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
thereof would stand in need of some supreme Head and Governour certainly he foresaw that when his Church should be more ample and numerous and more subject to divisions and factions it would stand in far greater need of an Vniversal Head wherein all particular Churches and members thereof might be united and therefore would not leave it without some common Pastor to guide and direct it And I desire you to take notice Doctor that herein all the Fathers both Greek and Latin Antient and modern unanimously agree and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christs Church ever was and ever must be S. Peters Successor who hithetâ—o ever since S. Peter plac't his Chair there has been the bishop of Rome and for ought we know ever will be till the end of the world And this those very Authors Stella and Lyra whom you have cited for your self will plainly tell you even in those very places which you have cited Besides who ever confirm'd the acts of any lawful General Councel but the Pope In his absence had he not his Delegates who saâ—e in the supreme place of the Councel though they were not alwayes Bishops and that even in the Easterne Church I could be more copious in this point but I here intend a reply only not a Treatise of Controversie 26. I come now to Pope John 22. who stands charg'd with a strange and monstrous Heresie viz. for affirming that God the Son is greater then God the Father and the Holy Ghost and Stella's authority is produc't to prove it Answ I confess Stella has accus'd him of it but I must be bold to excâ—pt against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact for it cannot appear that Stella spake this upon any just ground or probability for no man besides Stella either Catholique or Heretique that I could ever yet read or hear of ever charg'd Pope John 22. with that blasphemy 't is true some Heretiques and amongst the rest Calvin Just li. 4. c. 7. Sect. 28. have charged this Pope for affirming that the souls of men were mortal but most injuriously for he never taught nor held the mortality of the soul all that he held contrary to the opinion of the world was That the souls of the Just should not see God before the Resurrection This opinion was far from Heresie the Church never having defin'd the contrary and divers ancient Catholique Fathers being of the same opinion neither did he ever absolutely defend that opinion as an unquestionable truth For as Jo. Villanus Hisior li. 11. cap. 19. reports the day before his death he declar'd that he never had any intent to define it and that whensoever he discoursed of it his end was to find out the truth and added withall that he held the contrary opinion to be more probable and I am sure it is most improbable that Ockam his bitter enemy should charge him with this and Calvin with the other and yet neither of these should make any mention of that blasphemous Heresie which D. Boughen one of Stella layes to his charge if either he had been guilty or they could have found any probable argument or colourable ground that he might be guilty of that horrid blasphemy but suppose this had been true as it is far from all probability of truth what is this to the purpose What if Liberius Mâ—rcellinus and John 22. all Bishops of Rome had their private errors what is all this to the Church of Rome your Intelligencer Stella even in that place by you cited will tell you they erred as private persons only not as bishops of Rome or Heads of the Church they never decreed nor defin'd Heresie they never commanded any heretical Doctrine to be receiv'd as a divine truth by the whole Church They might fall into errors so likewise did Peter as Stella sayes even after Christ had prayed for him that his Faith should not fail But I suppose no man will be so unreasonable or blasphemous as to say Peters Faith failed after Christ had prayed that it should not fail though externally for fear of the Jews he denied it Peter then denied his Faith what was this to the other Apostles and the rest of Christs Disciples Liberius Marcellinus and Pope John 22. had their errors what was this to the Church of Rome had you read Stella but a very few lines further you would have found small incouragement to have cited his authority for your opinion for though he seems in some sense to grant your Minor Proposiâ—ion as you call it Sect. 18. in your missh pen Syllogism Sect. 17. viz. That Liberius Marcellinus and Iohn 22. erred in Faith yet he there plainly denies your conclusion viz. That therefore in their times the Church of Rome became no Church but was an Anti-christian Synagogue His words in Luc. 22. 31. the very place by you cited are these Ecclesia enim Autiochena Alexandrina Constantinopolitana saepe defecerunt à fide Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecil quia Christus ait Petro â—ravi pro te ut uon deficiat fides tua The Church saith he of Antioch Alexandria and Constantinople have often fallen from their faith but the Church of Rome never fell from her faith because Christ said to Peter I have prayed for thee that thy Faith fail not You see Doctor what a plain testimony here is against you out of the same Author which you have cited for you Stella was not so sharp-sighted as to see your consequence viz. That beause Marcellinus Liberius and John 22. had fallen from the true faith therefore the Church of Rome had forsaken her faith but the contrary he maintains exprefly viz. That although Liberius Marccllinus and John 22. all Popes of Rome denied the true Faith yet the Church of Rome never failed or fell from her faith He could not draw your Conclusion from such Premises as yours are and yet doubtless he knew a Syllogism and a rational consequence as well as you 27. But why should Vigilius be an Eutychian was it because out of reverence and respect to the Councel of Calcedon he could not be induc't neither by the perswasions nor threatnings of the Emperour to repeal an Act of that Councel in condemning those Tria Capitula which the Counccl had receiv'd as Orthodox nothing favouring the Heresie either of Nestorius or Eutyches one whereof was the Epistle of Ibas who publiquely in the Councel renounc't the Heresies both of Nestorius and Eutyches another the writings of Theodoret against Nestorius for which Theodoret had formerly been depos'd by the Eutychian Faction in that Latrocinal Councel at Ephesus and afterwards restor'd by the Catholiques I confess this is a very strong argument that he was no Eutychian but that he was one you only say it you alledg no reason you cite no authority nor testimony but that of Lyra whom I cannot find making any mention at all in the place by you cited in Mat. 16. either of
