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
I desire you to take S. Augustives observation along with you upon those words Vnde notandum est saith he nonsolùm exâ—uâ—itionem sed invocationem dici aliquando quae non Dei sed hominum sunt Aug. in Gen. to 3. Whence we may observe that sometimes not only hearing but invocation also is spoken of as not belonging to God only but to men So likewise from the example of Moses Ex. 32. where the Angel of God appeared to him in a flaming bush S. Stephen himself interpreting it so Act. 7 30. Of Gedeon Iudg. 11. 6. Of Iosuah Ios 5. 15. who prostrate adored an Angel knowing him to be an Angel Of S. John Rev. 19. and Rev. 22. which places some of you have most ridiculously alledged against this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels For that blessed Apostle S. Iohn either knew him to be an Angel or not if he knew him not to be an Angel then he mistook the Angel for Christ as probably he might because the Angel spake in the person of Christ saying I am Alpha and Omega c. and then the Apostle might offer to adore him with divine worship which the Angel discovering himself to be but an Angel might justly reprove and this interpretation S. Augustine gives of it q. 61. in Gen. Or else S. John knew him to be but an Angel and if so then it cannot be reasonably suppos'd that the blessed Apostle could sin in worshipping the Angel because he having receiv'd the Holy Ghost as well as the rest of the Apostles and being so dear to our blessed Saviour insomuch that he is stiled beyond all the rest of the Apostles The beloved Disciple Jo. 16. 23. could not but know even as the Angel himself what worship was due to God and what to an Angel Besides if S. Iohn's adoration of the Angel had been reprov'd by the Angel as in it self simply unlawful can it be imagined that so great an Apostle so great a Prophet and Evangelist would a second time fall into the same error If then upon a mistake the Apostle adored the Angel for God those words of the Angel may be a prohibition or rebuke otherwise it was but a modest refusal of the Angel who seeing how dear S. Iohn was to Christ and what secret and sublime mysteries had been reveal'd unto him more then to any of the other Apostles plainly foresaw that the blessed Apostle should one day be exalted to an higher degree of glory in heaven and should be neerer to God then the Angel himself so that in brief besides the lawfulness of adoring Angels and consequently Saints there is nothing else from this place observeable but S. Iohn's humility in adoring the Angel and the Angels modestâ—y in refusing the adoration If then Abraham Lot Iacob Iosuah Gedeon and S. Iohn that great Apostle and beloved Disciple might lawfully adore and invocate Angels why may not we invocate the blessed Saints who together with the Angels see and praise God continually why may not we desire the assistance of their prayers to God for us 43. But perchance this Invocation of Saints is some new upstare Doctrine lately invented and brought in by the Church of Rome Answ As new as it is if either you Doctor or any Protestant in the world can shew but as much Antiquity for your Religion as I can for this Doctrine I will then shake hands with you and become a Protestant my self Let us then look back towards the Primitive times and examine the antient Doctrine and practise of the Church Theoderet who lived An. Christi 430. proves this Doctrine by the general practise of the Church in his time Qui in peregrinationem aliquam mittuntur saith he petunt instanter hos sanctos Martyres sieri viae comites duces itineris qui reditum nanciscuntur afferunt confessionem gratiae non ut Deos ipsos adâ—untes sed ut homines divinos orantes intercessores pro ipsis fieri postulantes Serm. 8. de curand Graecor affectionib sive de Martyribus Those that undertake any journey earnestly desire them the holy Martyrs to accompany and guide them in their journey and those that return in safety offer up an acknowledgment of their favours making their addresses unto them not as Gods but praying unto them as Divine men and beseeching them to become intercessors for them Let us hear Cyril of Alexandria speaking in the Councel of Ephesus held An. 431. where himself was Pope Celâ—stines Delegate Salve à nobis Dâ—ipara Maria per quam pretiâ—sa Cruâ— celâ—bratur adoratur universo â—rbe â—ail O Mary Mother of God by whom the precious Cross is reverenc't and ador'd through ut the whole world Let us hear S. Bâ—siâ— Epist 205. ad Iulian Apost who lived in the yeare of Christ 370. Sanctos Apostolos Prophetas Martyres iâ—â—oâ—o ut apud Deum suppliâ—ent characteres imaginum ipsorum honoro veneror his traditis à sanctis Apostolis I invocate the holy â—â—postles Prophets and Martyrs that they may pray to God for us I honor and reverence their Images these things being delivered unto us by the holy Apostles Here we find that almost 1300. years since this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints and honouring their Images was receiv'd by the Church as an Apostolical Tradition and Calvin himself