AN ANSWER To a Book entitled, AN ACCOUNT OF THE Church Catholic; Where it was before the Reformation; And whether Rome were or be the Church Catholic.  
Wherein is proved, That the Catholic Church never was, nor can be distinct from that which is now called, The Church of Rome.  
By R. T. Esquire.  Concords omnes sumus, unum & idem sentientes: quare qui societatem nostram devitat, is nè lateat sinceritatem vestram, quòd seipsum à tota Ecclesia abrumpit. Basil. Eust. 
Printed at Paris. 1654.   

AN ANSWER TO A late Book, Entitled An Account of the CHURCH CATHOLIC, etc.  
THough every idle Pamphlet deserves not the pains of an answer, yet since new and dangerous Doctrines have so far overspread this Nation, and taken such firm root in the hearts of the people, that any defence thereof (though never so weak) shall be readily embraced and highly magnified; I esteemed it not altogether un-necessary, to endeavour by this Reply to undeceive the deluded multitude, who 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 worthy 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 horrid effects of pride and malice, how they not only tempt wretched souls out of the right path that leads to eternal felicity, but spur them on also to a violent opposition of God's 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 subtle of all Heretics are forced 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 discovered to be but false and deceitful colours; and such are all the Arguments in these Answers to the two Letters of Mr. T. B. which I doubt not but I shall evidently demonstrate to any impartial reader.  
Sect. 1. First then Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to show him the Catholic 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 Catholic, 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 Catholic.  
Rub up your Logic 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 called, 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 Catholic 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 Catholic, as a particular member is from the whole body.  
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 Catholic, as a particular member is to the whole body: Ergo,  
The Catholic 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.  
Ma. The particular Church of Rome is distinct from the whole Catholic. 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 Catholics.  
Here, I confess, 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 adjoining there unto, are the particular City of London. Ergo:  
The Suburbs of London, and City of Westminster adjoining 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 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 Catholic, being Synonamas, 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 Diocese of Rome, yet in sensu composito, that is, being joined 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 Catholic Church. And thus may be answered that trivial and childish objection against these words, [Roman Catholic] 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 Catholic, in respect of her Faith, Roman, in respect of her denomination; Catholic, in respect of her doctrine; Roman, in respect of her discipline; Catholic, in regard she is not consigned to one Nation, People, or Kingdom, but invites the whole world to her Faith and Communion, willingly embracing all that will come unto her; Roman, in respect all particular Churches and persons whatsoever, that are within the Communion of the Catholic Church, are united in, and subject to one Head, the Bishop of the particular Church, or Sea of Rome, as being S. Peter's Successor, and appointed by Christ to be his Vicar on earth. Thus have we vindicated that expression of [Roman Catholic] from contradiction; that denomination Roman, added to the Church, being as universal, and having as large a signification as the word Catholic, which not withstanding might have see med an unnecessary addition, had it not been long since occasioned by some Heretics, thereby to distinguish true from pretended Catholics, for those Heretics well knew, that they could neither justify their new doctrine, nor draw people to their opinion, but by usurping the name and ti●le of Catholics, therefore the word [Roman] was added to [Catholic,] that those Heretics that had forsaken the Communion of the Roman Church, might not deceive the vulgar under the notion of Catholics.  
3. And here by the way Doctor, I desire you to observe, that there was never any Schismatique, or Heretic, nor any Sect, or Congregation of men professing the name of Christ divided from the Catholic Church, but did either actually or originally separate themselves from that Church, which is now called 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 Catholic Church distinct from that, which is now called the Roman Church, or Church of Rome.  
4. But in the examination of this discourse, I have discovered 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 Diocese or Sea of the Bishop of Rome, may be called a particular Church; yet as she is the Centre and Fountain of Unity, in whom all the particular members of the Church Catholic are united, she is, and may be truly and properly called, the Catholic Church. And now, good Doctor, the discovery of these two fallacies might serve for a full and sufficient answer to (almost) your whole book. But let us proceed.  
5. Now the Doctor gins to muster up his arguments against the Church of Rome, to prove she is not the Catholic Church. And first, If the Church of Rome (says he) he the Catholic Church, where was the Catholic 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 Catholic Church: Or thus. There was a Catholic Church before Rome became a Church; therefore now at this time the Church of Rome, and those in Communion with her, cannot be the Catholic Church: What strange consequences are these? as if the Catholic Church cannot take Her particular denomination from Rome, though there were a Catholic 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 Catholic Church could not take its denomination 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. Peter's 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 show him the Catholic Church distinct from the Church of Rome, and those in Communion with Her: The Doctor answers, That there was a Catholic Church before Rome became a Church; and therefore that was not the Roman. Here the Doctor has spoke something, though nothing to the purpose, for who ever questioned that conclusion? The Doctor has forgot himself again, for his conclusion should have been this, Therefore the Catholic 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 Catholic Church before Rome became a Church; therefore the Catholic Church was distinct from the Church of Rome, and those in communion with her. Very pretty. Rome was no Church at all; therefore the Church of Rome was distinct from the Catholic 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 express terms, yet is it necessarily involved in your discourse.  