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
Thus have we vindicated that expression of Roman Catholike from contradiction that denomination Roman added to the Church being as universall and having as large a signification as the word Catholike which not withstanding might have se med an unnecessary addition had it not been long since occasion'd by some Heretiques thereby to distinguish true from pretended Catholikes for those Heretiques well knew that they could neither justifie their new doctine nor draw people to their opinion but by usurping the name and tiâ—le of Catholikes therefore the word Roman was added to Catholike that those Heretiques that had forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church might not deceive the vulgar under the notion of Catholikes 3. And here by the way Doctor I desire you to observe that there was never any Schismatique or Heretique nor any Sect or Congregation of men professing the name of Christ divided from the Catholike Church but did either actually or originally seperate themselves from that Church which is now call'd and ever was since the Apostles times the Church of Rome and therefore must necessarily have formerly been in Communion with the same Church which is an argument unanswerable that there was never any Catholike Church distinct from that which is now call'd the Roman Church or Church of Rome 4. But in the examination of this discourse I have discover'd another fallacy in the Doctor which the Logicians call à dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter For though the Church of Rome in some respect viz. as she is the particular Diocesse or Sea of the Bishop of Rome may be call'd a particular Church yet as she is the Center and Fountain of Vnity in whom all the particular members of the Church Catholike are united she is and may be truly and properly call'd the Catholike Church And now good Doctor the discovery of these two fallacies might serve for a full and sufficient answer to almost your whole book But let us proceed 5. Now the Doctor begins to muster up his arguments against the Church of Rome to prove she is not the Catholike Church And first If the Church of Rome sayes he he the Catholike Church where was the Catholike Church before She became a Church Here I expected the Doctor would have begun to speak sense but it will not be Let us then examine the Argument There was a time before Rome was a Church therefore at this time the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her for those words Doctor must not be left out though you are pleased to take little notice of them is not the Catholike Church Or thus There was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church therefore now at this time the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her cannot be the Catholike Church What strange consequences are these as if the Catholike Church cannot take Her particular denomination from Rome though there were a Catholique Church before Rome was converted to the Christian Faith But to answer you in a word before S. Peter translated his chair from Antioch to Rome the Catholike Church could not take its denomination from Rome but afterwards it might and did and that denominanation of Roman it reâ—ains to this dâ—y and ever will till S. Peters Successor shall translate his Sea from Rome to some other City which in all probability neither you Doctor nor I shall ever live to see 6. But let us examine this argument a little further Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Catholike Church distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with Her The Doctor answers That there was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church and therefore that was not the Roman Here the Doctor ha's spoke something though nothing to the purpose for who ever question'd that conclusion The Doctor ha's forgot himself again for his conclusion should have been this Therefore the Catholike Church was distinct from the Church of Rome and those in communion with her and then let us see what a fine argument here will be There was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church therefore the Catholike Church was distinct from the Church of Rome and those in communion with her Very pretty Rome was no Church at all therefore the Church of Rome was distinct from the Catholique Church You must not say Doctor that I impose this conclusion upon you the argument is your own and you think it so strong that you urge it again Sect. 22. and though you have not thus set it down in expresse terms yet is it necessarily involv'd in your discourse 7. But I have not yet done with this monstrous argument Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Church Catholike distinct from the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her for the last 1100. yeares The Doctor answers that there was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church Here we shall have another fine consequence There was a Catholike Church before Rome became a Church viz somewhat above 1600. years since Therefore the Catholike Church ha's been distinct from the Church of Rome