THough every idle Pamphlet deserves not the pains of an answer, yet since new and dangerous Doctrines have so far over-spread this Nation, and taken such firm root in the hearts of the people, that any defence thereof (though never so weak) shall be readily imbrac't and high­ly magnified; I esteemed it not altoge­ther [Page 2] un-necessary, to endeavour by this Reply to undeceive the d [...]luded multi­tude, w [...]o are commonly carried away ra­ther by the authority of some person (in their opinion) eminent, then by force of Argument.

I should much wonder, that so wo [...]thy a person, as report ba's represented D. Boughen to the world, should be the Author of so unworthy a Pamphlet, did I not consider the horried effects of pride and malice, how they not only tempt wretched souls out of the right path that leads to e­ternall felicity, but spur them on also to a violent opposition of Gods sacred truth, till at length they break out into open blasphemy against God and his holy Church, for which God forsakes them, leaving them to their impious and damna­ble errors, to maintain which, the most learned and subtill of all Heretiques are forc't to fly to fallacious and ridiculous Arguments, which though to some unwa­ry reader they may at the first appearance seem to carry some show of truth, yet up­on more mature examination they will be plainly discover'd to be but false and de­ceiptfull colours; and such are all the Arguments in these Answers to the two Letters of Mr. T. B. which I doubt not [Page 3] but I shall evidently demonstrate to any impartiall reader.

Sect. 1. First then Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to shew him the Catholike Church distinct from the Church of Rome, and those in her Communion: The Doctor answers, That the particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike, as a par­ticular member is to the whole body; and therefore as the whole body is distinct from a particular member, or a particular member from the whole body, so is the particular Church of Rome distinct from the whole Catholike.

Rub up your Logick Doctor, or let me advise you to go once more to the Univer­sity, and converse while with the young Sophisters, who will tell you of a fallacy call'd, Ignoratio Elenchi; which indeed runs through almost your whole book: For let us set these two Propositions a­gainst each other, and then see whether we can discover any contradiction between them.

1. Prop. The Catholike Church is not distinct from the Church of Rome, and those in Communion with her.

2. Prop. The particular Church of Rome is as distinct from the whole Catho­like, as a particular member is from the whole body.

[Page 4]Where is the contradiction? if both these Propositions may be true (as cer­tainly they are) where is the conclusion contradictory to the Proposition? But let us help the Doctor, and form his Argu­ment into a Syllogism, and then perchance we may discover a contradiction.

Ma. Every particular member is di­stinct from the whole body.

Min. But the particular Church of Rome is a member of the whole body.

Concl. Therefore the particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole body.

I must here ask again, where is the con­tradictory Conclusion to Proposition? but perchance we wrong the Doctor, in making that his conclusion, which he in­tended for his argument to the conclusion contradictory. Let us try that way then, and see what will follow.

The particular Church of Rome is to the whole Catholike, as a particular member is to the whole body: Ergo,

The Catholike Church is distinct from the Church of Rome, and those Communion with her.

An excellent consequence, which every young Sophister will laugh at. But let us try one way more, for I would fain make something of it; let us help the Doctor with another Syllogism.

[Page 5]Ma. The particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole Catholike. But Min. The Church of Rome, and those in Communion with her, is the particular Church of Rome. Ergo:

The Church of Rome, and those in Com­munion with her, is distinct from the whole Catholiks.

Here, I confesse, is some apparency of contradiction in this conclusions but then what a ridiculous Minor is here! By the same way of argumentation I will prove Westminster and the Suburbs of London to be within the walls of London. Thus:

Ma. The particular City of London is within the walls of London. But:

Min. The Suburbs of London, and the City of Westminster adjoyning there unto, are the particular City of London. Ergo:

The Suburbs of London, and City of Westminster adjoyning thereunto, are within the walls of London.

If the Minor were as true as the Major, the conclusion would necessarily be true, but the Minor is as false as yours, and yours as this; for you must know, good Doctor, that the Church of Rome, and those in Communion with her, are as much distinct from the particular Church of Rome, as the Suburbs of London, and [Page 6] City of Westminster are from the City of London.

Sect.. 2. Besides, there is great diffe­rence between the Roman Church, and the particular Church of Rome; the Roman Church, and the Catholike, being Syno­nama's, signifying one and the same thing: And though in that demand of Mr. T. B. the Church of Rome may, in sensu diviso, be limited to the particular Church or Di­ocesse of Rome, yet in sensu composito, that is, being joyned to the following words, [and those in Communion with her] the Church of Rome is of as full and ample la [...]itude and extension, as the whole Ca­tholike Church. And thus may be an­swer'd that triviall and childish objection against these words, [Roman Catholike] as if they implied a contradiction, they being but (as I said before) Synonima's, both expressing the whole Church in her amplest latitude; for the Church of God is Catholique, in respect of her Faith, Roman, in respect of her denomination; Catholike, in respect of her doctrine; Ro­man, in respect of her discipline; Catholike, in regard she is not consin'd to one Nation, People, or Kingdome, but in­vites the whole world to her Faith and Communion, willingly imbracing all that [Page 7] will come unto her; Roman, in respect all particular Churches and persons whatsoe­ver, that are within the Communion of the Catholike Church, are united in, and subject to one Head, the Bishop of the particular Church, or Sea of Rome, as be­ing S. Peters Successor, and appointed by Christ to be his Vicar on earth. 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 ti­ [...]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 [Page 8] 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 Ʋnity, 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.

[Page 9]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 [Page 10] from Rome, but afterwards it might, and did, and that denominanati­on of Roman it re [...]ains to this d [...]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 [Page 11] 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 th [...]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, [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 that she must be hereticall or schismati­call, when Rome is so. Rome, as it is a par­ticular Sea, is but a member of the Church Catholike, and therefore if she should by schism or heresie cut her selfe off from the Catholike Church, yet would the Catho­like Church remain in her integrity and purity, as a man would not cease to be a man, according to his essentiall parts, though some corrupt and incurable mem­ber were cut off from the body; but if you mean by Rome, the Church of Rome, and those in communion with her, I then deny your supposition, or your minor propositi­on, as to that part; for the Church of Rome in that latitude is not at all distinct from, but is the very same with the Church Catholike, which can never be hereticall or schismaticall; wherefore if [Page 14] the Church of Rome ha's had sometimes two, sometimes three pretended Bishops together (as you seem to have learnt out of Platina and Onuphrius, though you cite no particular place in those Authors) yet there could be but one true Bishop of Rome, one true Head of the church, the rest being meerly pretenders, and there­fore they themselves, and all those that adhered unto them were schismatiques, and as long as they obstinately continued in their schism, they were no members ei­ther of the Catholike Church, or the par­ticular Church of Rome, the Catholique Church stil remaining pure and en [...]ire, and the Sea of Rome a true member thereof.

9. But the Doctor goes further, and charges the Church of Rome with heresie, even from the confession of her own men.

I must be bold to tell you, Doctor, that your charge is as false as your doctrine: There was never any Catholike that con­fest the Church of Rome, and those in communion with her, to have been hereti­cal; for that had been to have confest the whole Catholique Church to be hereti­call, and so utterly extinct, which is im­possible; neither was there ever any Ca­tholike that confest, the whole Diocesse, or Sea of Rome was ever hereticall; so that [Page 15] whether by Rome, you mean the particular Church of Rome, or the Roman Catho­like Church, your assertion is most impu­dent and false, neither have you nam'd any one man that confest it.

10. But perchance the Doctor intended these argunents for light skirmishes onely, and ha's reserv'd his main force and rea­son for his last affault, and with this re­serve hopes to obtain a signall victory o­ver the Church of Rome. Let us then en­counter it, and try what force it brings with it.

If Rome (sayes he) be the Catholique Church, if any thing be amisse in any par­ticular, the fault is Hers, and She ought to mend it; therefore Rome is not the Catholike Church.

What a wretched consequence is this? certainly the Doctor ha's forgot all his Logick, or found out some new, which no body knows besides himself; by the same [...]idiculous consequence I will prove that the Parliament of England was never the Supreme Power of England; Thus.

If the Parliament of England were the Supreme Power, if any thing were amisse in any particular, the fault was in the Par­liament, and it ought to have mended it; therefore the Parliament of England was [Page 16] never the Supreme Power of England.

Yet notwithstanding your ridiculous consequence, I will grant your conclusi­on, as being nothing to the purpose; for your conclusion should have been this; therefore the Church of Rome, and these in communion with her, are not the Ca­tholike Church. And if we examine the sequell of the Antecedent, we shall find it as ridiculous as the whole consequence; for why should the church be blam'd for any thing that is a misse in any particular point of doctrine, or discipline, and that in any particular church, or member of the Church Catholike? (for by [particular], you must mean one of those, but which I know not) Arius denied an high point of Catholike Faith, and many of the Eastern church would not observe Easter-day, ac­cording to the Apostolique custom of the Catholike Church, but I cannot see, why the blasphemy of the one, or the Judai­zing of the other should be imputed to the Church of Rome, and those in communi­on with her, which is the Catholique Church; she used all her power and endea­vours to reclaim both, and when heretikes have forsaken her faith, or schismatiques her communion, she ha's always used that power and authority wherewith God ha's [Page 17] invested her, to cause them to return to their faith and obedience, but if the schismatike shall persist in his schism, or the hererique in his heresie, the fault is in them, no [...] in the church; that you, Doctor, most obsti­nately continue in your heresie, the fault is yours, not the churches, she ha's imployed her utmost endeavours to reclaim you, and therefore cannot justly be blamed for your heresie or schisme; but if any particular Bishops or Pastors have been negligent in reclaiming heretiques or schismatiques, they must answer for it, still the church is blamelesse.

10. In the next place the Doctor dis­courses concerning the Visibility of the Catholique Church, which he grants to have been alwayes visible, both in, and from the time of the Apostles to this pre­sent day, but he will not grant it alwayes visible in one and the same place, no not to Rome it self, nor to every eye.

