maintains Doctrines repugnant to plain words of Scripture you or the Church of Rome you will say perehance that those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were formerly but Marginal Note and are now crept into the Text and that all the Greek copies of S. Lukes Gospel are corrupted This indeed is the answer that one of your great and learned Reformers Beza has given though without any ground or colourable proof but he well knew that the words of the Text were so plain that they could not admit of any other shift or evasion and by this shift you may evade any authority of Scripture that may be brought against you and had truth no other way to defend it selâ— we also might thus answer any text of Scripture that can be alledged against any Doctrine of the Church of Rome 37. But let us now see what the antient Fathers say concerning this fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture S. Chrysostome speaking of Christ's presence in the blessed Sacrament has these words Ecce eum vides ipsum tangis ipsum manducas Et tu quidem vestimenta cupis videre Ipse verò tibi concedit non tantum videre verùm manducare tangere intrate sumere Hom. â—o ad Pop. Antiochen Behold tâ—ou seest him Christ thou touchest him thou catest him thou desirest to see his garments and he is pleas'd that thou shouldest not only see him but also eat him touch him and receive him within thy body And that this seeing eating touching and receiving Christ is not in a bare figure only appears plainly by these words of the Father following in the same Homily Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt neque liberè audent intueri propter emicâ—ntem inde splendorem hoc nos pascimur That which the Angels tremble to behold and scarce dare presume to look upon by reason of iâ—s glorious splendor even this do we feed on Mark this good Doctor Angels tremble not at such mean creatures as Bread and Wine neither have these creatures as bare signs only of Christs body and bloud such glorious lustre and splendor Indeed Christs true body which good Catholiques feed on is a glorious body ten â—housand times more glorious then the Sun though the glory thereof as being a spiritual body cannot appear to mortal eyes And that you may not fly to your other shift and say that we receive and feed on Christs body by Faith and love only hear what the same Father sayes in the same Homily a little before the last words cited Neque enim illi satis fuit hominem fieri colaphis caedi crucifigi verùm ut semetipsum nobis commiscet nos fide tantùm verum ipsa re nos suum efficit corpus He Christ was not onely contented to become man to be buffeted and crucified but he also incorporates himselfe into us and makes us to be his own body not by Faith only but truly and really And Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio the same Father thus saith Vnum corpus eâ—â—icimur c. Vt itaque non tantùm per charitatem hoc â—iamus verum etiam ipsa re in illam misceamur carnem hoc namque per escam efficitur quam largitus est nobis We are become one and the same body with Christ viz by the power of the blessed Sacrament That then we may be so not by charity only but truly and really let us be incorporated into that flesh for this is brought to pass by that food which he has given us And now Doctor how is it possible that Bread and Wine should incorporare us into Christ's flesh or that bare figures should make us become one body with him and that not only spiritually and mystically but truly and really But let us hear the same Father speak once more Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch Nos Ministrorum tenemus locum qui verò sanctificat â—a immutaâ— ipse est We supply the place of Ministâ—rs but he that sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself Here is a change and that by the power of Châ—ist not theâ— by the Faith of the commuâ—icant 38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose sayes de Sacram. â—i 4. c. 4. Panis iste panis est ante verba Sacramentorum ubi accesserit consecratio de pane fit caro Christi quomodo potest qui panis est corpus esse Christi Consecratione Before the words of Consecration it is bread as soon as Consecration comes of bread it is made the flesh of Christ Mark those words De pane of or from bread How can that which is bread become the Body of Christ by consecration And a little after Si ergo tanta vis est in sermone Domini Jesu ut inciperent esse quae non erant quanto magis operatorius est ut quae erant in aliud commutentur If then there be so great poâ—er in the word of our Lord Iesus that those things which had no being should begin to have a being how much rather does it effect that those things which had a being should be chang'd into an other substance Here then is a change a substantial or essential change as appears plainly by those words in aliud commutentur And what does a substantial or an essential change differ from Transubstantiation and this change is wrought principally by Christs omnipotent power instrumentally by the words of Consecraâ—ion pronounc't by the Priest then doubtless not by the faith and charity of the communicant 39. Some of your Sect I know have been very forward to acknowledg Christ truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament nay that Christs body is really present there but how by faith but what you mean by that expression by Faith I know not howbelt I am sure you must understand either the manner or the means of Christs body being really present there If by those words you understand the manner of Christs body being present in the Sacrament then is his body present