and those in communion with her for thâ—se last 1100 years Most excellently concluded Mr. Doctor in brief the effect of the argument is this There was a time when Rome was no Church at all therefore for these 1100. years last past the Church of Rome and those in Communion with her have not been the Catholike Church Just so will I prove that D. Boughen has not been a Doctor of Divinity for these five years last past There was a time when D. Boughen was no Doctor at all therefore D Boughen has not been a Doctor of Divinity for these five years last past Into what a Labyrinth of absurdities has the poor Doctor cast himself 8. Let us now proceed to the next argument and sum it up as far as it is capable into a syllogisticall form If Rome be the Catholike Church then if she be Orthodox the Catholike Church is Orthodox if she be heretical or schismatical the whole Church must be heretical and schismatical but the Catholique Church was never heretical or schismatical and yet the Church of Rome has been miserably schismatical heretical schismatical as is to be seen in Platina Onuphrius when she had somtimes two somtimes three Bishops together a double a treble-headed a monstrous Church Therefore Rome cannot be the Catholike Church I am sure the Church of Rome was never so monstrous as this argument The Doctor is fallen so deep into a fallacy that he cannot tell how to get out M. T. B. demands one thing and the Doctor layes about him to prove another But let us examine the argument If by Rome you meane the particular Church or Sea of Rome first it is impertinent secondly I deny your consequence at least as to its latter part for the Catholike Church ha's not that necessary dependence on the particular Sea of Rome as
successor For no particular Church or person ever was or could be in communion with the Church of Rome that denied or questioned this Doctrine or that refused to yeeld obedience to the Sea of Rome as the Head and Mother of all Churches and to the Bishop thereof as Christs Vicar General on Earth How then came you in England to find out that at last which your Ancestors for almost 1000. years could not discover They all even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith by St. Augustine to K. Hen. eights Defection were subject to the Sea of Rome and to the Bishop thereof as Christs immediate Vicar and under him the supream head of the Catholike Church How come you to be wiser then all your fore-fathers and the whole world bâ—sides Can it be reasonably supposed that those great Patriarchs of the â—ast the Patriarch of Constantinople of Hierusalem of Antiech c. with all the Bishops of Asia Africa and Europe should profess and acknowledge themselves subject to the Bishop of Rome had they not thought that his power and Jurisdiction over the whole Catholique Church had been by Christs especial appointment and commission What colourable plea then can you alleadge for your separation 31. But I perceive the Doctor is flying to his old fallacy in taking for granted or rather indeed downright begging that the Church of Rome can be no more then a particular branch or member of the Church Catholique For his words immediatly following are these And yet we shall maâ—gre Satan communicate with the Catholique Church while with one minde and mouth we glorifie God c. Good Doctor deceive not your self the Devil doe's but laugh at you for that idle fancy You cannot truly glorifie God either in minde or mouth whilest you separate your selves from Gods Church Neither can you communicaâ—e with the Catholique Church whilest you keep your selves out of the communion of the Church of Rome I told you before Sect. 2. that the Roman Church and the Catholique Church are in some sense Synonymaes signifying one and the same thing The Church of Rome is that Catholike Church out of whose communion whosoever dyes shall never see the face of God Now in what sâ—nse the Roman Church is called the Catholique Church though I have already shewed you yet I will here somewhat farther explain it The Catholique Church may be considered First in respect of her Faith and Doctrine Secondly in respect of her Government or Discipline According to the first consideration all true particular Churches and Christians professing and united in one and the same Faith and Communion are truly and properly called the Catholique Church and this is formally the Church Catholique We say not that the Roman Church is thus that is formally Catholique She is in this sense a part or member only of the Catholique Church But if we consider the Catholique Church in respect of her Government then the Church of Rome may truly and properly be called Catholique though not formally yet causally because she being the Mother and Head of all other particular Churches of the Christian world in right of her Bishop who is St. Peters successor and appointed by Christ to be the supream Head and Governor of his whole Church is the fountain and centre of Vnity which she infuses into the whole Catholique Church causing all the particular members thereof to be united in one and the same supream earthly Head and Governor Those then that submit themselves to the Apostolique Sea of Rome and are in communion with the Bishop thereof by subjecting themselves to his Authority and Government acknowledging him Christs Vicar on earth the sole supream Head of his Church may most properly be termed Roman Catholiques The Province of Canterbury consisted of many particular Churches or Episcopal Seas all united in the Church or Sea of Canterbury which gave denomination to the whole Province Canterbury it self was not the whole Province but because it was the Metropolitan Sea the Head and Mother-Church of the whole Province wherein all the particular Seas of that Province were united and to whom they yeilded obedience the whole Province received its Denomination from her which notwithstanding being considered as a particular Church