Answ. The Doctor will be alwayes proving that which was never question'd, but by his leave, the Catholique Church ha's been alwayes visible at Rome, even from its first conversion to the Christian Faith, to this present day, as far as the Catholique Church can be visible in any particular branch or member; but who e­ver [Page 18] said or thought, that the whole Ca­tholike Church was at any time visible at Rome? that City, we know, was never so capacious, as to be able to contain all the Catholikes that have been for these many ag [...]s, living at the same time in Europe, A­sia, and Africa.

11. And that it ha [...]s not been alwayes visible to every eye, (who ever said it was?) he endeavours to prove, because Elijah saw not the church of Israel in his time, and because the church was not visi­ble to many in the days of Rehoboam, of Ahaz, and Manasses.

Answ. If that church were sometimes so obscured, that it might be invisible to many, nay, to most of that Nation (for it could not be, and be totally obscured, and invisible to all eys) yet, good Doctor, you cannot deny, but that the church was apparently visible, both before and after Elijah, before and after Rehoboam, before and after Ahaz, before and after Manas­ses; but neither you, nor all the Prote­stants in the world can shew, that at any time, not only for these 1100. yeares last past, but for 1600. years, even from S. Pe­ters, to these our dayes, there was any Catholique Church distinct from the church of Rome, and those in communion [Page 19] with her, whereas that church ha's beene most perspicuously and apparently visible to the world in all ages, since the Apostles time to this present time: Besides, that the Catholike Church should be 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 Aposta [...]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 [Page 20] 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.

[Page 21] 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 [...]dgells, and never lift up my hand more against D. Boughen.

16. In his following discourse, I con­ [...]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.

[Page 22]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? 'tis very strange, [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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, [Page 25] according to your doctrine, there is not) then we [...]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 o [...] 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, [Page 26] 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 p [...]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 [...]ead that Epistl [...]; all that can possibly be proved out of those words, is, that in some places [Page 27] in or about the time of S. Cyprian, the Laity we [...] 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 sanguin [...] 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 [Page 28] matter of the Sa [...]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, [Page 29] 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 [...]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 [...]an­terbury [Page 30] (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 Liberius is accus'd of Arianism, but falsly; for he never sub­scribed to that damnable Heresie, never de­creed, [Page 31] taught, or maintained it. He sub­scribed only to the banishment of S. A­thanasius, to which the Emperor Constan­tius for [...]'t and compel'd him by torments; as St. Athanasius himself testifies in both his Apologies, where he clearly acquits him of Heresie. And if St. Athanasius in an other place, and St. Hierom charge him with subsc [...]ibing to Arrianism, it is to be understood, interpretative only; in that he subscribed to S. Athanasius's banish­ment, which was procur'd by the Arrians; and externally communicated with some Arrian Bishops: especially since not only those ancient Authors Socrates, lib 2. Ec­cief. Hist. c. 29. Sozomen. lib. 4. c. 10. Theodoret, lib. 2. c. 16, 17. but also S. A­thanasius himself in the fore-cited places te­stifies, that he was no Heretique, and that he did nothing in compliance with the Ar­rians, but what he was compell'd unto by a tedious banishment, and force of tor­ments. And that all Italy, and Spain should side with this Pope in that Heresie, as you afterwards charge them, (Sect. 23.) is most notoriously false, spoken gratis, with­out any authority, or ground whatsoever.

23. The second Pope that stands charg'd with Heresie is Honorius: but what his he­resie was, the Doctor declares not. Tis true, [Page 32] some Heretiques have charg'd this Pope (upon what ground I know not) with joyning with the Monothelites in their he­resie: but it cannot appear, that ever he held or taught that Heresie, either publick­ly or privatly. His errors were at the most but conjectured by some private Letters, which after his death were published in his name. But that in his life time he renounc't that Heresie, appears, Epist. Honor. ad Ser­gium. Act. 13. sext. Synod. Yet suppose Honorius had erred; what was that to the Church of Rome? she notwithstanding might be free from error. And that de facto, she was free, and persecuted that he­resie, Pirrhus Patriarch of Constantinople, being at her suit banish't by H [...]raclius the Emperor, appears plainly by Platina, in Honor. 1. and Sabellicus Aenead. 8. lib 6.

24. In the next place comes in Zepheri­nus, charg'd with Montanism; but most un­justly. He was no Montanist; only out of a candid and peaceable disposition, he endeavoured to make peace between the Ca­tholiques and the Montanists; and this was all his Heresie. That plrce of Lyra by you cited, in Mat. 16. makes rather against you then for you. He sayes there, that some Popes have Apostatiz'd, and thence concludes, that the Church depends not on [Page 33] any particular mans person, but consists in those that profess the true faith of Christ. He sees not your consequence; That be­cause the Bishop of Rome falls into Heresie, therefore the Church of Rome must be He­retical; but maintains the contrary.

25. But behold Marcellinus an Idola­ter, who denyed Christ, and offred sacri­fice to Idols. Answ. So also did S. Peter deny his Master. Marcellinus externally denyed Christ for fear of torments; so did St. Peter for fear of the Jews: yet they both confest Christ in their hearts, though they both grievously sinned in their exter­nal denying of him: But as S. Peter re­pented, and afterward became a glorious Martyr; so likewise did this blessed Pope follow S. P [...]ter, both in his Repentance and Martyrdom.

But what is this to the Church of Rome? Did all the rest of the Apostles deny Christ, because S. Peter denyed him? I suppose, no man of reason will say so; and if not, why should the whole Church of Rome be said to forsake her faith, because her Bi­shop for fear of torments denyed Christ in some ex [...]ior action, as S. Peter had done before him by oaths, and execrations? Perchance, you will say, that S. Peter was not as truly chief of the Apostles, and head [Page 34] of that Church. which was then in being, when he denyed his Master, as Marcellinus was Bishop of Rome. To this I answer, that our blessed Saviour had then founded his Church, viz. the night before S. Peters denial; when he gave an end to the legal types and ceremonies, and instituted the substance, the blessed Sacrament of his pre­tious body and bloud.

The Church thus founded, S. Peter must necessarily be the head thereof, and conse­quently chief of all the Apostles, unless you will deny the Apostles to be part of that Church, which was then in being. And he that shall deny S. Peter [...]o be he [...] th [...]re­of, gives Christ the lye; who formerly had made that promise to S. Peter in plain and express words, Matth. 16. 18. Thou ar [...] a rock, and up [...]n this rock will I build my Church. Christ said not; thou art Peter, and upon this Rock will I build my Church; as you falsly translate, to deceive the world; but, Thou art Cephas, (which in the Syrian language, which our Savi­our then spake, signifies a Rock; and up­on this Cephas (that is, this Rock) will I build my Church.

Our blessed Saviour used not two diffe­rent words, as you would make the world believe, as [Peter] in one place; and [Page 35] [Rock] in the other; but in both places used the word (Cephas) which signifies a Rock, that being the name which Christ gave to Peter when he first call'd him. And though the Catholike Translaters of the New Testament, who profess to follow exactly the vulgar Latin Edition, as being more authentick, then any Greek Copy now extant in the world, have translated that place, as you do, viz. Thou art Peter, &c. yet have they dealt more ingeniously with the world, in advertising, that the word [Peter] signifies a Rock; and that our blessed Saviour used not two, but one and the same word [Cephas,] which signi­fies a Rock, in that promise made to S. Pe­ter; whereas you, though professing to follow the Original, yet when it makes a­gainst you forsake it, and follow the Latin; and when that makes against you, then you pretend to follow the Original. Thus you will alwayes have a shift to delude the world, and your own souls; for had you in that place followed the Original, you should have translated it, [Thou art a Rock,] not [Thou art Peter:] besides in the Greek the words are [...] which word [...] signifies a Rock, as ruly, and as properly as [...].

So then Christ founded his Church on [Page 36] S. Peter as a Rock, as the very connexion of the words demonstrate: For in these words of our blessed Saviour [I say unto thee (Peter,) thou art a Rock, and upon this Rock will I build my Church.] Can any reasonable man imagine, that by those words [This Rock] Christ meant any o­ther Rock then that whereof he made men­tion, in the words immediately preceding, viz. Thou art a Rock?

It is then most apparent that Christ built his Church on S. Peters person, at least, as to the Discipline and Govern­ment thereof, and consequently upon his Successors. For if our blessed Saviour knew that his Church, even in her very infancy, when the Apostles themselves inspired with the Holy Ghost, where a great part 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 Ʋniversal 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 [Page 37] and modern unanimously agree; and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christs Church ever was, and ever must be S. Peters Successor, who hithet [...]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 sa [...]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 exc [...]pt against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact; for it cannot appear that Stella [Page 38] 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: 'tis 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 [Page 39] 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, M [...]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 [Page 40] 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 Proposi [...]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; [...]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, [Page 41] 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 [Page 42] 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 this Ʋigilius, 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 [Page 43] 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 [Page 44] 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 Ancestor [...] 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 [...]o, and to be judg'd by the Scripture: but do you not [Page 45] 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 [Page 46] 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 [Page 47] 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 [Page 48] Head of Christs Church, appointed by Christ himself to be so; as St. Peters suc­cessor. For no particular Church, or per­son, ever was, or could be in communion with the Church of Rome, that denied, or questioned this Doctrine, or that refused to yeeld obedience to the Sea of Rome, as the Head and Mother of all Churches, and to the Bishop thereof as Christs Vicar Ge­neral on Earth. How then came you (in England) to find out that at last, which your Ancestors for almost 1000. years could not discover? They all even from the first conversion of this Nation to the Christian Faith, by St. Augustine, to K. Hen. eights Defection, were subject to the Sea of Rome, and to the Bishop thereof, as Christs immediate Vicar, and under him, the supream head of the Catholike Church. How come you to be wiser then all your fore-fathers, and the whole world b [...]sides? Can it be reasonably supposed, that those great Patriarchs of the [...]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 [Page 49] 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 ma [...] ­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 communica [...]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 s [...]nse the Roman Church is called the Catholique Church, though I have already shewed you, yet I will here [Page 50] 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 Ʋnity, 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 [Page 51] 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, [Page 52] 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, [Page 53] [Roman Catholique] as if those words implyed a contradiction, in signify­ing Particular, and yet Ʋniversal.

