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
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
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
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
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
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.
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