or Diocesse was but a part or member of the Province of Canterbury So likewise the Church of Rome being the Metropolitan Sea of the whole world the Head and Mother-Church of the Christian world wherein all particular Seas and Churches whatsoever that are in communion with the Church Catholique are united every true Church in particular may be said to be within the universal Province or Church of Rome And the Roman Church comprehending under her all particular Churches whatsoever that are branches and members of the Catholique to whom they all owe obedience and subjection and in whom they are all united as in the grand Metropolitan Church of the Christian world may properly be styled the Catholique Church As then there was the particular Sea or Church of Canterbury and the whole Province of Canterbury so also there is the particular Sea or Church of Rome and the universal Church of Rome And as the particular Sea of Canterbury was a part of the Province of Canterbury so likewise the particular Church of Rome is but a part of the universal or Catholique Church of Rome the Church of Rome as truly comprehending all particular Churches of the Christian world as the Province of Canterbury contained all the particular Seas of that Province In brief as the Sea of Canterbury was to all the particular Seas of that Province so is the Church of Rome to all the particular Churches of the whole world And by this you may perceive how frivoulous that trivial objection is which has been so often made against that expression Roman Catholique as if those words implyed a contradiction in signifying Particular and yet Vniversal 32. And that the Roman Church has ever bin in this sense the Catholique Church viz. as being the Head and Mother-Church of all other Christian Churches appears as plainly as any other point of Faith or Doctrine whatsoever Neither the Scriptures themselves nor any Doctrine or Article of Faith written or unwritten has descended unto us by a more full and ample Tradition then this Dâ—ctrine of the Primacy of the Apostolick Sea of Rome and Supremacy of the Bishop thereof over all Churches So that he that shall deny or question this may as well doubt of the Scriptures and consequently of Christs coming in the flesh and dying for the sins of the world Are noâ— the writings of the Ancient Fathers full of iâ— has not the universal practise of the Church in all ages made it shine bright even at this day to the world Read the Fathers examine the Councels view the practise of Gods Church in all ages and you will soon conâ—ess this to be an apparent and unquestionable Truth Besides consider that the Primacy and authority
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
tenerent Wee thought fit c. that all our fellow bishops might stedfastly approve of and imbrace you and your communion that is the Catholique Churches unity and charity Is it not plaine by these words that the unity of the Catholique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome And if there be no Catholique unity but in communion with the Bishop of Rome it is apparently impossible that any one can be united to the Catholique Church that is not in communion with the Bishop and the Church of Rome Besides that the Church is built upon S. Peter and his Successors I have already fully proved Sect. 25. and Sect. 58. to which I will add one testimonie more out of S. Cyprian Epist ad Quintinum Nam nec Petrus quem primum elegit super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam c. For neither Peter whom our Lord chose to be the first and upon whom he built his Church c. The like words he has Ser. 3. de bon pat whosoever then forsakes the foundation cannot be part of the house or building The whole building rests upon the foundation wherfore he that is separated from the foundation is separated also from the building which is the house the Church of God And you must remember Doctor that S. Cyprian liv'd in the yeare of Christ 250. and therefore long within the first 500. yeares to which you have appeal'd Sect. 27. so that you must either confesse the Prorestants to be out of the communion of the Catholique Church and consequently schismaticall at the least or else you must revoke and renounce your appeale If you will say that the sense of the whole Church appeares not fully in the writings of particular Fathers you shall heare the confession and acknowledgment of 520. Fathers assembled in the fourth Generall Councell at Calcedon in the yeare of Christ 451. who all unanimously acknowledge Pope Leo their head Their words are Quibus tu quidem sicut membris caput praeras Over whom that is the Fathers assembled in the Councell thou wert as the Head over the members And it is to be observ'd that this Councell was held in the Easterne Church and consisted for the most part of the Fathers of that Church wherein notwithstanding Pope Leo's Delegates sate in the uppermost Seat and took place of the Patriarch of Constant inople himself even in his own Patriarchate which would never have been permited had not the Pope's Jurisdiction extended to the Eastern as wel as the Western Churches About 50. yeares after the Councell did not the Eastern bishops acknowledge that it was necessary for all Christians to communicate with the bishop and Church of Rome you have heard Sect. 58. that Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople excluded al from the communion of the Catholique Church that were divided from the Apostolique sea of Rome which doubtlesse the great Patriarch of the East would never have acknowledged had it not descended by universall Tradition that the Bishop of Rome was appointed by Christ to be the supreme Pastor and Governour of the whole Church Examine all this Patriarch's letters written to Pope Hormisda and you shall find them all directed to the Pope after this manner Domino mâ—o per omnia sanctissimo And can any reasonable man imagine that so great a Patriarch