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 D [...]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 no [...] the wri­tings of the Ancient Fathers full of i [...]? 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 con [...]ess this to be an apparent and unque­stionable Truth. Besides, consider that the Primacy and authority of St. Peter, and his Successors, the Bishops of Rome, as [Page 54] it has been a Doctrine universally receiv'd, so has it no known beginning since the time of the Apostles; and therefore ac­cording to the principles of common Rea­son, we ought to imbrace it as an Apostoli­cal Tradition. Were not all the churches in the world formerly united and subject to the Sea of Rome? Does it not plainly appear in antient Records and Histories, when the Eastern churches first separated from her communion, and denied obedience to the Bishop of Rome? Is it not appa­rent when, and how often those pretended churches have been reconcil'd to the Ro­man Catholique Church? Have not the Pa­triatchs of Constantinople themselves pro­fest and acknowledg'd their obedience and subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as S. Pe­ters Successor, and Supreme Head of Christs Church? Was there ever any So­ciety of men professing the name of Christ, and divided from the Church of Rome, that did not first separate themselves from her communion?

He then that is no Roman Catholique, is none at all, since by his Schisme he has cut himself off from the communion of the Catholique Church,, and to justifie his Schisme, he must necessarily fall into Here­sie, by denying this Doctrine of Faith, viz▪ [Page 55] That the Roman Church is the Mother and Head of all churches, and the Bishop there­of appointed by Christ, as S. Peters Suc­cessor, to be the Supreme Pastor and Go­vernour of his Catholique Church.

I know you will deny this to be a Do­ctrine of Faith, but you must then con­demn the Fathers that taught it, the Coun­cels that declar'd it; The learned Fathers of the Church (S. Irenaeus li. 3. c. 3.) S. Hie­rome Epist. 57. S. Cyprian de Ʋnitat. Ec­cles. S. Basil concion. de penitent. S. Leo, Serm. 1. in Natal. Apostolor. Petr. & Paul. Gelasius. in decret. cum 70. Episco­pis. S. Augustin. Epist. 92. as also the re­verend Pastors of the church assembled in divers General Councels: In the first Ge­neral Councel of Nice, Can. 6. in the Councel of Ephesus, Act. 3. in the Coun­cel of Calcedon, Act. 16. and in the Epi­stle, or relation sent to Pope Leo from the whole Councel; in the Councel at Sardis, Can. 3. could plainly see this Doctrine in Scripture, and so might you too, if you would but open your eyes, and not onely there, but in the Universal Tradition and practise of the church. This Doctrine was receiv'd by the church of England for al­most a 1000. years together, without inter­ruption; How then come you to be wiser [Page 56] then all your Forefathe [...]s for so many ages? You receiv'd the Scriptures from them, and to think that they could no [...] inte [...]pret them as well as you, is excessive pride, and insolent madness.

A world of testimonies might be brought in confirmation of this Doctrine, but it has been already so fully, and so of­ten prov'd by many learned Catholiques, that it may be altogether unnecessary for me to add any further proofs, especially since my intention is to contain my selfe within the bounds of [...] short R [...]ply.

Wherefore the pretended Greek Church (though it abhor and de [...]st your new Do­ctrines, as damnable and H [...]retical, as ap­pears evidently by the book enti [...]led [ [...] ­remiae [...]atriarchae [...], sententia definitiva [...] Doctr [...]a & Reli­gione Wittenberge [...]sium Theologorum, &c.] An. 1586.) is now no church at all, as neither are you, but a dead branch lop'd off by Schisme and H [...]resie from the Tree of Life, a corrupt member cu [...] off from Christs mystical body.

33. But to justi [...]ie this your Schism, you alledg certain Canons of the c [...]u [...]ches, which a [...]u [...]e you, that every Provincial Synod, is to order all things within the Pro­vince.

[Page 57] Answ. If you mean by [All things] all things amiss in matters concerning man­ners and Discipline, I can easily grant it; but this will not satisfie you. The Church (you say) did usually reform, both in man­ners and faith, by Diocesan, and Provin­cial Councels.

Answ. I confess the Pope has confirm'd the Acts and Decr [...]es of divers Provincial Councels, even concerning matters of Fai [...]h, as when they have condemn'd some apparent and notorious Heresie, and ana­thematiz'd such Heretiques as have oppo­sed, either a Doctrine universally known, and receiv'd by the whole church, or els some Declaration and Definition of a former General Councel: and this is all that you can gather, either out of the Afri­can Code, or the canons of any Councel, either General o [...] Provincial.

As for the Code of the Universal Church, by you cited, you must know Doctor, that it was compiled by Schismatiques and He­retiques, who to diminish and derogate from the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, have apparently fal­ [...]i [...]ied divers canons of the Councel of Sar­di [...].

But that General Doctrines universally receiv'd and taught by the whole Catho­lique [Page 58] Church, as Doctrines descending by Ʋniversal Tradition from Christ and his Apostles, and declar'd to be such by Ge­neral Councels; should be censur'd and condemn'd, first by one single person, and afterwards by those only that followed him in his Apostasie and Heresie, for damn­able errors must necessarily appear to any reasonable and impartial spirit, not onely most unreasonable and temerarious, but sacrilegious and damnable; yet this you have done, charging the whole world with gross and damnable errors, and alledging Scripture to prove them so, to which you appeal to justifie your Apostasie, making your selves the sole Judges and Interpreters thereof.

34. But I meet with a testimony of S. Hi­lary of Poicteurs, to prove, that Rome was once not only distinct from, but not so much as a part of the Catholique Church, his words cited are these; Quidam ex vo­bis firmissima fidei constantia intra commu­nionem se me am continentes; se à coeteris extra Gallias abstinuerunt. And hence you conclude, that the Church of France at that time communicated not with Rome, unless we can prove Rome to be in France.

Answ. This is much like your former consequences: S. Hilary was not so simple [Page 59] as to think the whole Catholique Church was at that time confin'd to one Country or Nation; he only commended the con­stancy of his Countrymen, in persevering in the Catholique Faith, and not commu­nicating with the Arrians, which swarm'd in divers places out of France. If then by those words [coeteris extra Gallias] you would exclude all the world, besides France, from the Catholique Church, you will but make your self ridiculous to the world, in making that great Pillar of the Gallican Church speak that, which all the world knows to be false; for at that time, neither the Church of Rome, nor any Westerne Church was infected with Arrianism, as appears plainly by S. Basil, who was S. Hi­laries Cretanean, and a Bishop in the Ea­stern Church, viz. of Cappado­cia; his word [...] are these, Vos par erat in­telligere, quod per Dei gratiam quamplu­rimi sint, qui sidem tuentur Orthodoxam à Patribus Nicaenis secundum pic [...]tis re­gulam traditam; ne (que) vos per Orientem soli sitis relicti; at verò universus quidem Oc­cidens vobiscum 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 [Page 60] 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 n [...]x [...] Father of the Church that I m [...]et with is Arch-bishop Lawd (as you are pleas'd to call him) whose authority you have often cited, which I cannot but wond [...]r at, since he was so far from being a Father, that he neither liv [...]d nor died a Son of the Church; but the Doctor, out of that pretended A [...]ch-bishops book, charges [...]h [...] Church of Rome with four opi­nions [...]pugnant to th [...] pl [...]in words of Scri­pture, viz. 1. [...]ransubstan [...]ation. 2 Admi­nistration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind. 3. Invo [...]ation of Saints. 4. Adoration of Images.

Answ. Though it be not much perti­nent to our present purp [...]se to examine these D [...]ct [...]ines according to Scripture; since the Doctor conf [...]ss [...]s that the Church of Rome, n [...]twithstanding her errors, is a tr [...] Church, and a member of the one Ca­tholique, Sect. 12. yet because he b [...]lieves the Church of Rome is justly charged with th [...]se [...]nsound and un-Catholike Doctrines (as [...] is pleased to ca [...] them) I could not pass them by; but shall endeavour as briefly [Page 61] as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false c [...]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 vi [...]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 Ma [...]. 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 [...]oo. Instead then of a Repugnancy, here is a ful [...] consent and agreement between the plain word [...] of our Savi [...]ur, and th [...] Doctrine of the Church of Rome. Well, but the words are not to [Page 62] 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 Doct [...]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, [Page 63] 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 Br [...]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 [Page 64] then that which was c [...]ain'd in the cup, was that which was sh [...]d for the sins of the world, how could it be Wine, o [...] a sign or figu [...]e [...]ly of Christs bloud, or any thing else, but the true and real bloud of Christ? For no sign o [...] 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 [Page 65] 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; whe [...]efore that Cup could not be a sign onely, but the tru precious bloud of our Saviour.

Wh [...]t say you Doctor? who now 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 [Page 66] 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 sel [...]) 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. [...]o. ad Pop. Antiochen. Behold t [...]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 [Page 67] following in the same Homily; Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt, ne (que) liberè audent intueri propter emic [...]ntem inde splendorem, hoc nos pascimur. That which the Angels tremble to behold, and scarce dare presume to look upon, by reason of i [...]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 [...]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; Ne (que) 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 [Page 68] his own body, not by Faith only, but truly and really. And (Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio.) the same Father thus saith; Ʋnum corpus e [...]icimur &c. Ʋt ita (que) non tantùm per charitatem hoc [...]iamus, verum etiam ipsa re, in illam misceamur carnem; hoc nam (que) 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 [...]a & immuta [...] ipse est. We supply the place of Minist [...]rs, but he that sancti­fies and changes them is (Christ) himself. Here is a change, and that by the power of Ch [...]ist, not the [...] by the Faith of the com­mu [...]icant.

38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose [Page 69] sayes, (de Sacram. [...]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 po [...]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 Consecra­ [...]ion pronounc't by the Priest; then doubt­less, not by the faith and charity of the communicant.