Instit li. 3. c. 20. n. 22. speaking of the third Councel of Carthage whereat S Augustine was present acknowledges that at that time Invocation of Saints was practis'd by the Church Eâ— tempestate saith he moris erat dicere sancta Maria aut sancte Petre or a pro nobis At that time it was a custome to say Saint Mary or Saint Peter pray for us S. Hierom Tom. 1. pa. 59. edit Paris and To. p. 122. edit Basiliens and S. Ambrose li. de viduis deduce and prove this Doctrine out of Scripture and certainly these holy and reverend Fathers could interpret Scripture as well as Iohn Calvin Neither is it imagineable that either these Fathers or Theodoret or S. Basil would maintain a Doctrine and that by Scripture which should be repugnant to plain words of Scripture Besides that Doctrine which has been confirm'd by the attestation of Divine Miracles must be true but this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints has been thus attested therefore it must be true The major is proved out of Scripture Mar. 6. 20. and cannot be denied or question'd without blasphemy and if you deny the minor you must give Theodoret S. Augustine the lye the former proving it in the forecited place li. 8. de Martyrib the later De civitat Dei li. 22. c. 8. where he recounts above a hundred Miracles of some whereof he was an eye-witness wrought by God upon the prayers at the Monument and Reliques of S. Stephen and that prayers were made to the Saints who also heard and understood the prayers of such as prayed unto them and the manner how they understand our prayers and
the Protestants All these I purposely pass by because I will contain my self within the first five hundred years to which you have appealed You see then Doctor the practise and doctrine of the Church within five hundred years after Christs birth in the Fathers and Councels above-cited Be now as good as your word submit to their sentence for trial of the truth of Religion and you will by Gods grace soon return to your Mother the Roman Catholique Church Thus is that charge which you say Sect. 28. of your second answer We know not how to shift off fully answer'd 45. In the next Sect. 25. I meet with some Authorities against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome The first is of S. Irenaeus who sharply checked and reproved Bishop Victor for keeping such a stir about the observation of Easter and excommunicating divers Churches because they would not stoop to his lure Answ That Pope Victor who govern'd the Church about 200. years after the birth of our Saviour excommunicated the Churches of Asia for their too much Judaizing in the observation of Easter is a very strong argument against you For first S. Victor was a pious and blessed man and therefore it cannot be reasonably imagin'd that he would usurp a power which Christ never gave him Secondly those Churches of Asia never protested against his Jurisdiction over them which certainly they would have done had not the Church in those dayes esteemed the Bishop of Rome the common Pastor of Christs Church and appointed by Christ to be under him the supreme Head thereof Thirdly when S. Irenaeus expostulated with him for his severity in excommunicating the Eastern Churches he never charged him for transgressing the bounds of his Jurisdiction or for usurping a power which Christ never delegated unto him which in all probability he would have done had he not look't on the Bishop of Rome as the supreme visible Head of Christs Church But because he conceiv'd not their offence so â—ainous as to deserve so heavy a censure he therefore took upon him to reprove Pope Victor by way of friendly and fraternal correction as S. Paul somtimes did S. Peter and as S. Paul never question'd S. Peters Jurisdiction nor denied him to be the chief and Head of the Apostles so neither did S. Irenaeus nor any of the Eastern Church that were excommunicated by Pope Victor question or protest against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome And those words of S. Cyprian in the Councel of Carthage are to be understood of the African Bishops only who being of equal authority could not excommunicate one another They exclude not the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome otherwise S. Cyprian had contradicted himself who sayes plainly Epist ad Quintinum and Serm. de â—on patient that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter and li. 4. ep 8. ad Cornel. that the Unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome His words you shall find hereafter Sect. 58. In the next place Sect. 26. enters an angry Bishop of Cappadoâ—ia Firmilianus speaking thus to Pope Stephen Teipsum excidisti noli te fallere Mistake noâ— thy self thou Bishop of Rome while thou goâ—st about to cast out others by this presumption thou hast cast off thy self from the body of Christ which is his Church Ans By your leave Doctor you misunderstand Firmilianus he speaks not as you would have him Indeed he was very angry with Pope Stephen because he excommunicated him for maintaining that Heretical Doctrine of rebaptizing Heretiques He