would have stiled the Pope his Lord if his power in the Easterne Church had been absolute and independent on the sea of Rome In like manner Dorotheus Bishop of Thessalonica in the Eastern Church in his Epistle to the same Pope has these words Ista nunc scripsi Beato Capiti nostro per Patricium c. These things have I now written by Patricius to our Blessed Head By this it plainly appeares that in those dayes within the first 600. yeares of Christ the Bishop of Rome was acknowledg'd the Head of the Eastern Churches as well as of the Western and that by the Eastern Bishops themselves even by their cheife and Head-Bishop the Patriarch of the East who likewise as you have already heard confest that all Catholique Communion flowes from the Apostolique sea of Rome as the Head and Fountain thereof And what better interpreter of Scripture or more faithful preserver of Apostolique Traditions can therebe then the antient and universal practise of the Church To the practise of former Ages and Declarations of antient Councels let us joyn the definiâ—ions of later times viz. of the Councel of Florence in the year 1439. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person and all the other Patriarchs either personally or by their Delegates Let us then hear the whole Church speaking in that Councel Item definimus Sanctam Apostolicam sedem Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere primatum c. Concil Florent Act. ult Also we declare that the holy Apostolique Sea and Bishop of Rome hath the primacy over the whole world and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peters Successor who was chief of the Apostles and that he is Christ's true Vicar and Head of the whole Church the Father and Doctor of all Christians and that in S. Peter full power was given to him the Bishop of Rome by our Lord Jesus Christ to feed rule and govern the whole Church To this definition subscribed all the Patriarchs of the Church and amongst the rest the Patriarch of Constantinople himself You shall have his subscription as it is set down in the Acts of the Councel Joseph miserations divinâ Constantinopolis c. Florent An. 1439. I Joseph by the mercy of God Arch-bishop of Constantinople and new Rome and universal Patriarch because my life is almost at an end do therefore by the goodness of God according to my duty publish this my opinion to my beloved sons in this writing For all those things which our Lord Jesus Christs Catholique and Apostolique Church of Old Rome believes and imbraces I profess that I also do hold and believe and fully consent unto them And I grant that the blessed Father of Fathers and chief Priest the Pope of Old Rome is our Lord Iesus Christs Vcar and I deny not that there is a Purgatory for souls And note that this is the profession of a dying man past hope of life Here you see a concurrence of the later ages with the former Here you see all the churches of the world consenting to the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome Here you have seen the practise of the antient church the Declarations of former Councels and the Definitions of later then which nothing can better interpret Scripture or more faithfully preserve divine truths and Apostolical Doctrines to posterity Since then the Church of Rome is the Head and Mother-church of the world and consequently the Fountain of Unity whosoever shall separate himself from her communion cannot possibly be a member of the Catholique Church And since the Church of Rome by her power and Jurisdiction diffuses her self
there is not then we â—ob them at the most but of the sign or figure of Christs blood neither indeed is it in the power of the Priest or church to rob them of that for if the cup after consecration be but a bare sign or figure of Christs blood still retaining its former nature and substance of wine then may any one in spight of the Priest or church take a cup of wine when and where he please and make it to himselfe a sign of Christs blood and so it may be to him as perfect a Sacrament as if received it from the hands of the Priest Perchance you will say it is not a signe but by vertue of Consecration This may be easily said but can you prove it out oâ— Scripture which you make the sole rule of your Faith If you can then will I subscribe to your opinion if not as I am most certain you cannot then according to your owne Principle neither you nor I nor any man else is bound to believe it 20. But here I meet with two Authorities out of S. Cyprian to prove that none can be fit for Martyrdome that communicate not under the Species of Wine as well as of Bread certainly the Doctor to say no worse misunderstands S. Cyprian for he was too great a Scholar to maintaine so false and ridiculous a doctrine his words in the first place cited by the Doctor are these Quomodo ad Martyrii pâ—culum idoneos facimus si non eos ad bibendum priùs in Ecclesia poculum Domini jure communicationis admittimus Cypr. li. 1. Epist 2. I answer that all this Father intends inthis Epistle to Pope Cornelius is to desire the Pope that those who for fear of persecution had fallen from their faith might upon their repentance and reconciliation to the church be admitted to the holy communion that by the vertue and power of that Sacrament they might be the better able to encounter with and overcome a new persecution There is not so much as one word in the whole Epistle concerning the insufficiency of communicating under one Species onely or the necessity of communicating under both those words Poculum Domini the cup of our Lord signifying there the blessed Sacrament in generall in allusion to the former words Poculum Martyrii the cup of Martyrdome and this will most plainly appeare to any one that shall impartially â—ead that Epistlâ— all that can possibly be proved out of those words is that in some places in or about the time of S. Cyprian the Laity weâ—â— admitted to communicate under both kinds