidently manifested it to the world Were I not confin'd within the narrow precincts of a Reply I could most plainly demonstrate it my self but it would require a far larger volume then I have now time or opportunity to compose It is sufficient for me since you have appealed to the first 500. years after our Saviours birth that I have proved Sect. 44. that the Doctrine of those times is not different from but the very same with the present Doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church 57. Your Church of England you say has been visible since the first or second Conversion though not alwayes under Reformation Answ Which you mean by the first or second Conversion I know not but from the time of her last Conversion by S. Augustine the Monk which is commonly reputed her third conversion for almost 1000. years together you were an apparent visible part of the Church Catholique but when you began your blessed Reformation you then ceast to be a Church or a part of the Catholique Church For in K. Hen. eight's dayes you began your Schism separating your selves from the communion of your holy Mother the Church of Rome and the Bishop thereof the common Pastor of Christs Church and in K. Edw. the Sixths Reign your Schism begat Heresie and under this happy Reformation you have ever since continued But now Doctor where are your pretended Bishops what is become of your book of Common-Prayer who now subscribes to your 39. Articles You cannot reasonably deny but those who have lately reformed you had more authority and reason for it then you had to reform the whole Church or to censure Doctrines of Faith universally taught by Gods Church and receiv'd as such by all your Fore-fathers from the time of Englands conversion to the Christian Faith till after Luthers apostasie You considered not when under pretence of Reformation you forsook the whole Church that you did but leave a patern to your Successors how they also when they should think fit might forsake you and reform this your blessed Reformation as by Gods just judgments they have lately done For I am sure they walk by the same Rule of Scripture and are as competent Judges and as able interpreters thereof as ever you were or can be only they are not so tyrannical as you were who forced men against their consciences to subscribe to your Doctrine and Discipline which according to your own principles might be erroneous and superstitious 58. But you say Sect. 9. That you never read in Fathers or Councels That to communicate with Rome is either a sure or any token of a good Catholique Answ Then you never read S. Hieroms 57 Epist to Pope Damasus where you might have seen these words Ego Beatitudini tuae id est Cathedrae Petri commumione consâ—â—ior super illam Petram
aedificatam Ecclesiam sâ—io Mat. 16. 18. quicunque extra hanc Domum agnum comederit prophanus est si quis in Arca Noâ— non fuerit peribit regnante diluvio quicunque tecum non colligit spargit Hoc est qui Christi non est Anti-christi est I am saith S. Hierom joyned in communion to your Holiness that is to Peters Chair upon that Rock I know the Church to be built whosoever out of this House eats the Ldmb is prophane whosoever shall not be in Noahs Ark shall perish in the Deluge he that gathers not with thee scatters that is he that is not of Christ is of Anti-christ These are S. Hieroms own words by which it is most plain that he that is not in communion with S. Peters Chair with the Church and Bishop of Rome is out of Gods Church and therefore no Catholique Neither did you ever read S. Ambrose's Funeral Oration on the death of his brother Satyrus where you might have found these words Advocavit ad se Episcopum c. percontatusque ex eo est utrumnam cum Episcopis Catholicis hoc est cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret He call'd unto him a Bishop and aked him whether he were in communion with the Catholique Bishops that is with the Church of Rome And here take notice Doctor that this Hoc est that is as likewise that id est and hoc est in the former citation out of S. Hierom are the Fathers own interpretation not mine Had you read S. Augustin's 162. Epistle you might have discovered these words there Hic Caecilianus contemnere potu it c. He Caecilianus might despise the conspiring multitude of his enemies when he perceiv'd himself to be united to the Church of Rome where the principality of the Apostolique Chair ever flourisht by communicatory letters These three learned Fathers and glorious lights of Gods church were Coâ—taneans though S. Ambrose died in the fourth century after Christs birth and S. Hierom and S. Augustine in the fift Had you read S. Cyprians sâ—cond Epistle to Pope Cornelius li. 4. who lived in the year of Christ 250. you might have found these words Scripsisti etiam ut exemplum c. You wrote also unto me to send a copy of those Letters to Cornelius our Colleague that he laying aside all care might know that you are in communion with him that is with the