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
there is not then we â—ob them at the most but of the sign or figure of Christs blood neither indeed is it in the power of the Priest or church to rob them of that for if the cup after consecration be but a bare sign or figure of Christs blood still retaining its former nature and substance of wine then may any one in spight of the Priest or church take a cup of wine when and where he please and make it to himselfe a sign of Christs blood and so it may be to him as perfect a Sacrament as if received it from the hands of the Priest Perchance you will say it is not a signe but by vertue of Consecration This may be easily said but can you prove it out oâ— Scripture which you make the sole rule of your Faith If you can then will I subscribe to your opinion if not as I am most certain you cannot then according to your owne Principle neither you nor I nor any man else is bound to believe it 20. But here I meet with two Authorities out of S. Cyprian to prove that none can be fit for Martyrdome that communicate not under the Species of Wine as well as of Bread certainly the Doctor to say no worse misunderstands S. Cyprian for he was too great a Scholar to maintaine so false and ridiculous a doctrine his words in the first place cited by the Doctor are these Quomodo ad Martyrii pâ—culum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum priùs in Ecclesia poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus Cypr. li. 1. Epist 2. I answer that all this Father intends inthis Epistle to Pope Cornelius is to desire the Pope that those who for fear of persecution had fallen from their faith might upon their repentance and reconciliation to the church be admitted to the holy communion that by the vertue and power of that Sacrament they might be the better able to encounter with and overcome a new persecution There is not so much as one word in the whole Epistle concerning the insufficiency of communicating under one Species onely or the necessity of communicating under both those words Poculum Domini the cup of our Lord signifying there the blessed Sacrament in generall in allusion to the former words Poculum Martyrii the cup of Martyrdome and this will most plainly appeare to any one that shall impartially â—ead that Epistlâ— all that can possibly be proved out of those words is that in some places in or about the time of S. Cyprian the Laity weâ—â— admitted to communicate under both kinds which no Catholike ever denied or question'd and that it was a custome even in S. Cyprians time to administer the Communion in one kind onely may easily be prov'd from those two miracles recorded by the same Father Serm. de Lapsis to which I refer the Reader The other place cited out of S. Cyprian has these words Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere qui sanguinâ— Christi crubescimus bibere Lib. 2. Ep. 3 Answ These words I confesse are S. Cyprians but they are lesse to the purpose then the former as I shall instantly make it appear There were certain Heretikes in S. Cyprians time who contrary to our blessed Saviours institution as this Father sayes would consecrate in wine alone without any mixture of water and others who would consecrate in water alone without wine against these latter S. Cyprian intends these words cited saying that such drink not the bloud of Christ since water cannot by vertue of consecration be chang'd into the bloud of Christ by reason of the defect of wine which is the true matter of the Saâ—rament and therefore could not have the power and efficacy of the Sacrament to enable men to overcome those great difficulties and temptations of persecution and to lay down their lives for the faith of Christ But there is not one word in that whole Epistle concerning receiving the Sacrament under one or both Species 21. Now to passe by divers impertinencies and such things as have beene already answer'd let us come to the Doctors Master-argument for doubtlesse he esteemes it so otherwise he would not so much have insisted upon it and repeated it so often which to set forth in its full lustre he has at last adventur'd on this Syllogism If ye the Church of Rome have at any time denied Jesus Christ to be the true God and eternal life ye were at that time no church but an Anti-christian Synagogue But this did Marcellinus and Liberius and Jo. 22. all Bishops of Rome Ergo In those times ye were no church but an Anti-christian Synagogue Answ What an Anti-christian Syllogism is here Anti-christ ha's not more heads then this Syllogism ha's termes But let us be once more favourable to the Doctor and help him to speak sense he means well thohgh he ha's forgot his Logick all then that I can make of it is this There was a time when Rome and all those in communion with her were no church at all but an Anti-christian Synagogue Therefore the Catholike Church which never failed must be distinct from the Church of Rome and all those in communion with her This I confesse is a pretty good consequence but the Doctor may thank me for it Well then not to question the consequence we deny the antecedent