there apprehensively only for by Faith the soul apprehends Christs body which in that apprehension is spiritually present to the faithful and worthy communicant but how then can this be clear'd from a contradiction for to be present apprehensively only by faith is contradistinguisht from being truly and really present so that to say Christs body is truly and really in the blessed Sacrament by faith is in effect to say Christs body is truly and really in the Sacrament and Christs body is not truly and really in the Sacrament And if by Faith you understand the means that is either the meritorious pardon that word or instrumental cause of Christs body being really pâ—esent in the Sacrament or a necessary condition without which Christ's body cannot be really present there then first you contradict the forecited Fathers who say that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament by the omnipotent power of Christ in the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest Secondly
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
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
that they grant savours to those that pray unto them S. Augustine will tell you plainly in his 15. and 16. chap. de cur pro. mort babâ—nd Thus is Invocarion of Scints vindicated both from repugnancy to Scripture and novelty I come now to the fourth and last fond Doctrine wherewith the Church of Rome stands charg'd which is Adoration of Images 44. For the better clearing the Church from this charge I thought it necessary to declare the Doctrine of the Catholique Church concerning Images which is this The Images of Christ of the Mother of God and other Saints may be had and kept and due honour and reverence is to be given unto them aâ— appeares by the Profession of Faith compos'd and authoriz'd by the Councel of Trent Where are the plain words of Scripture to which this Doctriue is repugnant Where is it said in Scripture in plain and express words Thou shalt not give any worship honor or reuerence to the Images of Christ or of his Mother or of other Saints The Scripture in divers places forbids Divine worship to be given to Idols or false Gods as Exod. 20. Levit. 26. Deut. 5. Isay 40. c. but where is it said Thou shalt not worship honor or reverence the holy Images of Christ or of his Saints Those Texes of Scripture forbid only that the worship due to God should be given to creatures Idols or false Gods where then is the repugnancy between the Doctrine of the Church of Rome and plain words of Scripture The Scripture forbids Idolatry so does and ever did the Church of Rome The Scripture forbids Divine worship to be given to any thing but God so does the Church of Rome God forbids Graven Images that is Idols to be set up and adored with Divine worship and the Church of Rome commands due honor and reverence to be given to holy Images of Christ and his Saints I must again demand where is the repugnancy between this Doctrine of the Church of Rome and the plain words of Scripture If you say that those words Ex 20. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image c. Thou shalt not fall downe and worship it are plain against this Doctrine I will confess that they are as plain against it as any words of Scripture either of the Old or New Testament but if you argue from these words as many of your Sect have done that therefore it is not lawfull to honor or reverence the holy Images of Christ and his Saints here is then a double fallacy A dicto secundum quod ad dictum simpliciter For neither are all Images but only Idols nor all worship but only Divine worship forbidden in those words I may as well conclude that because it is said in Scripture God only is to be worshipt therefore we must not worship Kings Princes and Magistrates But good Doctor as there is a Divine worship due to God and to him only so there is a civil worship due to Kings Princes and Magistrates and another sort of worship due to Angels and Saints and so likewise there is a reverence and honor due to the holy Images of Christ and his Saints not a divine or absolute but a certain far inferiour worship and meerly relative Is it a greater sin in me to adore Christ in or before his image then it was in Iacob to adore Ioseph in his Rod or Sccpter S. Paul sayes Heb. 11. 21. that Iacob adored the top of Iosephs Rod wherein saith S. Chrisost Hom. 66. and Theodoret q. 108. in Gen. Iosephs dream was fulfilled viz. That his Father should worship him From Iacob under the Old let us come to the Fathers under the New Testament You have already heard S. Basil Epist. ad Iulian 205. publikely professing that he adored the Images of the holy Apostles Prophets and Martyrs and that this kind of Adoration of Images was an Apostolical Tradition You have heard what S. Cyril of A. lexandria delivered in his Homily before the Councel of Ephesus the third General Councel where himself was President under Pope Celestine it will not be impertinent to repeat his words Hail Mary mother of God by whom the precious Cross is reverenc't and adored throughout the whole world Here is the Image of the Holy Cross adored throughout the whole world according to S Cyril in relation to him that died on it and it is more then probable that the whole Church then represented in that Councel did practise that Adoration otherwise doubtless the Councel would have declar'd their dissent from S. Cyril and their dislike of his expression And now can any reasonable man imagine that those holy and learned Fathers S. Basil S. Cyril and S. Chrysostome Theodoret should maintain and the whole Councel of Ephesus approve of a Doctrine or practise