Catholique Church This Hoc est that is also is not my addition but S. Cyprians own words It seems you were a stranger to S. Irenaeus's Doctrine who liv'd in the year of Christ 180. which is this Ad hanc enim Romanam Ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire Ecclesiam hoc est â—os qui sunt undique fideles It is necessary that every Church that is all the faithful from all parts should range themselves to this Church of Rome for its more powerful principality li. 3. c. 3. And now Doctor what can you say Methinks you look somewhat black upon it you must withall take notice that all these Fathers liv'd within the first 500. years to which you have appealed and there is not one of all these testimonies but is plainly against you evidently proving it not only a sure but a necessary and essential token of a good Catholique to communicate with the Church of Rome A thousand testimonies more might be alledg'd but these are sufficient to publish D. Boughens ignorance to the world I thought it not impertinent to add one testimony more in confirmation of this and what I said before Sect. 32. of John Patriarch of Constantinople in his Epistle to Hormisda who about the beginning of the century viz. An. 514. was elected Pope that thereby the communion of the Greek Church with the Roman and her subjection to the Apostolique Sea of Rome may plainly appear Promittentes in sequeâ—te tempore c. We promise saith he hereafter not to commemorate those in the sacred mysteries who have been secluded from the communion of the Catholique Church that is who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique Here is the opinion of the great Patriarch of the East above a 1100. years since That those who were separated from the Sea Apostolique were out of the communion of the Catholique Church and by this it appears how true your following words are viz. That faith which we receiv'd from the Apostles and Councels and Fathers we keep whole and undefiled without alteration addition or diminution What but a shameless man could have the face to publish such a notorious falshood to the world By this appears also how evidently false that saying of yours is at least as you apply it in the beginning of your 11. Sect. viz. That this National Church is as much Catholique and Apostolique as can be desired I confess this National Church that is those that preserve the antient Catholique and Apostolique Faith and keep themselves within the communion of the holy Catholique Church is God be praised as much Catholique and Apostolique as can be desired but I am sure those of your Congregation or pretended church are neither Catholique or Apostolique unless to forsake the communion of the Catholique Church and the Doctrines and Traditions of the Apostles be to be Catholique and Apostolique as I have already abundantly proved And that Rule which you cite out of Vincent Lyrinens in the later end of your 10. Sect. Quod ubique quod semper quod ab omnibus c. That which hath been believed in all places at all times by all the Fathers that is truly Catholique will rise up in Judgment against you By this Rule you have condemn'd your self of Schism and Heresie for your Doctrine has been so far from being believed in all places at all times and by all the Fathers that it is impossible for you to shew any one place any one time or any one Father nay any one man before Luthers Apostasie that maintain'd the Doctrines which are now comprised in your Book of Articles neither can you produce any one person at any time or place that held any one point of Doctrine wherein you dissent from and oppose the Church of Rome except such only as were noted by the Church for Innovators in Religion and condemn'd for Heretiques 59. And wheras you are pleas'd to insult over Mr. T. B. Sect. 12. in these high and daring speeches Is not all true Refute it if you can deny it if you have the face I or any reasonable man may have the face to tell you that you here show your selfe to be very ignorant impudent and impertinent For the Doctrine of that part of your 19. Article viz. That the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull meâ— in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the Sacraments be duly administred according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same Mr. T. B. never denied or