[Page 70]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 p [...]esent in the Sacrament, or a necessary condition, with­out [Page 71] 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, 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, [Page 72] 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 c [...]n b [...] but (at the most) deducible from some places of the Scripture [...], which being obscur [...] and a [...]bi­guous, [Page 73] 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 Mani [...]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 antien [...] 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 confi [...]mation thereof, Jo. 6. 59. He that eateth this [Page 74] 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. Ʋnless 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: Wh [...]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 [Page 75] 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 ou [...] 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 [Page 76] 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 Inv [...] ­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, Ʋnde notandum est (saith he) non­solùm ex [...]u [...]itionem, sed & invocationem [Page 77] 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 [Page 78] 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 modest [...]y in refusing the adoration.

[Page 79]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 ad [...]untes, sed ut homines divinos orantes, & intercessores pro ipsis fieri postulantes, Serm. 8. de cu­rand. Graecor. affectionib. (sive) de Mar­tyribus. [Page 80] 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 Cel [...]stines De­legate; Salve à nobis D [...]ipara Maria, per quam preti [...]sa Cru [...] cel [...]bratur, & adoratur universo [...]rbe. [...]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. B [...]si [...] (Epist, 205. ad Iulian Apost.) who lived in the yeare of Christ 370. Sanctos Apostolos Prophetas, & Martyres i [...]o [...]o, ut apud Deum suppli [...]ent, & characteres imaginum ipsorum honoro & veneror his traditis à sanctis Apostolis. I invocate the holy [...]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 [Page 81] 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. E [...] 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 [Page 82] 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 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. ba­b [...]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 [Page 83] be given unto them; a [...] 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. [Page 84] 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 [Page 85] 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 [Page 86] 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 Ʋi­gilantius, 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 [...]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 Nazi­ [...]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 [Page 87] 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 conservat [...]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 Co [...]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 Image­breakers, as Heretiques. I omit also the present practise of the pretended Greek Church, which you may plainly read in I [...]remias, Patriarch of Constantinople; (Cersura Orient. Eccles. c. 21.) where he maintains and vindicates this Doctrine of [Page 88] honoring and reverencing Images from superstition and Idolatry, against the Pro­testants. All these I purposely pass by, be­cause I will contain my self within the first five hundred years, to which you have ap­pealed. You see then, Doctor, the practise and doctrine of the Church within five hundred years after Christs birth, in the Fathers and Councels above-cited. Be now as good as your word, submit to their sen­tence for trial of the truth of Religion, and you will (by Gods grace) soon return to your Mother, the Roman Catholique Church.

Thus is that charge, which you say (Sect. 28. of your second answer) We know not how to shift off, fully answer'd.

45. In the next Sect. 25. I meet with some Authorities against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. The first is of S. I­renaeus, who sharply checked and reproved Bishop Victor for keeping such a stir about the observation of Easter, and excommuni­cating divers Churches, because they would not stoop to his lure. Answ. That Pope Victor, who govern'd the Church about 200. years after the birth of our Saviour, excommunicated the Churches of Asia for their too much Judaizing in the observati­on of Easter, is a very strong argument a­gainst [Page 89] you. For first, S. Victor was a pious and blessed man, and therefore it cannot be reasonably imagin'd, that he would u­surp a power which Christ never gave him. Secondly, those Churches of Asia never protested against his Jurisdiction over them, which certainly they would have done, had not the Church in those dayes esteemed the Bishop of Rome the common Pastor of Christs Church, and appointed by Christ to be under him, the supreme Head there­of. Thirdly, when S. Irenaeus expostulated with him for his severity in excommunica­ting the Eastern Churches, he never char­ged him for transgressing the bounds of his Jurisdiction, or for usurping a power which Christ never delegated unto him, which in all probability he would have done, had he not look't on the Bishop of Rome, as the supreme visible Head of Christs Church. But because he conceiv'd not their offence so [...]ainous, as to deserve so heavy a cen­sure; he therefore took upon him to re­prove Pope Victor, by way of friendly and fraternal correction, as S. Paul somtimes did S. Peter; and as S. Paul never questi­on'd S. Peters Jurisdiction, nor denied him to be the chief and Head of the Apo­stles; so neither did S. Irenaeus, nor any of the Eastern Church, that were excom­municated [Page 90] by Pope Victor, question or pro­test against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.

And those words of S. Cyprian in the Councel of Carthage, are to be understood of the African Bishops only, who being of equal authority, could not excommunicate one another: They exclude not the Juris­diction of the Bishop of Rome; otherwise S. Cyprian had contradicted himself, who sayes plainly (Epist. ad Quintinum, and Serm. de [...]on. patient.) that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter: and (li. 4. ep. 8. ad Cornel.) that the Unity of the Catho­lique Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome: His words you shall find hereafter. Sect. 58.

In the next place Sect. 26. enters an an­gry Bishop of Cappado [...]ia, Firmilianus, speaking thus to Pope Stephen: Teipsum excidisti, noli te fallere, Mistake no [...] thy self, thou Bishop of Rome, while thou go [...]st about to cast out others, by this presumpti­on thou hast cast off thy self from the body of Christ, which is his Church. Ans. By your leave, Doctor, you misunderstand Fir­milianus, he speaks not as you would have him. Indeed he was very angry with Pope Stephen, because he excommunicated him for maintaining that Heretical Doctrine of [Page 91] rebaptizing Heretiques: He never told Pope Stephen, that he had cut himselfe off from the Church, because he excommuni­cated Firmilianus, or any other Bishop [...] ▪ but he was willing the world should think that Pope Stephen, in defending the Bap­tism of Heretiques to be lawful, had sided with them in their Heresies, and had there­fore cut himself off from the Church, not because he had excommunicated any Here­tical Bishop of the East, but because (as Firmilianus conceiv'd) he too much com­plyed with Heretiques. And you know, Doctor, the very same Doctrine, for which Firmilianus was excommunicated, was af­terward, in the first General Councel of Nice, declar'd to b [...] Heretical.

46. It is common (say you) in these daies, even with t [...]se that conscientiously pretend to truth, not to be content with the Rule of Faith, wh [...] [...]as once delivered to the Saints, and [...] from them by the Primitive [...] transmitted [...]o posterity; bu [...] [...] after n [...]w invention [...] [...] [...]hese courses I abhor with a [...].

Ans. Here D [...]ctor, you have directly given sentence against your self: If you will but examine the Doctrines of the Roman Church, and your Doctrines, wherein you [Page 92] oppose and differ from her: but according to S. Augustines Rule (de Baptis. li. 2. c. 23.) and the principles of common rea­son, you will soon discover which is the Rule of Faith deliver'd to the Saints, re­ceiv'd from them by the Primitive Church, & so transmitted to posterity; and which are those new inventions: For it is impossible, that either you, or any Protestant in the world can shew or prove, that any one Do­ctrine which the Roman Church at this day maintains and teaches, had its beginning, or crept into the Church since Christ and his Apostles: Whereas on the contrary, there is not one Doctrine wherein you dif­fer from the Roman Church, but may be, and has been often already prov'd and de­monstrated to have begun since the time of the Apostles. How then do you abhor with a perfect hatred these courses, since you have imbrac't new inventions, and to­tally forsaken the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints, receiv'd from them by the Primitive Church, and transmitted to Po­sterity? If it can be clearly demonstrated, that all your Doctrines wherein you differ from the Roman Church are new; and if it cannot be proved, that any one Do­ctrine of the Roman Church had its begin­ning since the Apostles, either you abhor [Page 93] not these courses with a perfect hatred (as you profess) or else you must in all points imbrace the Doctrine of the Roman Church.

47. But stay; Here I meet with a brace of fierce Syllogismes, that fly furiously at the very throat of the poor Church of Rome. The first is this.

• That Church which hath erred, is not the Pillar and ground of truth. But
• The Church of Rome hath erred.
• Ergo: The Church of Rome is not the Pillar and ground of Truth.

The minor is thus prov'd by the second Syllogism.

• That Church which hath professed Mon­tanism, Arrianism, Eutychianism, hath erred: But,
• The Church of Rome hath professed all these:
• Ergo, The Church of Rome hath erred.

And this minor (you say) you have suf­ficiently proved Sect. 18. 27. But I have more sufficiently proved, that you have there proved nothing at all, but are forc't to fly to most ridiculous shifts and fallacies; and those fallacies I meet with here again, Sect. 3 [...]. where the Church of Rome is charg'd with all sins almost imagineable, and divers Authors are cited to prove that charge. Let us see then how they prove it.

[Page 94] Plarina and Onuphrius are produc't to prove, that Schism was rais'd there. What then? Was the Church of Rome therefore Schismatical, because some rais'd a Schism there? I told you before, that the Authors only of the Schism, and those that adhere to them are the Schismatiques, they have forsaken the Church, they have cut them­selves off from Christs body; the Church it self remains still sound and entire. But that Stella and Almain should charge the Church of Rome with Heresie, to say no more, is most false. I must once more put you in mind what Stella sayes in the place by you cited, Luc. 22. 31. Ecclesia Anti­ochena, Alexandrina, & Constantinopoli­tana saepe defecerunt à fide, Ecclesia verò Romana nunquam defecit. The Church of Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantino­ple have often fallen from the Faith, but the Church of Rome [...] fell from the Faith. Remember [...] and never produce Stella [...] purpose. And what if there [...] many [...]nd great sinners in the Church [...] what is this to her Faith and [...] What if She wanted Reformation [...] man­ners and Discipline? what is that to Her belief? What if s [...]me Popes have been vi­tious? was the Church of Rome there­fore [Page 95] vicious? and what if some Popes of Rome had fallen from their Faith, must the Church of Rome therefore forsake her Faith?