repugnant to plain words of Scripture Besides it is not as lawful to adore the Images as the Reliques of Saints and is it not known to all the world with what holy zeale and bitterness S. Hierome inveigh's against Vigilantius for opposing and condemning that practise Does he not charge Vigilantius with Blasphemy for speaking against the Adoration of sacred Reliques Has not God by many apparent Miracles approv'd this holy practise August de Civit. Dei lib. 22. c. 8. Tho testimonies that might be brought â—o confirm this Doctrine would swell to a large volume I will only add this that in the time of the second General Councel it was a custome to adorn Churches with Images as appears by S. Gregory Naziâ—nzen Epist 49. ad Olympium who sate in that Councel as also by this testimony out of Eusebius who sate in the first General Councel of Nice held about the year of Christ 325. that in his time and long before Images of Christ and his Apostles were made and adored Hist Eccles li. 7. c. 14. his words are these Et nos Apostolorum ipsius Christi imagines Pauli Petri ipsius etiam Christi vidimus per colores in picturis conservatâ—s antiquis ut par est immutabiliter solitis hoc modo honorare c. We also have seen the Images of Christs Apostles Paul and Peter as also of Christ himself preserv'd in Pictures by colours our Ancestors being wont as it is fit to honor them after this manner I pass by the authority of S. Gregory who very learnedly and copiously defends this Doctrine li. 9. Epist 9. of Leontius S. Gregories Coâ—tanean Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus who purposely wrote in defence of this Doctrine As also of the second General Councel of Nice which defin'd and declar'd this Doctrine to be an Apostolical Tradition condemning and anathematizing the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers as Heretiques I omit also the present practise of the pretended Greek Church which you may plainly read in Iâ—remias Patriarch of Constantinople Cersura Orient Eccles c. 21. where he maintains and vindicates this Doctrine of honoring and reverencing Images from superstition and Idolatry against
liv'd within the first 500. years of Christianity Sect. 35. 36. 37. 38. c. what can you say for your selves what can you plead for your selves that you who deny the Doctrines of the church should not incur the penalty of the curse 75. You will say perchance that these are not Doctrines and Declarations of the whole Church Catholique but of the Church of Rome only and those in communion with her which you say is but part of the Catholike Church But this wil not now serve your turn whether the Church of Rome and those in communion with her be a part only of the Catholike Church or the whole Catholike Church it self as I have sufficiently prov'd it is it matters not you cannot be excus'd from heresie For when Luther was a Fryer before he set himself against the church what church what congregation of Christians what Nation what people nay what man was there in the whole world professing the name of Christ that denied or opposed those or any one of those forementioned Doctrines These were doctrines receiv'd imbrac't and publikely profest by the whole Christian world Not the Church of Rome and those in communion with her only but those also that were out of her communion as the whole pretended Greek Church receiv'd and profest these doctrines in their universal publike and daily practise as appears by Jeremias Patriarch of Constantinople in his sententia desinitiva de doctrina Religione Wittenberg en sium Protestantiâ—m as also in his Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae where you shall find a detestation of your opposite doctrines 76. But if those doctrineâ— be fond sacrilegious and repugnant to plain words of Scripture where was the church that pillar and ground of truth when the whole Christian world before Luthers apostasie receiv'd held and maintain'd them and if those that shall thus separate themselves from and oppose the whole church in doctrines of faith receiv'd by the whole church as such and acknowledg'd by her to be of universal and Apostolical tradition be not heretiques there never was neither is it possible that there ever should be any heretique in the world And yet yours was no separation but a reformatson But what can be invented more absurd or ridiculous then that one single apostate in Germany or a few avaricious and flattering Courtiers in England should first forsake the communion of that church wherein they had liv'd from their Baptism and wherein all their forefathers for almost 1000. years liv'd and died and afterwards renounce doctrines of Faith universally receiv'd by the church and then take upon them to be Judges of the whole church which Christ has made the Supreme Judg of all controversies and to reform the whole church and that in matters of doctrine but you must know Doctor that the Catholique Church cannot teach or maintain sacrilegious doctrines or such as are repugnaut to plain words of Scripture For then she would cease to be holy and consequently to be a church holiness being essential to Gods church as appeares both by the Nicene and Apostles Creed If then the church should obtrude upon the world sacrilegious and idolatrous doctrines and such as are repugnant to plain words of Scripture instead of sacred and divine truths she could not possibly be holy Since then the whole Christian world when Luther was a Fryer taught and maintain'd those four foremention'd Doctrines which you are pleas'd to stile sacrilegious and repugnans to plain words of Scripture it must necessarily follow that either