which is prov'd thus Marcellinus and Liberius and â—o 22. all Bishops of Rome denied Jesus Christ to be the true God and eternall life Ergo There was a time when the Church of Rome and those in communion with her were no church but an anti-christian Synagogue Ans This is your consequence Doctor not mine Would not you have laughed at me or any man that should have concluded the whole church of England to have been formealy heroticall and schismaticall because the King or Arch bishop of â—anterbury one whereof you acknowledged head of your pretended Church was Heretical or Schismatical Must every Church stand or fall with its Bishop Must the particular members of the Church of Rome necessarily forsake their faith if her Bishop fall into Herefie or Idolatry You confess pag. 9. 10. that there was a visible true Church of the Jews in those dayes when both their King and High Preist had forsaken the true God and committed Idolatry and must the Church of Rome totally perish if her Bishop forsake his faith Shall the Church of the Jews have a prerogative above the Church of Christ This is Logick I understand not 22. And though this might serve for a full and satisfactory answer to any judicious and impartial Reader yet since I find divers good Popes falsly charged with Heresie and Idolatry I shall endeavour Ex superabundanti to vindicate them from those foul aspersions and so destroy the Antecedent as well as the Consequence by shewing the Doctor is here as much out in his History as he was before in his Logick 22. First then Pope
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
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-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
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-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
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
question'd But denies that this doctrine of your 19. Article can consist with your opinion who hold that the Church of Rome is a true Church a member of the Church Catholique though according to divers of your Articles cited by Mr. T. B. n. 3. She neither preaches the pure Word of God nor duly administers the Sacraments no not in all those things that of necessity are requisite for the same For how can that be essentially a part of the Catholique Church which observes not that which is essentiall to the Catholique Church as is the preaching of the pure Word of God and the due administration of the Sacraments according to that definition of the Church in your 19. Article Besides how can you vindicate that Church from heresie that for Doctrines of Faith necessary to salvation teaches blasphemous fables Art 31. Or that Sacrilegiously robs the Laity of Christ's bloud with which you charge the Church of Rome Sect. 11. of your first Answer Or that maintaines Doctrines repugnant to plaine words of Scripture Sect. 24. ib. Or that erres in Doctrine of faith as you tax the Church of Romeâ— Sect. 14. of your second Answer Or that gives divine worship to Images and Reliques wherewith you charge the Church of Rome Sect. 34. ib. Can any Church be blasphemous sacrilegious idolatrous repugnant in her Doctrines to plaine words of Scripture erroneus in Doctrines of Faith and yet not be heretical but continue still essentially a true Church But because you are pleas'd to extend your Charity beyond Reason towards the Church of Rome I will not quarrell with you about it onely I must take notice of the Argument which you bring to prove it God say you blames the Church of Pergamos for enduring the seat of Satan within her Diocesse as also for holding that â—didous Doctrine of the Nicolaitans and yet grants her to be a Church Answ Herein you are much mistaken Doctor for God blames not the Church but the Angell of the Church of Pergamos which by many Catholique Expositors both Ancient and Moderne as also by divers of your owne Sect and Religion is interpreted The bishop of the Church If the Church of Pergamos had held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans She had bin Hereticall and consequently no Church but it was the Bishop not the Church that was hereticall And if God may charge the Bishop of the Church of Pergamos with Heresie and yet grant Pergamos to be a true Church why may not the Church of Rome continue a true Church though the Bishop thereof fall into heresie 60. your taking the Church of Rome for maiming the blessed Sacrament Sect. 13. has been fully answer'd already Sect. 18. 19. and. Sect. 41. 