There was a time (you say, out of Ba­ronius, An. Christi 908. n. 5. and An. 931. n. 1.) when Marozia, and her Daughter (a couple of lewd Strumpets) disposed of the Popedome for many years, so that none possessed that Chair, but Boys, Fools, and Kuaves Answ. I pray, tell me, Doctor, did the Church of Rome at that time con­sist only of Boys, Fools, and Knaves? When the Popes were Boys, wasthere not one man, woman, or child in the whole Church of Rome? Or when they were Fools, or Knaves, were there then no wise or honest men in that Church? These con­sequences must follow as well as the other. For if it follow, that because some Popes have been vicious, therefore the whole Church of Rome in those daies was also vicions? or because Marcellinus, Liberi­us, and 10. 22. denied Iesus Christ to be the true God and Eternal Life, therefore in those daies Rome was no Church, but an Antichristian Synagogue, as you infer, Sect. 17. It follows as necessarily; that be­cause some Popes have been boys, there­fore in those times the Church of Rome [Page 96] consisted only of boys, and that there were neither men, women, nor children in the whole Church: as likewise, because some Popes have been fools and knaves, that therefore at that time there were no wise nor honest men in the Church of Rome. To such miserable and ridiculous shifts are Heretiques driven, whose pride and obstinacy is such, that they will ra­ther damn their own souls, then confess their errors.

47. But by the way, Doctor, I must de­sire you to observe, that those Popes whom B [...]ronius complains of, in the places by you cited, (An. 908. nu. 5. and An. 931. nu. 1.) were but Pseudo-Popes, not law­fully elected, but intruding into the Papacy by the power of the Marquesses of Tuscany; his words are these, Mortuo Stephano po­tentia Widonis Tusciae Marchionis, & Maroziae matris, Sergii Pseudo-Popae exdicto scorto Marozia filius, &c. An. 931. where you find Sergius mention'd in your former citation, An. 908. but a Pse [...]do-Pope; a meer Usurper, and his Bastard Iohn made Pope after Stephen, by the power Wido Marquess os Tuscany: and a little after he has these words, It à planè tantae vires Marchionibus Tusciae in urbe erant, ut pro arbitrio quos vellent, [...] Pon­tificiali [Page 97] sede deponerent, & alios intrude­rent. Here you see those Princes so power­ful in Rome, that they could dispose, and set up what Popes they pleas'd. And I must desire you, good Doctor, to take this also along with you, and that from Baronius, that in all the time of those wicked, usurp­ing, Schismatical Popes, Gods providence was over his Church, that notwithstand­ing these distracted and calamitous times, yet the Roman Church was preserv'd free, both from Schism and Heresie: For had you cast your eye but a little farther, from nu. 5. to nu. 7. you should have found these words, Cùm tanta ista urgerent hoe saecu­lo mala, & scandala increbrescerent, tamen non est inventus qui eâ de causâ se ab ip [...]â Ecclesiâ Romanâ abscinderet Schismate, aut Heresi eandem impugnaret, sed omnes ubi (que) [...]entium eidem Fidei vinculo, & o­bedientiae foedere juncti persistebant. An. 908. n. 7. You see then that Baronius could not see your consequence, that be­cause there were some tyrannical, usurping, and Schismatical Popes, therefore the whole Church of Rome must fail, or be­come Schismatical: and I am somewhat confident, that D. Boughen was the first that ever discover'd this undiscoverable consequence.

[Page 98]48. Those other words that you produce our of Baronius (An. 373. n. 21.) where­by you would make the world believe, that Baronius held an opinion, that the Pope by his own authority might make and alter Decrees in matters of Faith, as he pleas'd, are to be understood only thus, That the Pops, with the advise of his Bishops, may in a private Councel for the peace and qui­etness of the Church, till a General Coun­cel may be call'd, publish Decrees concern­ing Doctrines of Faith; as also revoke, or alter such Decrees, according as it shall be found necessary or convenient for the peace and unity of the Church: But that the Pope can of himself revoke or alter the De­crees, determinations, or definitions of Ge­neral Councels concerning Doctrines of Faith, this Baronius never taught: he was too great a Scholar, and too good a Ca­tholique to maintain such a temerarious (I might say Heretical) Doctrine: and that this is the meaning of Baronius in that place, may appear by the context of his Narration, where he declares the readi­ness of S. Gregory Nazianzen to acqui­esce and submit to the Decree of Pope Da­masus, (who then govern'd the Church) upon a supposition, that the Pope had ad­mitted the Apollinarians to the Councel [Page 99] at Rome, which not withstanding was but a false pretence of the Apollinarians; where you may observe Doctor, that this blessed man was a Bishop in the Eastern Church, and had formerly wrote sharply against the Apollinarians; and yet upon a supposition, (though false) that they were reconcil'd to the Pope, and admitted to the Councel at Rome, he profest, that he would in all submission to the Pope, acquiesce, and not presume to censure, or question any Act or determination of the Pope, though it were concerning Doctrines of Faith.

49. I have now past through your first answer, and purposed to have here conclu­ded; but I meet with an impertinent au­thority of Doctor Lawd, which though I might justly have past by, without taking any notice thereof, as having undertaken an answer to D. Boughen, not D. Lawd, especially since this of D. Lawd is already sufficiently answer'd, Sect. 28. yet I have thought fit to make this further examinati­on of it.

To the question then; Where was your Church before Luther? D. Lawd answers, Where ours is now. Answ. If by [ours] he means the particular Church of Rome, I must confess his answer to be true; for [Page 100] the particular Church of Rome is a part or member af the Roman Catholike Church, and so were you before Luther; but with him you have apostatiz'd, and are fallen into Schism and He resie, and instead of a Church, you are become an Heretical and Schismatical Congregation. Luther for­sook the whole Church, and those, that soon after his Apostacy adhered to his He­resies, followed him also in his Apostacy, they having been all members of that Church which Luther had forsaken. But this, you will say, was no separation, but a reformation, for that D. Lawd drives at; One and the same Church still (saith he) one in substance, but not one in con­dition of state and purity, your part of the same Church (by [your part] he means the Church of Rome) remaining in corrup­tion, and our part of the same Church un­der Reformation. Good God, how can a­ny society of men, professing themselves Christians, be one and the same Church, and that in substante with that, from which they separated both in Faith and commu­nion? Or what can be a separation, if this be not? If you have not separated your selves from the Catholique Church, then were the Arrians, Nestorians, Macedont­ans, Pelagians, &c. no Heretiques; nei­ther [Page 101] were they separated from the Catho­lique Church, but were only under Refor­mation. Do not you oppose and deny Do­ctrines of Faith, as antiently and as uni­versally receiv'd by the Church, as those that the Arrians, Nestorians, Macedoni­ans, Pelagians, &c. oppos'd and denied? What difference can you make between Ar­rius and Luther, in respect of their apo­stasie? Did not Luther set himself against the whole world as well as Arrius? Did not the whole Christian world, besides your selves, upon your first Reformation (as you call it) detest your new Doctrines, and abhor your communion? Did not the pretended Greek Church it self (into whose communion you were Petitioners to be ad­mitted) condemn your new Doctrines as Heretical, and refuse to receive you into their communion? Read the book entitu­led, Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae; and you shall there find the Greek Church main­taining (and that against the Protestants) the Doctrine of seven Sacraments, cap. 7. of Transubstantiation, and real presence of Christs body in the blessed Sacrarmen [...], c. 10. of auricular confession, c. 11. of the un­bloudy propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass, c. 13. of free will, c. 18. of Traditions, c. 20. of Invocation of Saints, and Vene­ration [Page 102] of Images, c. 21. Was there any one man in the whole world, that profest your Foctrine before Luther? and yet, for­sooth, yours was no separation from the Catholique Church, but a Reformation, a blessed Reformation, that must necessarily justifie all former Heresies, that ever were condemn'd, and all Heretiques and Schis­matiques that ever separated themselves from Gods Church. To say no more, where is your succession of Bishops and Pa­stors, which are essential to Gods Church? If the consecration of your pretended Bi­shops was never valid, then must also the Ordination of your pretended Priests be invalid; and it never yet could, nor ever can appear, that you had either Bishop con­secrated, or Priest ordained, either lawfully or validly, since Queen Marye's days. But I am sure there are most strong and preg­nant arguments for the contrary. I deny not, but that perchance there might be some Priests ordained validly (though sacrilegi­ously) by that Apostate Bishop of Spala­to, in the time of his stay in England; but what is that to a succession of Priests and Bishops?

I have now done with the first answer, and pass to the second; which because I find to consist principally of scurrilityes, [Page 103] personal and malicious invectives, and re­petitions of former fallacies, my reply will be the shorter, since I shall in many things refer the Reader to my former an­swers, and take notice here only of that which I shall find to be new matter.

50. And here at the very first entrance I meet with an old fallacy, a ridiculous ar­gument already answered, Sect. 5. to which I must refer the Reader. I will here add this only; That before S. Peter translated his Chair from Antioch to Rome, the Ca­tholique Church might be properly called the Church of Antioch, which ever since has been called the Roman Church, and e­ver will be, until S. Peters Successor shall translate his Chair to some other place.

51. After this follows a most notorious falshood, viz. That in the time of S. Hilary of Poicteurs, there was at Rome no Church, no communion of Saints, She and those in communion with her, were [...]ereti­cal, and complied with Arrius: This is most apparently false by the Records of all Histories; for at that time the Westerne Church was nothing so much infected with Arrianism, as the Eastern, besides S. Hi­lary in that place by you cited Sect. [...]3. has not so much as named the Church of Rome, and therefore has not in particular exclu­ded [Page 104] it from the Catholique Church. But from those words of the Father [caeteris extra Gallias] you would prove, that all the world besides France was out of the Catholique Church; for (say you) There was then no communion with Rome, unless it can be prov'd, that Rome was in France, Sect. 23. But pray tell me Doctor, Was A­lexandria and Sardinia more in France, then Rome? and yet you here confess, that at the very same time those were Catholike and Orthodox Churches; so that it must necessarily follow, either that Alexandria and Sardinia were in France, or else that some other Churches, besides France, were Catholique and Orthodox, and if so, why not Rome? especially since that Father did not in particular charge Rome with Arrianism, more then Alexandria and Sardinia; so that if you by those general words of the Father will exclude Rome, I may also as well exclude Alexandria and Sardinia from the Catholique Church: Wherefore you have forc't your self to in­terpret those words of the Father, as I have done, Sect. 34. or else you must unsay what you have said, and deny Alexandria and Sardinia to have been at that time Catho­lique and Orthodox Churches, unless you can prove, that Alexandria and Sardinia are in France.