which no Catholike ever denied or question'd and that it was a custome even in S. Cyprians time to administer the Communion in one kind onely may easily be prov'd from those two miracles recorded by the same Father Serm. de Lapsis to which I refer the Reader The other place cited out of S. Cyprian has these words Quomodo possumus propter Christum sanguinem fundere qui sanguinâ— Christi crubescimus bibere Lib. 2. Ep. 3 Answ These words I confesse are S. Cyprians but they are lesse to the purpose then the former as I shall instantly make it appear There were certain Heretikes in S. Cyprians time who contrary to our blessed Saviours institution as this Father sayes would consecrate in wine alone without any mixture of water and others who would consecrate in water alone without wine against these latter S. Cyprian intends these words cited saying that such drink not the bloud of Christ since water cannot by vertue of consecration be chang'd into the bloud of Christ by reason of the defect of wine which is the true matter of the Saâ—rament and therefore could not have the power and efficacy of the Sacrament to enable men to overcome those great difficulties and temptations of persecution and to lay down their lives for the faith of Christ But there is not one word in that whole Epistle concerning receiving the Sacrament under one or both Species 21. Now to passe by divers impertinencies and such things as have beene already answer'd let us come to the Doctors Master-argument for doubtlesse he esteemes it so otherwise he would not so much have insisted upon it and repeated it so often which to set forth in its full lustre he has at last adventur'd on this Syllogism If ye the Church of Rome have at any time denied Jesus Christ to be the true God and eternal life ye were at that time no church but an Anti-christian Synagogue But this did Marcellinus and Liberius and Jo. 22. all Bishops of Rome Ergo In those times ye were no church but an Anti-christian Synagogue Answ What an Anti-christian Syllogism is here Anti-christ ha's not more heads then this Syllogism ha's termes But let us be once more favourable to the Doctor and help him to speak sense he means well thohgh he ha's forgot his Logick all then that I can make of it is this There was a time when Rome and all those in communion with her were no church at all but an Anti-christian Synagogue Therefore the Catholike Church which never failed must be distinct from the Church of Rome and all those in communion with her This I confesse is a pretty good consequence but the Doctor may thank me for it Well then not to question the consequence we deny the antecedent which is prov'd thus Marcellinus and Liberius and â—o 22. all Bishops of Rome denied Jesus Christ to be the true God and eternall life Ergo There was a time when the Church of Rome and those in communion with her were no church but an anti-christian Synagogue Ans This is your consequence Doctor not mine Would not you have laughed at me or any man that should have concluded the whole church of England to have been formealy heroticall and schismaticall because the King or Arch bishop of â—anterbury one whereof you acknowledged head of your pretended Church was Heretical or Schismatical Must every Church stand or fall with its Bishop Must the particular members of the Church of Rome necessarily forsake their faith if her Bishop fall into Herefie or Idolatry You confess pag. 9. 10. that there was a visible true Church of the Jews in those dayes when both their King and High Preist had forsaken the true God and committed Idolatry and must the Church of Rome totally perish if her Bishop forsake his faith Shall the Church of the Jews have a prerogative above the Church of Christ This is Logick I understand not 22. And though this might serve for a full and satisfactory answer to any judicious and impartial Reader yet since I find divers good Popes falsly charged with Heresie and Idolatry I shall endeavour Ex superabundanti to vindicate them from those foul aspersions and so destroy the Antecedent as well as the Consequence by shewing the Doctor is here as much out in his History as he was before in his Logick 22. First then Pope
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
reason that the word Quapropter may refer to the former words and that the Father speaks as the Doctor would have him What shall we discover then even this consequence Heretiques by having a false opinion of God are cut off from the Catholique Church therefore every violation of Faith cuts not off from the Catholique Church Most admirable this is just like the rest If this be a good consequence there was never any bad or fallacious Just so will I prove that every damnable sin excludes not a man from Gods favour Murther and Adultery exclude a man from Gods favour therefore not every damnable sin excludes a man from Gods favour You will say this is no good consequence I say so too but I am sure it is as good as yours the very same with yours 70. Now we come to examine who are in Schism the Church or Luthers followers or indeed rather whether there be any Schism or no between the Church of Rome and the Protestants which the Doctor seems to deny The truth is M. T. B. has so gravel'd the poor Doctor that he is forc't to fly to most miserable and ridiculous shifts M. T. B. very rationally and judiciously sayes by way of objection that Christs mystical Body is but one and although the Body be made up of divers members yet all these members must communicate one with another for if a member be separated but by Schism it is like an arm cut off from the Body or a branch from the Vine which makes that arm or branch no part of the Body or Vine To this the Doctor answers thus What though all this be granted will this make one of the two no Church I believe not Reply 'T is very likely Doctor that you believe so but what man of sense or understanding can believe so Can a particular church separate from the whole Catholique Church both in Doctrines of Faith and external communion and yet not be Schismatical but still continue a Catholique Church who ever before D. Boughen could say or think so Well but S. Pauls authority is alledged 1 Cor. 12. 