against the Arrians and that Faelix was appointed to succeed him in the Papacy who was Arrianae Sectae addictus but there is not one word there of Rome's being Arrian Socrat. li. 2. c. â—9 And if Faelix did perchance sometimes favour the Arrian Faction yet was it before he was elected Pope not afterwards as appears plainly by Sozomen in the very place by you cited li. 4. c. 10. Liberius Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopatu privatus est cui praefuïtur Faelix illius Cleri Diaconus quem aiunt Fidei Concilii Nicaeni semper consensisse omnino quantum pertinebat ad Religionem reprehensione caruisse Liberius saith he was depriv'd of the Bishoprick of the Roman Church to which Faelix a Deacon of that Clergy was preferred who is â—said to have alwayes consented to the Faith of the Nicene Councel and was never blameable for any thing that concerned Religion These are the very words of Sozomen and in the very same place cited by the Doctor Nothing there concerning Faelix or Rome's being Arrian Thus the Reader may see how fraudulently the Doctor has dealt with the world Well but Faelix or dained divers Arrians what then must he therefore be an Arrian himself or must he necessarily know them to be such But he communicated with Arrians and must he therefore be an Arrian Do not Catholiques at this time communicate with Heretiques in England France Germany c. in outward conversation and civil commerce though not in their Heresie and you neither have prov'd nor ever can prove that Faelix communicated with the Arrians in their heretical and blasphemous Doctrine but in outward conversation only which is and ever was lawful for any Catholique 61. To pass by your impertinent distinction between a profest and a close Heretique as being nothing to the purpose I come to your other passage wherein you say and cite some Canons for it That the communion of the Church is estimated by communicating with the Bishop and if any whether Priest or other shall sever themselves from the Canonical Bishop they are censur'd to be Heretiques Answ This is to be understood when the Bishop is Catholique and keeps himself within the communion of the Catholique Church but if the Bishop be heretical and the Church shall communicate with him in his Heresie the Church also becomes heretical be the Bishop thereof a profest or close Heretique it matters not but by this your own Rule you must confess your selves Heretiques because you did originally sâ—ver your selves from your Canonical Catholique Bishops and followed your owne and other mens new inventions and when all your pretended bishops were heretical you communicated with them and their heresies 62. But the bishop may be either a profest or close Heretique and yet the Church may be Catholique and this your self expresly grant in your following Sect. 22. where you say That you believe that the King of England and Arch-bishop of Cauterbury â—ither or both of them may be Heretiques and this Church not so since it is not their being but our complying that makes us heretical Herein you have fully contradicted your self and granted whatsoever I have said concerning this point For if the Church of England may be Catholique though both King and Metropolitan thereof be Heretiques why may not the Church of Rome be Catholique though the bishop thereof be heretical 63. But say you if all our Bishops be of the same Religion with them this Church is in an ill case Answ I say so too yet it may be Catholique All your pretended bishops may be heretical as they were all for about these 100. years together last past and yet there may be a Catholique Church in England It is possible that the particular members of each Diocess may not comply with their bishop in his Heresie and then according to your own saying they are not heretical The inferiour Priests and people may preserve their faith though all the bishops fall from it but what is all this to the purpose Were ever all the bishops that were subject to the Patriarchal Sea of Rome at one and the same time Heretiques I suppose no man besides your self was ever possest with such a ridiculous imagination What if your Archbishop of Canterbury alone had been an Heretique and all the other bishops within his Province Catholique will you therefore conclude that the particular Church or Diocess of Canterbury must necessarily have been heretical If you say so you plainly contradict your self who even now said that it is not the Kings or Arch-bishops being heretical but our complying with them that makes us heretical Sect. 22. 64. But the Doctor pursues this argument close and endeavours to prove that when the King and Priest joyn together it hath a strange influence upon the people for good or bad Answ What then must the people therefore of necessity be good or bad according as the King and Priest are cannot Gods grace overcome this influence and preserve the people from infection but you say When King Ahaz and Urijah the Priest professed I dolatry though many good men were resident among them yet was the City and people accounted heretical Answ First it appears not by the Text that they were so accompted Secondly if they were accompted heretical does it herefore necessarily follow that they were so Does truth and falshood depend on the opinions of men if so then every man in his own opinion would be Catholique and all the world besides that concur not with him in his judgment would be Heretiques It is not necessary that every one must be good or bad catholique or heretique according as some men perchance out of error either in doctrine or fact shall esteem him but what if that city