[Page 105]52. Hitherto then you have shewed no Church at all distinct from the Roman Church in any age, though you were pleas'd to say Sect. 3. of this second answer, That your learning is such, that you doe know such a Church, and your charity such, that you have shews it.

It seems you shewed it so well, that M. T. B. was thereby fully satisfied, that the Catholique Church never was, nor can be distinct from the Church of Rome; and has thereupon imbraced her communion, and is by Gods grace, become a good Ca­tholique. Thus has God been pleased to produce good out of evil, to work his hap­piness out of your ignorance, and to streng­then him by your weakness.

53. I pass by your scurrilous speeches a­against M. T. B. as your comparing him to Seneca's wives fool; your charging him for not being able to search the Scriptures, Councels, and Fathers, to discover the an­tiquity and succession of your Doctrine there (where no man ever yet did, or can discover it) I will only say this, that M. T. B. has shewn more wit and judgment in one line, then you have in all your Pamphlet, and has said more in one sentence, then you, or all the Rabble of your Sect can answer in an age. But let us see how you [Page 106] prove the antiquity of your Doctrine.

54. The Doctrine (you say) of the Church of England is clear in your Book of Common-Prayer, as for the positive part; and in your book of Articles, where­in much is Negattve. Answ. A very an­tient Doctrine then it must be, your Book of Common-Prayer being made not much above 100. years since, viz. 29. May 1549. in the reign of K. Edward the Sixth; and your Book of Articles not much above half an hundred. But was your book of Common-Prayer intended for a Confession of Faith, or for publique Service and De­votion? Is there any point of Faith or Doctrine absolutely declar'd and defin'd there▪ You will say, perchance, that in the three Creeds are contain'd divers De­claratious and definitions of Faith; I con­fess it, but those Creeds are not inserted there meerly as definitions of Faith, with a precept under a curse, that all should be­lieve whatsoever is there declard, but as parts of your Publique Service, that by frequent repetition thereof, the vulgar people might know the principal points of Faith necessary for salvation, I deny not; but some Doctrines may be deducible thence, though nothing positively declared, it being a book which belongs rather to the [Page 107] Discipline, then Doctrine of your pretend­ed Church.

55. The positive Doctrine, you say, of your Church contained in that Book, was ever professed, and is visible in all Catho­lique Writers. Answ. I confess, that most (if not all) of the Doctrines deducible thence, were ever professed, and are visi­ble in all Catholique Writers, because they are the Doctrines of the Roman Catholike Church, whence you have borrowed them, as you have your whole book of Common-Prayer, and the Scripture it self, only you have taken the sacrilegious boldness to expunge out of both what your private phancies would not admit: but if you can shew any one of your negative or positive Doctrines contain'd in your book of Ar­ticles, and which is opposite to the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome, in any one Catholique Writer, Father, or Councel, from the time of the Apostles to Luthers Apostasie, I here profess before all the world, that I will then become a Prote­stant my self, or whatsoever else you will command me to be.

56. But whereas you say, That the most skilful (of the Roman Catholique Party) are not able to shew a succession of men pro­fessing the Doctrine of the Church of [Page 108] Rome, in the first 700. years of Christia­nity: I am so amaz'd, that I know not whether I should charge you with gross ig­norance, or hellish malice: In plain terms, you must be either a most ignorant ani­mal, or a malicious deceiver. Is it possible that you should obtrude such a notorious falshood to the world, and not blush? cer­tainly you never read the Fathers, nor Councels, nor therein examin'd the anti­ent Doctrine and practise of the Church, or if you have (as you pretend) your judgment is not sufficient to understand them; or else malice and obstinacy hath so blinded you, that you cannot see it there, as the malicious and obstinate Jews could not see our blessed Saviours Divinity through so many stupendious miracles. The Sun it self was never so clear at noon­day, as the succession of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and of men profes­sing the same, not only for the first 700. years of Christianity, but from the time of the Apostles to this present day. Has it not been already clearly shewn by divers learned Catholique Writers, by you yet un-answer'd? Has not Bellarmine, Ba­ronius, Cardinal Peron, D. Stratford, &c. most evidently manifested it to the world? Were I not confin'd within the narrow [Page 109] precincts of a Reply, I could most plainly demonstrate it my self; but it would re­quire a far larger volume then I have now time or opportunity to compose: It is suf­ficient for me, since you have appealed to the first 500. years after our Saviours birth, that I have proved (Sect. 44.) that the Doctrine of those times is not different from, but the very same with the present Doctrine of the Roman Catholike Church.

57. Your Church (of England) you say, has been visible since the first or second Conversion, though not alwayes under Re­formation. Answ. Which you mean by the first or second Conversion, I know not; but from the time of her last Conversion by S. Augustine the Monk (which is com­monly reputed her third conversion) for almost 1000. years together, you were an apparent visible part of the Church Catho­lique; but when you began your blessed Reformation, you then ceast to be a Church, or a part of the Catholique Church. For in K. Hen. eight's dayes you began your Schism, separating your selves from the communion of your holy Mother the Church of Rome, and the Bishop there­of, the common Pastor of Christs Church; and in K. Edw. the Sixths Reign your Schism begat Heresie, and under this hap­py [Page 110] Reformation you have ever since conti­nued.

But now Doctor, where are your pre­tended Bishops? what is become of your book of Common-Prayer? who now sub­scribes to your 39. Articles? You cannot reasonably deny, but those, who have late­ly reformed you, had more authority and reason for it, then you had to reform the whole Church, or to censure Doctrines of Faith universally taught by Gods Church, and receiv'd as such by all your Fore-fathers, from the time of Englands conversion to the Christian Faith, till after Luthers apostasie: You considered not, when under pretence of Reformation you forsook the whole Church, that you did but leave a patern to your Successors, how they also, when they should think fit, might for­sake you, and reform this your blessed Re­formation, as by Gods just judgments they have lately done: For I am sure they walk by the same Rule of Scripture, and are as competent Judges, and as able interpreters thereof, as ever you were, or can be; only they are not so tyrannical as you were, who forced men against their consciences to subscribe to your Doctrine and Discipline, which according to your own principles, might be erroneous and superstitious.

[Page 111]58. But you say Sect. 9. That you never read in Fathers or Councels, That to com­municate with Rome, is either a sure, or a­ny token of a good Catholique. Answ. Then you never read S. Hieroms 57 Epist. to Pope Damasus, where you might have seen these words, Ego Beatitudini tuae, id est Cathedrae Petri, commumione cons [...]ior, super illam Petram aedificatam Ecclesiam s [...]io, Mat. 16. 18. quicun (que) extra hanc Do­mum agnum comederit, prophanus est; si quis in Arca No [...] non fuerit, peribit reg­nante diluvio; quicun (que) tecum non colli­git, spargit; Hoc est, qui Christi non est, Anti-christi est. I am (saith S. Hierom) joyned in communion to your Holiness, that is, to Peters Chair, upon that Rock I know the Church to be built, whosoever out of this House eats the Ldmb, is prophane; whosoever shall not be in Noahs Ark, shall perish in the Deluge; he that gathers not with thee, scatters, that is, he that is not of Christ, is of Anti-christ. These are S. Hieroms own words, by which it is most plain, that he that is not in communion with S. Peters Chair, with the Church and Bishop of Rome, is out of Gods Church, and therefore no Catholique.

Neither did you ever read S. Ambrose's Funeral Oration on the death of his bro­ther [Page 112] Satyrus, where you might have found these words, Advocavit ad se Episcopum, &c. percontatus (que) ex eo est, utrumnam cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret. He call'd unto him a Bishop, and aked him, whether he were in communion with the Catholique Bishops, that is, with the Church of Rome. And here take notice, Doctor, that this [Hoc est, that is] as likewise that [id est, and hoc est] in the former citation out of S. Hierom, are the Fathers own interpre­tation, not mine.

Had you read S. Augustin's 162. Epistle, you might have discovered these words there: Hic (Caecilianus) contemnere potu it, &c. He (Caecilianus) might despise the conspiring multitude of his enemies, when he perceiv'd himself to be united to the Church of Rome, where the principality of the Apostolique Chair ever flourisht, by communicatory letters. These three learn­ed Fathers, and glorious lights of Gods church were Co [...]taneans, though S. Am­brose died in the fourth century after Christs birth, and S. Hierom and S. Augu­stine in the fift.

Had you read S. Cyprians s [...]cond Epistle to Pope Cornelius, li. 4. who lived in the year of Christ, 250. you might have found [Page 113] these words; Scripsisti etiam, ut exem­plum, &c. You wrote also unto me, to send a copy of those Letters to Cornelius our Colleague, that he laying aside all care, might know that you are in communion with him, that is, with the Catholique Church. This [Hoc est, that is,] also is not my addition, but S. Cyprians own words. It seems you were a stranger to S. I­renaeus's Doctrine, who liv'd in the year of Christ 180. which is this; Ad hanc enim (Romanam) Ecclesiam propter po­tentiorem principalitatem necesse est om­nem convenire Ecclesiam, hoc est [...]os qui sunt undi (que) fideles; It is necessary that e­very Church, that is, all the faithful from all parts, should range themselves to this Church (of Rome) for its more powerful principality, li. 3. c. 3. And now Doctor, what can you say? Methinks you look some­what black upon it; you must withall take notice, that all these Fathers liv'd within the first 500. years to which you have appealed, and there is not one of all these testimo­nies but is plainly against you, evidently proving it not only a sure, but a necessary and essential token of a good Catholique, to communicate with the Church of Rome. A thousand testimonies more might be al­ledg'd, but these are sufficient to publish [Page 114] D. Boughens ignorance to the world. I thought it not impertinent to add one testi­mony more (in confirmation of this, and what I said before, Sect. 32. of John Patri­arch of Constantinople, in his Epistle to Hormisda, who about the beginning of the century, viz. An. 514. was elected Pope, that thereby the communion of the Greek Church with the Roman, and her subjecti­on to the Apostolique Sea of Rome, may plainly appear. Promittentes in seque [...]te tempore, &c. We promise (saith he) here­after not to commemorate those in the sa­cred mysteries, who have been secluded from the communion of the Catholique Church, that is, who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolique. Here is the opinion of the great Patriarch of the East, above a 1100. years since, That those who were separated from the Sea Apostolique, were out of the communion of the Catholique Church: and by this it appears how true your following words are, viz. That faith which we receiv'd from the Apostles, and Councels, and Fathers, we keep whole and undefiled, without alteration, addition, or diminution. What but a shameless man could have the face to publish such a noto­rious falshood to the world? By this ap­pears also how evidently false that saying [Page 115] of yours is (at least as you apply it) in the beginning of your 11. Sect. viz. That this National Church is as much Catho­lique and Apostolique as can be desired.