never told Pope Stephen that he had cut himselfe off from the Church because he excommunicated Firmilianus or any other Bishopâ— but he was willing the world should think that Pope Stephen in defending the Baptism of Heretiques to be lawful had sided with them in their Heresies and had therefore cut himself off from the Church not because he had excommunicated any Heretical Bishop of the East but because as Firmilianus conceiv'd he too much complyed with Heretiques And you know Doctor the very same Doctrine for which Firmilianus was excommunicated was afterward in the first General Councel of Nice declar'd to bâ— Heretical 46. It is common say you in these daies even with tâ—â—se that conscientiously pretend to truth not to be content with the Rule of Faith whâ—â—â—â—as once delivered to the Saints and 〈◊〉 from them by the Primitive 〈…〉 transmitted â—o posterity bu◠〈…〉 after nâ—w invention◠〈…〉 â—hese courses I abhor with a 〈…〉 Ans Here Dâ—ctor you have directly given sentence against your self If you will but examine the Doctrines of the Roman Church and your Doctrines wherein you oppose and differ from her but according to S. Augustines Rule de Baptis li. 2. c. 23. and the principles of common reason you will soon discover which is the Rule of Faith deliver'd to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church so transmitted to posterity and which are those new inventions For it is impossible that either you or any Protestant in the world can shew or prove that any one Doctrine which the Roman Church at this day maintains and teaches had its beginning or crept into the Church since Christ and his Apostles Whereas on the contrary there is not one Doctrine wherein you differ from the Roman Church but may be and has been often already prov'd and demonstrated to have begun since the time of the Apostles How then do you abhor with a perfect hatred these courses since you have imbrac't new inventions and totally forsaken the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church and transmitted to Posterity If it can be clearly demonstrated that all your Doctrines wherein you differ from the Roman Church are new and if it cannot be proved that any one Doctrine of the Roman Church had its beginning since the Apostles either you abhor not these courses with a perfect hatred as you profess or else you must in all points imbrace the Doctrine of the Roman Church 47. But stay Here I meet with a brace of fierce Syllogismes that fly furiously at the very throat of the poor Church of Rome The first is this That Church which hath erred is not the Pillar and ground of truth But The Church of Rome hath erred Ergo The Church of Rome is not the Pillar and ground of Truth The minor is thus prov'd by the second Syllogism That Church which hath professed Montanism Arrianism Eutychianism hath erred But The Church of Rome hath professed all these Ergo The Church of Rome hath erred And this minor you say you have sufficiently proved Sect. 18. 27. But I have more sufficiently proved that you have there proved nothing at all but are forc't to fly to most ridiculous shifts and fallacies and those fallacies I meet with here again Sect. 3â— where the Church of Rome is charg'd with all sins almost imagineable and divers Authors are cited to prove that
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
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
against the Arrians and that Faelix was appointed to succeed him in the Papacy who was Arrianae Sectae addictus but there is not one word there of Rome's being Arrian Socrat. li. 2. c. â—9 And if Faelix did perchance sometimes favour the Arrian Faction yet was it before he was elected Pope not afterwards as appears plainly by Sozomen in the very place by you cited li. 4. c. 10. Liberius Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopatu privatus est cui praefuïtur Faelix illius Cleri Diaconus quem aiunt Fidei Concilii Nicaeni semper consensisse omnino quantum pertinebat ad Religionem reprehensione caruisse Liberius saith he was depriv'd of the Bishoprick of the Roman Church to which Faelix a Deacon of that Clergy was preferred who is â—said to have alwayes consented to the Faith of the Nicene Councel and was never blameable for any thing that concerned Religion These are the very words of Sozomen and in the very same place cited by the Doctor Nothing there concerning Faelix or Rome's being Arrian Thus the Reader may see how fraudulently the Doctor has dealt with the world Well but Faelix or dained divers Arrians what then must he therefore be an Arrian himself or must he necessarily know them to be such But he communicated with Arrians and must he therefore be an Arrian Do not Catholiques at this time communicate with Heretiques in England France Germany c. in outward conversation and civil commerce though not in their Heresie and you neither have prov'd nor ever can prove that Faelix communicated with the Arrians in their heretical and blasphemous Doctrine but in outward conversation only which is and ever was lawful for any Catholique 61. To pass by your impertinent