at that time God had no church at all which your self confess to be impossible or â—ls that those doctrines are not sacrilegious or repugnant to plain words of Scripture but sacred and Apostolical truths and if so what are those that oppose and contradiet them 77. Hence it appears how false that is which you say Sect. 32. That you communicate with the Church of Rome in necessaries in Faith Hope and Charity c. since you oppose her in doctrines of Faith and by your schisme a sin directly against Charity have cut your selves off from her communion With what face then can you say Sect. 34. That you abhor not mutual communion with her in divine worship Do you not abhor to communicate with her in the Sacraments Do you not call her adoration of Christ in the B. Sacrament Idolatry And whereas you say there that you cannot endure that divine worship be given to any other then to the B. Trinity I would have you know that the Church of Rome gives not divive worship to any thing but God and if you will say that she does you will but proove your self very malicious or very ignorant 78. In your 35 Sect. I find nothing but what is either impertinent or already answered 79. In the next Sect. I meet with a bold challenge I challenge saies the Doctor the most able of your faction to shew me any one passage in our Common-Prayer Book that is not Catholique Answ If your Book of Common-Prayer be Catholique yet you have no great reason to boast of it you may thank the Church of Rome for it from whom you borrowed it which you know Doctor was the principal reason why those of the Puritan faction refus'd and abhor'd your Book of Common-Prayer as being Popish and super stitious But if all in that Book be Catholique it is rather an argument that the Church of Rome is Catholique from whence you took it then that you are so For all in that Book may be Catholique yet you may be Heretical You may oppose as you do other doctrines of Faith that are not contained in nor deducible from your Book of Common Prayer And if about the beginning of your defection some Catholiques frequented your Service it was because they esteemed it devout and pious as being all taken out of the Office and Missale of the Church of Rome They had not fully considered nor yet cleerly apprehended the unlawfulness thereof Wherefore it behoved the common Pastor of Gods Church to put them in mind how impious and sacrilegious it was for Catholiques to communicate with those who were guilty both of Schism and Heresie in divine Service 80. And whereas you alledg S. Paul to prove that in meats and matters of indifferency we are not to judge one another you must know Doctor that Doctrines of faith such as are Declarations and definitions of Generall Councells the lawes and Canons of the Vniversall Church made and generally receiv'd by the Church as the ancient Canons concerning Festivalls and Fasts are not matters of indifferency and cannot be violated without schism or Heresie 81. But I wonder with what face you can call your Congregation the Mother-Church of Catholiques Sect. 39. 'T is you that have forsaken your Mother-Church that Church wherein all your fore-fathers liv'd and died for about 1000. yeares together you confesse that once you communicated with the Church of Rome and that since you have forsaken her communion
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
unanimiter nobiscum conspirat Basil Epist 293. Here you see the whole Western Church vindicated from that Heresie which doubtless S. Hilary well knew Those then in France that retain'd their antient Faith kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholique Church from whose communion never yet any separated but Schismatiques and Heretiques 34. The nâ—xâ— Father of the Church that I mâ—et with is Arch-bishop Lawd as you are pleas'd to call him whose authority you have often cited which I cannot but wondâ—r at since he was so far from being a Father that he neither livâ—d nor died a Son of the Church but the Doctor out of that pretended Aâ—ch-bishops book charges â—hâ— Church of Rome with four opinions â—â—pugnant to thâ— plâ—in words of Scripture viz. 1. â—ransubstanâ—â—ation 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind 3. Invoâ—ation of Saints 4. Adoration of Images Answ Though it be not much pertinent to our present purpâ—se to examine these Dâ—ctâ—ines according to Scripture since the Doctor confâ—ssâ—s that the Church of Rome nâ—twithstanding her errors is a trâ—â— Church and a member of the one Catholique Sect. 12. yet because he bâ—lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with thâ—se â—nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines as â—â— is pleased to caâ—â— them I could not pass them by but shall endeavour as briefly as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false câ—lumnie 35 First then Transubstantiation according to the Roman Catholike Doctrine is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine after and by viâ—â—ue of the words of Consecration pronounc't by the Priest into the true reall and substantial Body and Blood of Christ Let us now examine how this Doctrine is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture Our blessed Saviour saith Matth. 26. 26 and Maâ— 14. 