I confess, this National Church (that is, those that preserve the antient Catho­lique and Apostolique Faith, and keep themselves within the communion of the holy Catholique Church) is, God be prai­sed, as much Catholique and Apostolique, as can be desired: but I am sure, those of your Congregation, or pretended church, are neither Catholique or Apostolique, un­less to forsake the communion of the Ca­tholique Church, and the Doctrines and Traditions of the Apostles, be to be Ca­tholique and Apostolique, as I have alrea­dy abundantly proved. And that Rule which you cite out of Vincent Lyrinens. in the later end of your 10. Sect. [Quod u­bi (que), quod semper, quod ab omnibus, &c. That which hath been believed in all pla­ces, at all times, by all the Fathers, that is truly Catholique] will rise up in Judg­ment against you. By this Rule you have condemn'd your self of Schism and Here­sie; for your Doctrine has been so far from being believed in all places, at all times, and by all the Fathers, that it is im­possible for you to shew any one place, any [Page 116] one time, or any one Father; nay, any one man before Luthers Apostasie, that maintain'd the Doctrines which are now comprised in your Book of Articles: nei­ther can you produce any one person at a­ny time or place, that held any one point of Doctrine, wherein you dissent from, and oppose the Church of Rome, except such only, as were noted by the Church for Innovators in Religion, and condemn'd for Heretiques.

59. And wheras you are pleas'd to insult over Mr. T. B. Sect. 12. in these high and daring speeches. [Is not all true? Refute it if you can: deny it, if you have the face] I, or any reasonable man, may have the face to tell you, that you here show your selfe to be very ignorant, impudent, and imperti­nent. For the Doctrine of that part of your 19. Article. viz. [That the visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithfull me [...] in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly admi­nistred, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same] Mr. T. B. never denied, or question'd; But denies that this doctrine of your 19. Article can consist with your o­pinion, who hold, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, a member of the Church [Page 117] 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 Rome [...] 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 [Page 118] 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 [...]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 [Page 119] 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 [Page 120] 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 [Page 121] 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 [Page 122] to prove out of S. Hilary? Was not Sardinia part of the Western Church? How then could all the Western parts be excluded from Christian communion, be­sides France, when Sardinia, which is in these Western parts, was (as your self con­fess) a Catholique and Orthodox Church? How can these two possibly consist toge­ther? It seems you have forgot your self. Oportet mendacem esse memorem.

60. After all the other Popes. Faelix is brought in for communicating with Arri­ans, and Socrates and Zozomen are al­ledged to prove, that therefore Rome it self was then accounted Arrian. What then, says Socrates? that Liberius was banish't for his constancy in defending the Catho­lique Faith against the Arrians, and that Faelix was appointed to succeed him in the Papacy, who was, Arrianae Sectae addi­ctus: but there is not one word there of Rome's being Arrian. (Socrat. li. 2. c. [...]9.) And if Faelix did perchance sometimes fa­vour the Arrian Faction, yet was it before he was elected Pope, not afterwards; as appears plainly by Sozomen in the very place by you cited, li. 4. c. 10. Liberius Ecclesiae Romanae Episcopatu privatus est, cui praefuïtur Faelix illius Cleri Diaconus, quem aiunt Fidei Concilii Nicaeni semper [Page 123] consensisse, & omnino, quantum pertinebat ad Religionem, reprehensione caruisse. Li­berius (saith he) was depriv'd of the Bi­shoprick of the Roman Church, to which Faelix, a Deacon of that Clergy, was pre­ferred, who is [...]said to have alwayes con­sented to the Faith of the Nicene Coun­cel, and was never blameable for any thing that concerned Religion. These are the ve­ry words of Sozomen, and in the very same place cited by the Doctor. Nothing there concerning Faelix or Rome's being Arrian. Thus the Reader may see how fraudulently the Doctor has dealt with the world.

Well, but Faelix or dained divers Arri­ans; what then? must he therefore be an Arrian himself? or must he necessarily know them to be such?

But he communicated with Arrians; and must he therefore be an Arrian? Do not Catholiques at this time communicate with Heretiques in England, France, Germany, &c. in outward conversation and civil commerce, though not in their Heresie? and you neither have prov'd, nor ever can prove, that Faelix communicated with the Arrians in their heretical and blasphe­mous Doctrine, but in outward conversa­tion only, which is, and ever was lawful for any Catholique.

[Page 124]61. To pass by your impertinent distin­ction between a profest and a close Here­tique, as being nothing to the purpose: I come to your other passage, wherein you say, and cite some Canons for it; That the communion of the Church is estimated by communicating with the Bishop, and if any, whether Priest, or other, shall sever themselves from the Canonical Bishop, they are censur'd to be Heretiques. Answ. This is to be understood when the Bishop is Ca­tholique, and keeps himself within the communion of the Catholique Church; but if the Bishop be heretical, and the Church shall communicate with him in his Heresie, the Church also becomes hereti­cal, be the Bishop thereof a profest or close Heretique, it matters not: but by this your own Rule you must confess your selves He­retiques, because you did originally s [...]ver your selves from your Canonical Catho­lique Bishops, and followed your owne, and other mens new inventions; and when all your pretended bishops were heretical, you communicated with them and their heresies.

62. But the bishop may be either a pro­fest or close Heretique, and yet the Church may be Catholique: and this your self expresly grant in your following Sect. 22. [Page 125] where you say, That you believe that the King of England, and Arch-bishop of Cauterbury, [...]ither, or both of them, may be Heretiques, and this Church not so; since it is not their being, but our comply­ing that makes us heretical. Herein you have fully contradicted your self, and granted whatsoever I have said concerning this point: For if the Church of England may be Catholique, though both King and Metropolitan thereof be Heretiques, why may not the Church of Rome be Catho­lique, though the bishop thereof be here­tical?

63. But (say you) if all our Bishops be of the same Religion with them, this Church is in an ill case. Answ. I say so too; yet it may be Catholique. All your pretended bishops may be heretical (as they were all for about these 100. years together last past) and yet there may be a Catholique Church in England. It is possible that the particu­lar members of each Diocess may not com­ply with their bishop in his Heresie; and then, according to your own saying, they are not heretical. The inferiour Priests and people may preserve their faith, though all the bishops fall from it: but what is all this to the purpose? Were ever all the bi­shops that were subject to the Patriarchal [Page 126] Sea of Rome, at one and the same time, Heretiques? I suppose, no man besides your self was ever possest with such a ridi­culous imagination. What if your Arch­bishop of Canterbury alone had been an Heretique, and all the other bishops with­in his Province Catholique? will you therefore conclude, that the particular Church or Diocess of Canterbury must ne­cessarily have been heretical? If you say so, you plainly contradict your self, who even now said, that it is not the Kings or Arch-bishops being heretical, but our complying with them, that makes us here­tical, Sect. 22.

64. But the Doctor pursues this argu­ment close, and endeavours to prove, that when the King and Priest joyn together, it hath a strange influence upon the people, for good or bad. Answ. What then? must the people therefore of necessity be good or bad, according as the King and Priest are? cannot Gods grace overcome this in­fluence, and preserve the people from infe­ction? but you say; When King Ahaz, and Urijah the Priest professed I dolatry, though many good men were resident among them, yet was the City and people account­ed heretical. Answ. First, it appears not by the Text, that they were so accompted. [Page 127] Secondly, if they were accompted heretical, does it herefore necessarily follow, that they were so? Does truth and falshood de­pend on the opinions of men? if so, then every man in his own opinion would be Catholique, and all the world besides, that concur not with him in his judgment, would be Heretiques. It is not necessary that every one must be good or bad, ca­tholique, or heretique, according as some men (perchance) out of error, either in doctrine or fact, shall esteem him: but what if that city and people were (not only ac­compted, but) truly and really heretical, must it therefore always follow, that when the King and Priest are heretical, the city and people must of necessity be so too? What if Constantius the Emperor, and Le­on [...]ius the bishop? What if Ʋalens and Eu­doxius by joyning together in heresie with­drew many, partly by power, pardly by ex­ample from the Catholique Faith; does it therefore always necessarily follow, that when the Prince and Priest joyn in heresie, the people also must be heretical? Must e­very thing come to pass, because it may come to pass? No, Doctor, the young Sophisters will tell you, that, à posse & esse non valet argumentum.

65. And whereas you say, that under [Page 128] King Edward VI. and Queen Mary, the Religion of the church was judged of by the Governours: I answer, that the Reli­gion of this Nation (not of the church, for 'tis not the Religion of the Prince, but the profession of the antient Catholique Faith, that constitutes a church) was judged of, not by the Governours, but by the Lawes that were made in K. Edw. VI. and Queen Maryes daies respectively, ei­ther to establish a new upstart Religion, never before heard of in the world, or to re-establish 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 [Page 129] 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 [...]edious and frivolous argument.