25. where it is said that all the members of the body must communicate one with another in the same care one for another in the same sufferings and rejoycings one with another What then Is there no other communion necessary to avoid Schism This is just like your former consequences The members must communicate one with another in the same sufferings and rejoycings one with another therefore to avoid Schism there is no other communion necessary I am sure this is no necessary consequence but with such poor fallacies as these Heretiques have always endeavour'd to deceive the world Neither can that place of the Apostle advantage you at all for he there only compares Christ's mystical body the Church to the natural body and sayes that as all the members of the natural body mutually assist each other and without any Schism that is any division or discord joyntly concur to preserve the body so also in the Church which is Christs mystical body there are different orders functions and offices all which ought mutually to assist each other for the preservation of the whole church this is al that S. Paul intends in that place as by the context of the whole cha wil evidently appear to any indifferent Reader 71. We are not bound you say Sect. 32. to communicate with the Church of Rome in the same ceremonies gesture superstition or error Answ First I deny that the Roman Church is or ever was or can be guilty of superstition or error in faith Secondly I grant that you are bound not to communicate with any Nation or people in superstition or error As also that you are not bound to use the ceremonies of other Catholique Churches There be divers particular Churches that differ from each other in some ceremonies and yet are in perfect charity and communicate with each other As for example The Westerne Church consecrates in unleavened bread after the example of our B. Saviour who first instituted the blessed Sacrament and consecrated in unleavened bread but the Greeke Church has alwaies accustomed to consecrate in leavened bread besides these two Churches differ in divers ceremonies of the Masse though not in any substantiall or essentiall part thereof And yet these two churches are in perfect charity and communion with each other I speak here of the true Catholique Greek Church not of those schismatiqâ—es and Heretiques who have cut themselves off from the Catholique Church whom notwithstanding you are pleas'd to cal the Greeke Church Neither doe those churches abhorre each others ceremonies as superstitious or unlawfull but the particular members of each church are most ready to conforme to the ceremonies and discipline of each other according as any of them shall travell or passe from one church to the other As when a bishop or Priest of the Easterne church travells into any part of the Westerne he then makes me scruple to consecrate in unleavened bread as formerly in his own church he consecrated in leavened but when any two churches shall abhorâ—e and detest the Doctrine and ceremonies of each other as hereticall sacrilegious idolatrous and repugnant to plaine Scripture there is then a perfect schisme And since these two abhorre each others communion charging each other with sacrilegious idolatrous and damnable errours they cannot both meet in the Catholique Church and therefore one of them must necessarily be cut off from Christ's mysticall body either by heresie or schisme or both Wherefore in granting that assertion of Mr. T. B. you must also grant that either the Church of Rome or the Protestants are guilty of heresie or schisme or both and therefore no part of the Catholique Church 72. It is then now time to show who is the schismatique And that you are schismaticall I prove thus Those that have seperated themselves from the communion of the Catholique Church are schismaticall But you have separated your selves from the communion of the Catholique Church Ergo. You are Schismaticall The Major is evident and often granted by the Doctor the minor is thus prov'd Those that have separated themselves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome have separated themselves from the Catholique Church But you have seperated your selves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome Ergo. You have separated your selves from the communion of the Catholique Church The minor is acknowledg'd by the Doctor Sect. 19. of his first Answer The major is sufficiently proved Sect 25. and Sect. 58. wherefore I will here only add some few authentique testimonies more in proofe thereof S. Cyprian sayes li. 4. ep 8. a d Cornâ—l Pontif. Placuit ut per Episcopos reteniâ— Ã nobis rei veritate ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam c. ut te universi Collegae nostri communicationem tuam id est Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter charitatem probarent firmiter