61. But the Doctor is very hot in proving that the Church must erre with her Bishop and therefore the Church of Rome was no Church when her Bishops were hereticall Such as the Bishop is saies he such is the Church presumed to be Answ I know none but Dr. Boughen that was ever guilty of so silly a Presumption But S. Cyprians Authority is urg'd to prove it who sayes that as the Bishop is in the Church so is the Church in the Bishop I consesse I find in S. Cyprian Epist lib. 4. Ep. 9. these words Christiani sunt Ecclesiae plebs Sacerdoti adunata Pastori suo grex adhaerens unde scire debes Episcopum in Ecclesia esse Ecclesiam in Episcopo Christians are a Church and Common people united to the Preist and a Flock adhering to its Pastor whence you must know that the Bishop is in the Church and the Church in the Bishop What is all this to the purpose The Bishop is in the Church as a King is in his Kingdome or a Generall in his Army and the Church likewise is in the Bishop not formally but communicativè all the particular members thereof being in communion with the Bishop as their Head And this is all that can be gather'd from those words of the Father Since then the Church cannot be Formally in the Bishop but onely by way of communion subjection government or Discipline why may not the Church be Catholique though the Bishop be Hereticall But from this false ground the Doctor will prosecute his old fallacy and will still be endeavouring to prove that the Church of Rome could not be Catholique when the Bishops thereof were heretiques Sect 19. All Heretiques sayes he while such both themselves and all that side with them are secluded from Ecclesiastical communion every way But divers Popes were Heretiques or Schismatiques therefore the Church of Rome while her Bishops were heretical was in an ill case Answ Is not this a sine conclusion from those Premises what form or consequence is this here of a Syllogism And if the conclusion did follow out of those Premises what were this to the purpose The Church may be in an ill case when the Bishop is in heresie yet not Hereticall But behold another argument to prove the Church of Rome not Catholique When all Episcopal Acts were voyd the Church could not possibly be Catholike But when the Bishops were Heretiques all Episcopall Acts were void therefore the Church could not possibly be Catholique Answ This consequence is much like the other All the Acts of Heretical Bishops are void therefore the Church cannot possibly be Catholique as if the Faith of the Church depended on the Acts of the Bishop But a confirmation thereof is brought from S. Hilaries testimony who professeth as you say That in these Western parts there was in his time no Christian communion but in France Answ You do well to put those words in these Western parts in a parenthesis for they are yours not S. Hilaries as may appear by his words by you cited Sect. 23. where those words caeteris extra Gallias may comprehend the Eastern as well as the Western Churches And if you read Ecclesiastical Histories you shall find that in S. Hilaries time the Eastern Churches were far more infected with Arrianism then the Western 62. Besides you may remember Doctor that in the beginning of this second answer you confest that in S. Hilaries time at that very time when Rome as you falsly say was Arrian Sardinia was a Catholique and Orthodox Church How can that agree with this which you here endeavour to prove out of S. Hilary Was not Sardinia part of the Western Church How then could all the Western parts be excluded from Christian communion besides France when Sardinia which is in these Western parts was as your self confess a Catholique and Orthodox Church How can these two possibly consist together It seems you have forgot your self Oportet mendacem esse memorem 60. After all the other Popes Faelix is brought in for communicating with Arrians and Socrates and Zozomen are alledged to prove that therefore Rome it self was then accounted Arrian What then says Socrates that Liberius was banish't for his constancy in defending the Catholique Faith
the antient Catholique Faith So that in K. Edw. VI. days the Nation might be said to be heretical but the Church was even at that time Catholike otherwise it could not have been a church and in Q. Maryes daies both church and Nation were Catholique But you cannot prove that ever the Roman Nation much less the Roman Church was heretical since their first conversion to the Christian faith And if the Pope and with him all the bishops of Italy had at the same time forsaken the Catholique faith yet the Church of Rome might still have retain'd her prerogative of being the Mother church and Head of all particular churches in the world And though the Pope might have forfeited all his Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction and so ceast to be Head of the church yet the right of S. Peters Chair had always remained in the Church of Rome for since the bishop is not the church formally nor the church formally in the bishop the church cannot formally erre with the bishop neither must the church formally taken be there fore heretical because the bishop thereof is so Now I hope I have done with this â—edious and frivolous argument 65. That the Church of Rome imposes a new sense on the articles of the Câ—eeds is a meer calumny spoken gratis without any colour or shew of proof That the Church of Rome and you agree in the letter not in the Exposition is true The Church of Rome following the Exposition of the Universal Tradition and practise of the church and you your new phantastical and heretical Exposition but though you did agree with the Roman Church in the Exposition as well as in the letter yet could you not be excus'd from