22. This is my Body and This is my Blood The words are plain and being taken literally must necessarily import a change For that which was before Bread and Wine after our Saviours consecration is according to the proper and literal sense of the words the very Body and Blood of Christ Where is then the Repugnancy between this Doctrine and the plain words of Scripture Christ sayes of that which was Bread and Wine This is my Body and This is my Blood The Church of Rome sayes so â—oo Instead then of a Repugnancy here is a fulâ— consent and agreement between the plain wordâ— of our Saviâ—ur and thâ— Doctrine of the Church of Rome Well but the words are not to be taken literally but figuratively Be it so Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant at the most but to the figurative sense not to the plain words or literal sense of Scripture But to come closer If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture that shall be but halfe as plain for the Metaphorical or figurative sense or that the Creatures of ' Bread and Wine are not really and substantially changed into the very Body and Blood of Christ after Consecration but retain their former nature and substance of Bread and Wine as these words of Christ are for such a change I' will then for my part give the cause and turn Protesiant too or any thing else that Doctor Boughen shall command me to be But if he cannot produce any such Text as most certainly he cannot then is the Doctâ—ine of the Protestants and not that of the Church of Rome repugnant to the plain words of Scripture 36 But to justifie your selves and to avoid the Catholike Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation you thus interpret those words This is my Body c. viz. This is a signe or figure of my Body but what Scripture have you for it What authority What Catholique Father what Councel did ever give that interpetation of those words I confess if there be no true and real change of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ in the blessed Sacrament then will I also admit of that interpretation For if there be no such change then of necessity those creatures of Brâ—ad and Wine can be but bare signes and figures onely of Christs Body and Blood But behold Gods Providence over his Church The Holy Ghost fore seeing the evasions and shifts that some men would use to delude the world and to poison the Church with their Heretical Doctrines in opposition to Gods sacred Truth has in St. Lukes Gospel 22. 19 20 utterly cut you off even from that very glosse and interpretation The words of the Evangelist are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup of the new Testament in my blood which Cup is shed for you These are the words in the Original Language of St. Lukes Gospel And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative which may seem to refer to Blood as well as to Cup yet in the Greek it is very plain that it must refer to Cup. If then that which was câ—â—â—ain'd in the cup was that which was shâ—d for the sins of the world how could it be Wine oâ— a sign or figuâ—e â—â—ly of Christs bloud or any thing else but the true and real bloud of Christ For no sign oâ— sigure of bloud but Christs true and real precious bloud was shed for the sins of the world I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plaine by this Syllogism That which was shed for the sins of the world was the true and real precious bloud of Christ But that which was in the cup was that which was shed for the fins of the world Ergo. That which was in the cup was the true and real precious bloud of Christ The Major Proposition cannot be denied without blasphemy the Minor is most plain by the words of the Text and therefore the conclusion must necessarily follow Here is no Fallacy Doctor in this Syllogism no more terms then ought to be in a Syllogism but to utterly debar you of your sign or figure I argue thus That which was shed for the sins of the world was not a sign or figure only of Christs bloud But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world Ergo. That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's bloud Those words then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is the Cup the New Testament in my Blood cannot admit of this interpretation This Cup is a sign of my Blood unless you will grant that a bare sign of Christ's bloud was shed for the sins of the world which is high blasphemy For it is very plain by the express words of the Text That the very Cup which was the New Testament in Christ's Blood was shed for the sins of the world wheâ—efore that Cup could not be a sign onely but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour Whâ—t say you Doctor who now
this real presence of Christ's body must be either by a change of one substance into another and so consequently by that which the Church calls Transubstantiation and then you will not accuse that Doctrine for being repugnant to the plain words of Scripture or else by consubstantiation and then why do you not adore it and why do you charge the Church of Rome with Idolatry for adoring Christ wheresover he is corporally present since his Humanity is inseparably and Hypostatically united to his Divinity 40. Let us now hear what Eusebius Emissenus sayes Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis sanguinis sui verbo suo secretâ potestate convertit These words are cited out of the Author by Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. quia corpus The invisible Priest Christ converts the visible creatures into the substance of his body and bloud by his word by his secret power How can Transubstantiation be more plainly exprss't then in these words Or what is Transubstantiation but a change of creatures into another substance Many more testimonies might be brought both from the antient and modern Fathers in confirmation of this Doctrine which to avoid prolixity I have omitted 41. This Doctrine of Transubstantiation being proved as it hath been both by Scripture and Fathers is