and people were not only accompted but truly and really heretical must it therefore always follow that when the King and Priest are heretical the city and people must of necessity be so too What if Constantius the Emperor and Leonâ—ius the bishop What if Valens and Eudoxius by joyning together in heresie withdrew many partly by power pardly by example from the Catholique Faith does it therefore always necessarily follow that when the Prince and Priest joyn in heresie the people also must be heretical Must every thing come to pass because it may come to pass No Doctor the young Sophisters will tell you that à posse esse non valet argumentum 65. And whereas you say that under King Edward VI. and Queen Mary the Religion of the church was judged of by the Governours I answer that the Religion of this Nation not of the church for 't is not the Religion of the Prince but the profession of the antient Catholique Faith that constitutes a church was judged of not by the Governours but by the Lawes that were made in K. Edw. VI. and Queen Maryes daies respectively either to establish a new upstart Religion never before heard of in the world or to re-establish
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
tenerent Wee thought fit c. that all our fellow bishops might stedfastly approve of and imbrace you and your communion that is the Catholique Churches unity and charity Is it not plaine by these words that the unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome And if there be no Catholique unity but in communion with the Bishop of Rome it is apparently impossible that any one can be united to the Catholique Church that is not in communion with the Bishop and the Church of Rome Besides that the Church is built upon S. Peter and his Successors I have already fully proved Sect. 25. and Sect. 58. to which I will add one testimonie more out of S. Cyprian Epist ad Quintinum Nam nec Petrus quem primum elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither Peter whom our Lord chose to be the first and upon whom he built his Church c. The like words he has Ser. 3. de bon pat whosoever then forsakes the foundation cannot be part of the house or building The whole building rests upon the foundation wherfore he that is separated from the foundation is separated also from the building which is the house the Church of God And you must remember Doctor that S. Cyprian liv'd in the yeare of Christ 250. and therefore long within the first 500. yeares to which you have appeal'd Sect. 27. so that you must either confesse the Prorestants to be out of the communion of the Catholique Church and consequently schismaticall at the least or else you must revoke and renounce your appeale If you will say that the sense of the whole Church appeares not fully in the writings of particular Fathers you shall heare the confession and acknowledgment of 520. Fathers assembled in the fourth Generall Councell at Calcedon in the yeare of Christ 451. who all unanimously acknowledge Pope Leo their head Their words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeras Over whom that is the Fathers assembled in the Councell thou wert as the Head over the members And it is to be observ'd that this Councell was held in the Easterne Church and consisted for the most part of the Fathers of that Church wherein notwithstanding Pope Leo's Delegates sate in the uppermost Seat and took place of the Patriarch of Constant inople himself even in his own Patriarchate which would never have been permited had not the Pope's Jurisdiction extended to the Eastern as wel as the Western Churches About 50. yeares after the Councell did not the Eastern bishops acknowledge that it was necessary for all Christians to communicate with the bishop and Church of Rome you have heard Sect. 58. that Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople excluded al from the communion of the Catholique Church that were divided from the Apostolique sea of Rome which doubtlesse the great Patriarch of the East would never have acknowledged had it not descended by universall Tradition that the Bishop of Rome was appointed by Christ to be the supreme Pastor and Governour of the whole Church Examine all this Patriarch's letters written to Pope Hormisda and you shall find them all directed to the Pope after this manner Domino mâ—o per omnia sanctissimo And can any reasonable man imagine that so great a Patriarch would have stiled the Pope his Lord if his power in the Easterne Church had been absolute and independent on the sea of Rome In like manner Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica in the Eastern Church in his Epistle to the same Pope has these words Ista nunc scripsi Beato Capiti nostro per Patricium c. These things have I now written by Patricius to our Blessed Head By this it plainly appeares that in those dayes within the first 600. yeares of Christ the Bishop of Rome was acknowledg'd the Head of the Eastern Churches as well as of the Western and that by the Eastern Bishops themselves even by their cheife and Head-Bishop the Patriarch of the East who likewise as you have already heard confest that all Catholique Communion flowes from the Apostolique sea of Rome as the Head and Fountain thereof And what better interpreter of Scripture or more faithful preserver of Apostolique Traditions can therebe then the antient and universal practise of the Church To the practise of former Ages and Declarations of antient Councels let us joyn the definiâ—ions of later times viz. of the Councel of Florence in the year 1439. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person and all the other Patriarchs either personally or by their Delegates Let us then hear the whole Church speaking in that Councel Item definimus Sanctam Apostolicam sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere primatum c. Concil Florent Act. ult Also we declare that the holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome hath the primacy over the whole world and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor who was chief of the Apostles and that he is Christ's true Vicar and Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that in S. Peter full power was given to him the Bishop of Rome by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed rule and govern the whole Church To this definition subscribed all the Patriarchs of the Church and amongst the rest the Patriarch of Constantinople himself You shall have his subscription as it is set down in the Acts of the Councel Joseph miserations divinâ Constantinopolis c. Florent An. 1439. I Joseph by the mercy of God Arch-bishop of Constantinople and new Rome and universal Patriarch because my life is almost at an end do therefore by the goodness of God according to my duty publish this my opinion to my beloved sons in this writing For all those things which our Lord Jesus Christs Catholique and Apostolique Church of Old Rome believes and imbraces I profess that I also do hold and believe and fully consent unto them And I grant that the blessed Father of Fathers and chief Priest the Pope of Old Rome is our Lord Iesus Christs Vcar and I deny not that there is a Purgatory for souls And note that this is the profession of a dying man past hope of life Here you see a concurrence of the later ages with the former Here you see all the churches of the world consenting to the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome Here you have seen the practise of the antient church the Declarations of former Councels and the Definitions of later then which nothing can better interpret Scripture or more faithfully preserve divine truths and Apostolical Doctrines to posterity Since then the Church of Rome is the Head and mother-Mother-church of the world and consequently the Fountain of Unity whosoever shall separate himself from her communion cannot possibly be a member of the Catholique Church And since the Church of Rome by her power and Jurisdiction diffuses her self
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
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
Is it fit that the Church of Rome whom you have forsaken should stoop to you Is she bound to follow you that have forsaken her who made you Judges of Gods Church that you should take upon you to charge the whole Church of Rome with errours both in faith and manners by what rule have you done this you pretend Sect. 37. to walke by a sure rule but I am sure you walke not according to the rule of Christ's Catholique Church For she walks according to the rule of Gods Word interpreted by universall and Apostolicall tradition which you contemne and laugh at but you by the rule of Scripture interpreted by your own private fancies and deceiptfull imaginations 82. Now the Doctor begins to quarrel with the Language of the Church of Rome How do they saith he pray with the people who pray in a tongue the people understand not Answ And why may not Preist and people joyne in heart to God in prayer though the language of the Churches prayers be not understood by all present S. Paul confesses 1. Cor. 14. 14. that a man may pray in spirit in an unknowne tongue though not with his understanding The Priest and people of the Jewes could joyne together in prayer and prayers to God before Christ though their Service were perform'd in the Hebrew Tongue a language no more then understood by the vulgar Jewes then the Latin is now by the vulgar Christians why then may not the Christian Preist and people joyne together in prayer though the church Service be perform'd in a language which some of the vulgar Christians that are present understand not The Hebrew Greek and Latin Tongues wherein only the church Service has been perform'd throughout the whole Christian world ever since the time of the Apostles are languages well knowne to the world all men may learne them They are not such unknowne languages as those were which S. Paul speaks of 1. Cor. 14. which were miraculously infus'd into many of the Primitive Christians the end whereof was the edification of the church and the conversion of Infidells Now those tongues were neither understood by the people nor alwaies by those that spake them as appeares 1. Cor. 12. and 1. Cor. 14. 