heresie because you oppose other Doctrines of Faith that are not contain'd in the three Creeds for not all points of faith that are necessary for all sorts of men to be believed are comprehended in the three Creeds either joyntly or severally 66. And whereas you charge the Church of Rome with imposing a new Creed of Pius 4. upon the church against a canon of the Councel of Ephesus I answer first That which you mean is but a profession of Faith wherein are contained certain Doctrines of faith that are not expresly comprehended in the Creeds It can no more properly be called a Creed then your book of Articles which is your Profession of faith and as not all but some certain persons only amongst you were bound by your Statutes to subscribe to that Profession so likewise not every man but some certain persons only are bound to subscribe to the other Secondly that Profession was agreed upon by the whole Councel and confirm'd by Pope Pius 4. It was neither compos'd nor commanded by the Pope alone but by him joyntly wiâ—h the Councel Thirdly there is not one Article of that Profession contrary or repugnant to any one article of the former Creeds and although this had been a new Creed as you call it yet had it not been against any canon of the Councel of Ephesus that Councel at the most for bidding only private persons to set forth or publish any Creed that should contain in it any Doctrine contrary to any article of belief in those former Creeds Neither indeed could the church in the Councel of Ephesus debar the church in future ages of that power and authority which the church in former ages assumed and exercised Why should it be more unlawful for the church assembled in the Councel of Trent to set forth a new form of Profession of Faith then it was for the church assembled in the Councel of Nice or Constantinople No Councel can rob the church of that power which Christ hath given her And by this Profession of Faith the Roman Church has neither alter'd the letter nor sense of former Creeds though you dare be bold to say She has strangely alter'd the sense I confess you are bold to say any thing but you have prov'd nothing 67. And whereas you say you take the Rule of Faith in the literal sense let us see to give but one instance since you make Scripture the sole Rule of your faith whether you take those words of our blessed Saviour Mat. 26. 26. Mar. 14. 22. and Luc. 22. 19. in the literal sense Our B Saviour there takes Bread and Wine and sayes This is my Body which is given or broken for you This is my Bloud which is shed for you which you thus interpret This is a sign only of my Body and this is a sign only of my Bloud You deny that the bread and wine which our B. Saviour took and blest was truly and substantially converted into his body and bloud and are not asham'd to say that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Let all the world judg whether herein you take the Ruleâ— of Faith in the literal sense It is much more plain that you go against the very letter of the Gospel against the expositions of the antient Fathers both Greek and Latin the Declarations of Councels the antient and universal practise of the whole church which alwayes adored the B. Sacrament after consecration with divine worship 68. In Sect. 29. I meet with another absurd and impertinent distinction between errour in Faith and errour in matters of Faith as if errours in Faith and errours in matters of Faith were not all one They have hitherto been esteemed all one and that by those who have been far beyond you both in learning and judgment though your sharp understanding be able to divide and put a difference between them 69. Much like to this is that saying of yours Sect. 30. Every violation of the Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church but a false opinion of God does How then is that of S. Paul true Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God Can a man violate Faith though but in some one point and yet be a Catholique who ever thought so besides your â—elf by the same reason one and the same man may be at the same time both Catholique and Heretique But to prove your new opinion you produce an antient testimony of S. Augustine de fid Symb. c. 20. Haeretiâ—i de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant quapropter non pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam Heretiques by having a false opinion of God violate Faith it self wherefore they belong not to the Catholique Church Answ Here is now a fine proof if well examin'd You must know Doctor that the word Quapropter wherefore refers to the words immediately going before and then 't is plain that this testimony of the Father makes directly against you For if men be therefore cut off from the Catholique Church because they have violated the Faith then it necessarily follows that every violation of Faith cuts a man off from the Catholique Church But in favour to the Doctor let us once grant against all
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
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
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