65. That the Church of Rome imposes a new sense on the articles of the C [...]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 [Page 130] 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 wi [...]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 [Page 131] 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 [Page 132] 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 Rule [...] 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. [Page 133] 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 [...]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.) Haereti [...]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 'tis 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 reason, that the word [Quapropter] may refer to the former words, and that the Father speaks as the [Page 134] 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 [Page 135] 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 Ʋine, which makes that arm or branch no part of the Body or Ʋine. 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. 'Tis 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 [Page 136] 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 [Page 137] 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 schismatiq [...]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 [Page 138] shall abhor [...]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 [Page 139] 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 Corn [...]l. Pontif.) Placuit ut per Episcopos, reteni [...] à nobis rei veritate ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam, &c. ut te universi Collegae nostri, & commu­nicationem tuam, id est, Catholicae Eccle­siae unitatem pariter & charitatem proba­rent firmiter & 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 [Page 140] 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 [Page 141] 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 [Page 142] 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 m [...]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, [Page 143] 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 defini [...]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 [Page 144] 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 Ʋcar, 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 [Page 145] 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 over all the parts of the Christian world, and as being the great Metropolitan of the world, infuses unity into all particular Churches and Christians, She is in this her largest ampli­tude properly and truly call'd the Catho­lique Church. And because the Catho­lique Church cannot fall into any error in faith, or any other damnable error whatsoever, nor teach Doctrines supersti­tious, sacrilegious, or repugnant to plain words of Scripture, because she is, and e­ver shall be guided by Gods Holy Spirit, which hitherto has, and ever shall lead her into all truth, therefore it cannot be truly said, that the Roman Church being this Catholique Church, ever was, or can be guilty of errors in faith, or of superstiti­ous, sacrilegious, or any damnable Do­ctrines whatsoever.

[Page 146]73. Besides, when Luther first for sook the communion of the Roman Church, did he not stand alone? was he not divided from the world, even from those that were not in communion with the Church of Rome, as well as from those that were? did he communicate in the Sacraments, or external worship with any particular Church, Congregation, People, Nation, or Sect professing the name of Christ? can any man separate himself from that church, in whose communion he once liv'd, whose Faith and Doctrine he im­brac't, and joyn himself to no other con­gregation in the whole world, professing the name of Christ, either in doctrine or external communion, and yet be no Schis­matique? If so, then there never was, or can be any Schism. If then Luther was Schismatical in being divided from the Whole Christian world in Faith and com­munion, it necessarily follows, that all those who first adhered to him, forsaking the communion of that church, whereof they had formerly been members, and all those who have since followed Luther, and have not joyn'd themselves to any church or Christian Congregation whatsoever be­sides themselves, must be guilty of the same Schism. How then is it possible for you to [Page 147] avoid the guilt of Schism, since you have forsaken the communion of the Church of Rome, with whom you once communica­ted, as you confess, Sect. 19. and have not joyn'd your selves to any other Chri­stian Congregation whatsoever? You ab­hor the communion of the Roman Church, and that which you call the Greek Church abhors you. Will you say, that the Prote­stants are the whole Catholique Church? then you contradict your self, who grant Sect. 12. that Rome her self is a Church, a member of the one Catholique. You must also then confess, that the Greek Church (as you call it) is no part of the Catholique Church, and the truth is, you have good reason so to do, since she refused to receive you into her communio [...], abhorring and detesting your new Doctrines, as heretical: If then all those of the Protestant Sect be Schismatical (as it most plainly appears they are) certainly the Protestants of Eng­land must necessarily be involv'd in the same Schism.

74. Let us now see how you can vindi­cate your selves from heresie. I will not look beyond those four Doctrines where­with you have charg'd the Church of Rome, as being fond, sacrilegious, and re­pugnant to plain words of Scripture, [Page 148] viz. Transubstantiation, Administration of the B. Sacrament to the Laity in one kind; Invocation of Saints; Adoration of Images. And by your opposing these doctrines as they are held and taught by the Roman Church, I shall endeavour to make it appear to the world, that you cannot a­void the just imputation of Heresie.

First then I demand, whether the Fathers assembled in the four first General Coun­cels were not competent and lawful Judges of the heresies of those times; as the Ar­rian, Macedonian, Nestorian, Eutychian, &c. and whether they had not power to condemn those heresies, and to anathema­tize those that held and taught them as he­retiques. If they had no such power, then did they most injuriously and tyrannically usurp a power and Jurisdiction, which of right belonged not unto them. But this cannot be prudently suppos'd, that so many holy, reverend, and learned Fathers should usurp an authority, or arrogate to them­selves that power, which was not lawfully deriv'd upon them by Christ and his holy church: They were the selected Pastors of the whole church, men renowned for their piety and learning, and could not therefore be ignorant how far the Jurisdiction and authority of a lawful Councel might ex­tend; [Page 149] neither would their piety suffer them to transgress the limits of that authority. If then those four first Councels had pow­er to judg of, and to decla [...]e and define doctrines of faith, and to anathematize all those that should oppose them; how came the Councels in succeeeding ages to be de­priv'd of this power? How came the church to lose that authority wherewith she was once invested? was her power but tempo­rary, and after some few ages to expire? or did Christ foresee, tha [...] after some few ages his church would be no more infested with Schismatiques, or heretiques? but we plain­ly find, that such have molested the church in all ages, and therefore doubtless in all a­ges has this power continued in the church; and if so, why was it not as lawful for the second Councel of Nice (which was held above 800. years since) to judg and define what reverence and honor is due to holy I­mages; and to condemn the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers, as it was for the former Councels to condemn the Arrians, Nesto­rians, &c? And why was it not as lawful for that great and glorious Councel of La­teran, wherein were present both the Patri­archs of Constantinople and Hierusalem, to judg of, and declare the true, real, and sub­stantial conversion of the creatures of bread [Page 150] and wine after consecration, into the true and real body and bloud of Christ; and to declare the manner of that conversion, as also to express the antient doctrine of the church by the proper signification of a new word [Transubstantiation] as it was for the first General Councel of Nice to judg of, and declare Christs consubstantiality with the Father, and to invent that new word to express the antient doctrine, de­scending unto them by universal and in fal­lible Tradition of Christs co-eternal and co-equal Divinity with the Father? You wil find in Vincentius Lyrinesis. c. 32. that it was no new thing in his time for the church to invent new words to express old doctrines.

Why was it not lawful for the Councel of Constance (Sess. 13.) to define and declare the indifferency and sufficiency of commu­nicating the Laity under one kind only, and to anathematize those that should per­tinatiously oppose that doctrine?

Lastly, why was it not lawful for the Councel of Trent (Sess. 25.) to declare the lawfulness of invocating the blessed Saints, and to denounce a curse against all obsti­nate opposers thereof?

Thus you see those four fond and sacri­legious doctrines, and such as you say are repugnant to plain words of Scripture, [Page 151] confirm'd, declar'd, and defin'd to be sa­cred truths, and Apostolical Traditions by four General Councels. You have also seen them held and practis'd by the antient Fathers, that 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. [Page 152] 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 Protestanti [...]m: as also in his Censura Orientalis Ecclesiae; where you shall find a detestation of your opposite doctrines.

76. But if those doctrine [...] 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 [Page 153] 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 [Page 154] your self confess to be impossible, or [...]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.

[Page 155]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 [Page 156] 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. 'Tis 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. 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 [Page 157] 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 [Page 158] 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 [Page 159] 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 [Page 160] 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.

[Page 161]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. 1 [...]) 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 [Page 162] 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 p [...]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 Vision. Gods can­dle, since it was first lighted by Christ and and his Apostles was never put under a bushell; but from the candlestick wherein it was first set, has given light to the world; and all eyes, that are not blinded with ma­lice or interest, must behold it. You seeme to approve the Principles of Vinceutius Lyrinensis; follow them, and you are safe. Let Antiquity and Ʋniversality be your guide, and you cannot erre. Let not some few scatter'd, obscure, and mis-understood places of some Fathers prevaile more with you, then a thousand plaine places, whole [Page 163] treatises and volumnes purposely pen'd in defence of Catholique truth. Divest your soul of pride, malice, and interest, and in­stead thereof let humility and impartiality take place, and then Gods grace will sweet­ly invite you to a sincere and humble ac­knowledgment of your errors, and you will with excessive joy and thankfulness of heart praise God for your deliverance from the bonds of darkness, and the jawes of death. Remember that the antient Fathers and Doctors of the church have con­demn'd you, the Councels both Oecume­nical and Provincial have declar'd against you; the universal doctrine and practise of the church, both before and after Luthers Apostasie, have given sentence against you. And as for those Canons, which you have alledged in your book, you must needs know your self, that some of them make a­gainst you, others are impertinent, but none of them impugne the power and authority of Christs Vicar▪ (the Bishop of Rome) over the whole Catholique Church. Weigh all the Authorities of holy Scripture, and antiquity for both sides; and see whe­ther there be not a thousand plain places a­gainst you, for one obscure (for plain you have none) for you, Your eternal salvati­on lyes at stake, rely not then on other [Page 164] mens, nor your own fallacious judgment, or fancy, in those things that concern your salvation. Let Gods holy church be your guide and interpreter of Scripture, lest you wrest it (as some did of whom S. Peter com­plains, 2 Pet. 3. 16.) to your own damnation: consider that the best way to appease Gods wrath against you for your former misgui­ding and seducing poor ignorant souls to their eternal perdition, is now by your good example, in returning to your holy Mother the Roman Catholique Church, to draw o­thers after you into the house of God, his Church Militant; that so hereafter ye may meet in his Church Triumphant. Let not those trifles of popular applause, or world­ly reputation flatter you to hell, nor fear of the worlds censure fright you from heaven; be but humble and impartial, and it is as impossible for you not to be a Roman Ca­tholique (at least in judgment and opini­on) as it is for a man, that has the benefit of sight to open his eys, and not to see light at noon day,

And now, Doctor, If you have met with any tart language in this my answer, you cannot justly be offended with me. It pro­ceeded not from any malice that I can bear your person. For I profess upon the word of a Christian, I never heard of your name [Page 165] (to my remembrance) before I saw this your book; and I am still so much a stran­ger to you, that I know neither the place of your abode, nor the present condition of your life. But I was somewhat provok't by your blesphemous speeches against Gods holy church by your unnecessary taunts, and causless jeering of Mr. T. B. whose modesty in his letters to you was such, that I am sure he gave you no just cause to break out in­to such scurrilous and unseemly speeches against him.

I shall heartily pray, that instead of re­plying to this answer, you may be reconcil'd to Gods holy Catholique Church.

Amen.