a sufficient justification of the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind the blessed Sacrament being integrally as well as essentially contain'd under either kind which is the second Doctrine repugnant as you say to the plain words of Scripture But where is it said in Scripture You shall not administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind onely Or where is it said You shall administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under both kinds If any such precept be contain'd in plain words of Scripture why has it never yet been discovered and if there be no such plain precept there then the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind cannot be repugnant to plain words of Scripture the unlawfulness thereof câ—n bâ— but at the most deducible from some places of the Scriptureâ— which being obscurâ— and aâ—biguous cannot be better interpreted then by the antient and universal practise of the church which in former ages esteemed the administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under one or both kinds a thing indifferent and upon several occasions practised both as when the Maniâ—hees abstaining from wine as a thing unlawful condemned the use of the Chalice in the blessed Sacrament divers Catholique Bishops in opposition to those Herctiques commended the practise of communicating under both kinds and afterwards when this errour was exploded and a contrary succeeded viz. an opinion of certain Heretiques who maintain'd the necessity of communicating under both kinds because as they said Christ was not wholly and entirely comtain'd under either Then the church to prevent a farther Schism declared the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating in one kind only and did withall forbid the administration of the blessed Sacrament under both The indifferency of communicating in one or both kinds and the antienâ— practise of the church in relation therunto I have els where shown Sect. 20 wherefore here I will only add those words of our blessed Saviour in confiâ—mation thereof Jo. 6. 59. He that eateth this bread shall live for ever If then the end of the institution of the blessed Sacrament which is eternal life may be obtain'd by eating only the body of Christ it cannot be necessary for salvation to communicate in both kinds since salvation may be obtain'd by communicating under the Species of Bread only and these words are a plain exposition of those words precedent so often alledg'd against the Church of Rome by Heretiques Jo. 6. 54. Vnless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his bloud ye shall not have life in you whereby it appeares that the conjunctive And is to be taken disjunctively for Or as it is in those words of the Apostle Act. 3. 6. Silver and gold have I none where the sense is Silver or gold have I none Besides Christs body and bloud being entirely contain'd under either Species whosoever receives his body must also receive his bloud and since Bloud is properly the subject of drinking not of eating he that any way receives Christs bloud may be said to drink it drinking being as properly refer'd to the subject as to the action Whâ—â—â—fore though that word And were to be taken conjunctively as it is not yet were it sufficient to communicate under one Species only because whosoever eats Christs body must also necessarily drink his bloud Those other Texts so much urged by Protestants Mat. 26. 27. Drink ye all of this And Luc. 22. 19. Do this in remembrance of me are very impertinent those words being spoken to the Apostles only and to them as Priests and Bishops not in relation to the Sacrament only but to the Sacrifice which the Apostles and their Successors the Priests were to offer up for a continual commemoration of Christs Passion Besides it is to be observ'd that ouâ— blessed Saviour used not those words absolutely Do this in remembrance of me but only when he gave his Body under the Species of Bread and when he administred the Cup then he used them conditionally Do this as often as ye shall drink in remembrance of me 42. The third fond Doctrine and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture is invocation of Saints But where are those plain words of Scripture I have read the Old and New Testament yet never could find any such precept as this Thou shalt not or no man shall invocate Saints Or Thou shalt not desire the Saints to offer up thy prayers to God Or Thou shalt not pray to the Saints to pray for thee and if no such precept can be found in Scripture in plain terms as never any such was yet discovered there then doubtless this Doctrine is not repugnant to the plain words of Scripture But on the contrary I find this Doctrine viz. That the blessed Saints may be invocated very probably if not necessarily deducible from Scripture For if Angels may be invocated why may not Saints who see God as well as the Angels and are in the same state of bliss and glory with those blessed Spirits but that the Angels may be invocated is most plain in divers places of Scripture As from the examples of Abraham Gen. 18. who in that one chapter prayed six times to the Angel Of Lot Gen. 19. Of Jacob Gen. 32. and Gen. 48. 15. where Jacob blessing the sons of Joseph after he had invocated his Angel Guardian useth these words And let my name and the name of my Fathers Abraham and Isaac be invocated on them Which words are far more plain for Invâ—cation of Saints then any place of Scripture that you or any other can alledg can make against it And
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 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