Is it fit that the Church of Rome whom you have forsaken should stoop to you Is she bound to follow you that have forsaken her who made you Judges of Gods Church that you should take upon you to charge the whole Church of Rome with errours both in faith and manners by what rule have you done this you pretend Sect. 37. to walke by a sure rule but I am sure you walke not according to the rule of Christ's Catholique Church For she walks according to the rule of Gods Word interpreted by universall and Apostolicall tradition which you contemne and laugh at but you by the rule of Scripture interpreted by your own private fancies and deceiptfull imaginations 82. Now the Doctor begins to quarrel with the Language of the Church of Rome How do they saith he pray with the people who pray in a tongue the people understand not Answ And why may not Preist and people joyne in heart to God in prayer though the language of the Churches prayers be not understood by all present S. Paul confesses 1. Cor. 14. 14. that a man may pray in spirit in an unknowne tongue though not with his understanding The Priest and people of the Jewes could joyne together in prayer and prayers to God before Christ though their Service were perform'd in the Hebrew Tongue a language no more then understood by the vulgar Jewes then the Latin is now by the vulgar Christians why then may not the Christian Preist and people joyne together in prayer though the church Service be perform'd in a language which some of the vulgar Christians that are present understand not The Hebrew Greek and Latin Tongues wherein only the church Service has been perform'd throughout the whole Christian world ever since the time of the Apostles are languages well knowne to the world all men may learne them They are not such unknowne languages as those were which S. Paul speaks of 1. Cor. 14. which were miraculously infus'd into many of the Primitive Christians the end whereof was the edification of the church and the conversion of Infidells Now those tongues were neither understood by the people nor alwaies by those that spake them as appeares 1. Cor. 12. and 1. Cor. 14. 13. These languages miraculously infus'd by God the Primitive Christians used in their publique meetings first to instruct the ignorant secondly to convert Infidells where their instructions and prayers were alwayes extemporary according as they were immediately assisted by Gods holy Spirit But the publique prayers of the church are not in such unknowne languages Secondly they are said in the same languages wherein the publique Service of the church was ever performed in all ages since the Apostles as appeares by the antient Hebrew Greek and Latin Missales which is an argument unanswerable that such languages are not against S. Pauls Doctrine 1. Cor. 14. nor any other place of Gods Word Thirdly the end of our present publique meetings in the church is not to instruct edifie or convert as those meetings were whereof S. Paul speakes in that chapter but to offer up to God the tribute of prayer and praises that is due unto him as also to draw downe Gods blessings both spirituall and temporall upon the people And to this end the people joyne with the Priest in their exteriour acts of devotion and Religion thereby professing their assent to the publique prayers and praises of the Church And can it be thought necessary for those ends that all the people present should expresly understand every word of the Churches Service which though it were in the vulgar language of every Nation would notwithstanding be impossible 83. Between the Eastern and Western Churches you say Sect. 40. there were many differences c. and yet for all these they grew up together comfortably and continued in the same body Answ When the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches were concerning such Doctrines as were not declar'd in any Generall Councell nor could appeare by the universall tradition or practise of the Church they were then only errours not heresies but when any of the Easterne Churches opposed the Western in such Doctrines as appear'd either in the practise of the Church or by universall tradition and consent of Nations or were declar'd and defin'd in a Generall Councell they then fell from errour into heresie and were thereby cut off from the Catholique Church Your 41. Sect. is answer'd Sect. 29. and Sect. 65. and Sect. 30. 84. In your 42. Sect. you say That the keyes were given to all the Apostles alike Answ This I confesse in some sense may be true but makes nothing for you That all the Apostles had the keyes of remitting and retaining sins is true I can grant also that they were all universall Bishops yet they had not all equally the keyes of externall government and Jurisdiction S. Iohn at Ephesus had not that power which S. Peter had at Antioch or afterwards at Rome For whatsoever S. Peter was he had a Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles as well as the whole Church besides which S. John never had Your 43. Sect. has been already fully answer'd Sect. 58. In your 44. Sect. you say out of S. Paul to Timothy 2. Timoth. 3 15. That the Scripture is able to make us wise unto salvation and that you are resolved by Gods grace to accept of nothing but what is deduced from thence or proved thereby according to the interpretation of the ancient Fathers and Councells That of S. Paul I confesse and withall very glad that you have made so good a resolution If you shall constantly persist therein and shall receive no interpretation of Scripture but from the ancient Fathers Councells and the tradition of the Church as Vincentius Lyrinensis advises you ch 1â— you will soone become Roman Catholiques Your 45. and last Sect. containes nothing but what has been by you said before and by me sufficiently answer'd Sect. 18. and. Sect. 21. 29. c. I have done with your Answer and now crave leave to speake somewhat to you by way of exhortation in the Spirit of meeknesse You have hitherto been a guide to others let not a vaine feare or apprehension of any dishonour that may eclipse your former reputation by confessing your errours and that you have been a blind leader of the blind come between you and your eternall Salvation Let not the deceitfull lustre of vaine glory tempt you to pâ—eserve your credit in the world with the losse of Heaven You owe God your reputation as well as your life or whatsoever else is most deare unto you consider at how deare a rate Christ purchas'd the Redemption of your Soul destroy not then that soul for which Chrict died Let not pride prejudice or or malice cast a mist before the eyes of your understanding and you shall soone behold that light which will infallibly guide you to your last end God and the eternall friution of the Beatificall