13. These languages miraculously infus'd by God the Primitive Christians used in their publique meetings first to instruct the ignorant secondly to convert Infidells where their instructions and prayers were alwayes extemporary according as they were immediately assisted by Gods holy Spirit But the publique prayers of the church are not in such unknowne languages Secondly they are said in the same languages wherein the publique Service of the church was ever performed in all ages since the Apostles as appeares by the antient Hebrew Greek and Latin Missales which is an argument unanswerable that such languages are not against S. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 14. nor any other place of Gods Word Thirdly the end of our present publique meetings in the church is not to instruct edifie or convert as those meetings were whereof S. Paul speakes in that chapter but to offer up to God the tribute of prayer and praises that is due unto him as also to draw downe Gods blessings both spirituall and temporall upon the people And to this end the people joyne with the Priest in their exteriour acts of devotion and Religion thereby professing their assent to the publique prayers and praises of the Church And can it be thought necessary for those ends that all the people present should expresly understand every word of the Churches Service which though it were in the vulgar language of every Nation would notwithstanding be impossible 83. Between the Eastern and Western Churches you say Sect. 40. there were many differences c. and yet for all these they grew up together comfortably and continued in the same body Answ When the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches were concerning such Doctrines as were not declar'd in any Generall Councell nor could appeare by the universall tradition or practise of the Church they were then only errours not heresies but when any of the Easterne Churches opposed the Western in such Doctrines as appear'd either in the practise of the Church or by universall tradition and consent of Nations or were declar'd and defin'd in a Generall Councell they then fell from errour into heresie and were thereby cut off from the Catholique Church Your 41. Sect. is answer'd Sect. 29. and Sect. 65. and Sect. 30. 84. In your 42. Sect. you say That the keyes were given to all the Apostles alike Answ This I confesse in some sense may be true but makes nothing for you That all the Apostles had the keyes of remitting and retaining sins is true I can grant also that they were all universall Bishops yet they had not all equally the keyes of externall government and Jurisdiction S. Iohn at Ephesus had not that power which S. Peter had at Antioch or afterwards at Rome For whatsoever S. Peter was he had a Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles as well as the whole Church besides which S. John never had Your 43. Sect. has been already fully answer'd Sect. 58. In your 44. Sect. you say out of S. Paul to Timothy 2. Timoth. 3 15. That the Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation and that you are resolved by Gods grace to accept of nothing but what is deduced from thence or proved thereby according to the interpretation of the ancient Fathers and Councells That of S. Paul I confesse and withall very glad that you have made so good a resolution If you shall constantly persist therein and shall receive no interpretation of Scripture but from the ancient Fathers Councells and the tradition of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis advises you ch 1â— you will soone become Roman Catholiques Your 45. and last Sect. containes nothing but what has been by you said before and by me sufficiently answer'd Sect. 18. and. Sect. 21. 29. c. I have done with your Answer and now crave leave to speake somewhat to you by way of exhortation in the Spirit of meeknesse You have hitherto been a guide to others let not a vaine feare or apprehension of any dishonour that may eclipse your former reputation by confessing your errours and that you have been a blind leader of the blind come between you and your eternall Salvation Let not the deceitfull lustre of vaine glory tempt you to pâ—eserve your credit in the world with the losse of Heaven You owe God your reputation as well as your life or whatsoever else is most deare unto you consider at how deare a rate Christ purchas'd the Redemption of your Soul destroy not then that soul for which Chrict died Let not pride prejudice or or malice cast a mist before the eyes of your understanding and you shall soone behold that light which will infallibly guide you to your last end God and the eternall friution of the Beatificall