distinction between a profest and a close Heretique as being nothing to the purpose I come to your other passage wherein you say and cite some Canons for it That the communion of the Church is estimated by communicating with the Bishop and if any whether Priest or other shall sever themselves from the Canonical Bishop they are censur'd to be Heretiques Answ This is to be understood when the Bishop is Catholique and keeps himself within the communion of the Catholique Church but if the Bishop be heretical and the Church shall communicate with him in his Heresie the Church also becomes heretical be the Bishop thereof a profest or close Heretique it matters not but by this your own Rule you must confess your selves Heretiques because you did originally sâ—ver your selves from your Canonical Catholique Bishops and followed your owne and other mens new inventions and when all your pretended bishops were heretical you communicated with them and their heresies 62. But the bishop may be either a profest or close Heretique and yet the Church may be Catholique and this your self expresly grant in your following Sect. 22. where you say That you believe that the King of England and Arch-bishop of Cauterbury â—ither or both of them may be Heretiques and this Church not so since it is not their being but our complying that makes us heretical Herein you have fully contradicted your self and granted whatsoever I have said concerning this point For if the Church of England may be Catholique though both King and Metropolitan thereof be Heretiques why may not the Church of Rome be Catholique though the bishop thereof be heretical 63. But say you if all our Bishops be of the same Religion with them this Church is in an ill case Answ I say so too yet it may be Catholique All your pretended bishops may be heretical as they were all for about these 100. years together last past and yet there may be a Catholique Church in England It is possible that the particular members of each Diocess may not comply with their bishop in his Heresie and then according to your own saying they are not heretical The inferiour Priests and people may preserve their faith though all the bishops fall from it but what is all this to the purpose Were ever all the bishops that were subject to the Patriarchal Sea of Rome at one and the same time Heretiques I suppose no man besides your self was ever possest with such a ridiculous imagination What if your Archbishop of Canterbury alone had been an Heretique and all the other bishops within his Province Catholique will you therefore conclude that the particular Church or Diocess of Canterbury must necessarily have been heretical If you say so you plainly contradict your self who even now said that it is not the Kings or Arch-bishops being heretical but our complying with them that makes us heretical Sect. 22. 64. But the Doctor pursues this argument close and endeavours to prove that when the King and Priest joyn together it hath a strange influence upon the people for good or bad Answ What then must the people therefore of necessity be good or bad according as the King and Priest are cannot Gods grace overcome this influence and preserve the people from infection but you say When King Ahaz and Urijah the Priest professed I dolatry though many good men were resident among them yet was the City and people accounted heretical Answ First it appears not by the Text that they were so accompted Secondly if they were accompted heretical does it herefore necessarily follow that they were so Does truth and falshood depend on the opinions of men if so then every man in his own opinion would be Catholique and all the world besides that concur not with him in his judgment would be Heretiques It is not necessary that every one must be good or bad catholique or heretique according as some men perchance out of error either in doctrine or fact shall esteem him but what if that city and people were not only accompted but truly and really heretical must it therefore always follow that when the King and Priest are heretical the city and people must of necessity be so too What if Constantius the Emperor and Leonâ—ius the bishop What if Valens and Eudoxius by joyning together in heresie withdrew many partly by power pardly by example from the Catholique Faith does it therefore always necessarily follow that when the Prince and Priest joyn in heresie the people also must be heretical Must every thing come to pass because it may come to pass No Doctor the young Sophisters will tell you that à posse esse non valet argumentum 65. And whereas you say that under King Edward VI. and Queen Mary the Religion of the church was judged of by the Governours I answer that the Religion of this Nation not of the church for 't is not the Religion of the Prince but the profession of the antient Catholique Faith that constitutes a church was judged of not by the Governours but by the Lawes that were made in K. Edw. VI. and Queen Maryes daies respectively either to establish a new upstart Religion never before heard of in the world or to re-establish