7. But I have not yet done with this monstrous argument. Mr. T. B. desires the Doctor to show him the Church Catholic distinct from the Church of Rome, and those in Communion with her, for the last 1100. years: The Doctor answers, that there was a Catholic Church before Rome became a Church. Here we shall have another fine consequence.  
There was a Catholic Church before Rome became a Church, viz somewhat above 1600. years since.  
Therefore the Catholic Church has 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 passed, the Church of Rome, and those in Communion with her, have not been the Catholic Church.  
Just so will I prove that D. Boughen has not been a Doctor of Divinity for these five years last passed.  
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 passed.  
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 syllogistical form.  
If Rome be the Catholic Church, then if she be Orthodox, the Catholic Church is Orthodox; if she be heretical, or schismatical, the whole Church must be heretical and schismatical; but the Catholic 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 sometimes two, sometimes three Bishops together, a double, a treble-headed, a monstrous Church. Therefore Rome cannot be the Catholic Church.  
I am sure the Church of Rome was never so monstrous as this argument. The Doctor is fallen so deep into a fallacy, that he cannot tell how to get out. M. T. B. demands one thing, and the Doctor lays about him to prove another. But let us examine the argument.  
If by Rome you mean 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 Catholic Church has not that necessary dependence on the particular Sea of Rome, as that she must be heretical or schismatical, when Rome is so. Rome, as it is a particular Sea, is but a member of the Church Catholic, and therefore if she should by schism or heresy cut herself off from the Catholic Church, yet would the Catholic Church remain in her integrity and purity, as a man would not cease to be a man, according to his essential 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 Catholic, which can never be heretical or schismatical; wherefore if the Church of Rome has had sometimes two, sometimes three pretended Bishops together (as you seem to have learned 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 merely pretenders, and therefore they themselves, and all those that adhered unto them were schismatics, and as long as they obstinately continued in their schism, they were no members either of the Catholic Church, or the particular Church of Rome, the Catholic Church still 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 heresy, 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 Catholic that confessed the Church of Rome, and those in communion with her, to have been heretical; for that had been to have confessed the whole Catholic Church to be heretical, and so utterly extinct, which is impossible; neither was there ever any Catholic that confessed, the whole Diocese, or Sea of Rome was ever heretical; so that whether by Rome, you mean the particular Church of Rome, or the Roman Catholic Church, your assertion is most impudent and false, neither have you named any one man that confessed it.  
10. But perchance the Doctor intended these argunents for light skirmishes only, and has reserved his main force and reason for his last affault, and with this reserve hopes to obtain a signal victory over the Church of Rome. Let us then encounter it, and try what force it brings with it.  
If Rome (says he) be the Catholic Church, if any thing be amiss in any particular, the fault is Hers, and She ought to mend it; therefore Rome is not the Catholic Church.  
What a wretched consequence is this? certainly the Doctor has forgot all his Logic, or found out some new, which no body knows besides himself; by the same ridiculous 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 amiss in any particular, the fault was in the Parliament, and it ought to have mended it; therefore the Parliament of England was 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 Catholic Church. And if we examine the sequel of the Antecedent, we shall find it as ridiculous as the whole consequence; for why should the church be blamed for any thing that is a miss in any particular point of doctrine, or discipline, and that in any particular church, or member of the Church Catholic? (for by [particular], you must mean one of those, but which I know not) Arius denied an high point of Catholic Faith, and many of the Eastern church would not observe Easter-day, according to the Apostolic custom of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church; she used all her power and endeavours to reclaim both, and when heretics have forsaken her faith, or schismatics her communion, she has always used that power and authority wherewith God has invested her, to cause them to return to their faith and obedience, but if the schismatic shall persist in his schism, or the hererique in his heresy, the fault is in them, no● in the church; that you, Doctor, most obstinately continue in your heresy, the fault is yours, not the churches, she has employed her utmost endeavours to reclaim you, and therefore cannot justly be blamed for your heresy or schism; but if any particular Bishops or Pastors have been negligent in reclaiming heretics or schismatics, they must answer for it, still the church is blameless.  
10. In the next place the Doctor discourses concerning the Visibility of the Catholic Church, which he grants to have been always visible, both in, and from the time of the Apostles to this present day, but he will not grant it always visible in one and the same place, no not to Rome itself, nor to every eye.  
Answ. The Doctor will be always proving that which was never questioned, but by his leave, the Catholic Church has been always visible at Rome, even from its first conversion to the Christian Faith, to this present day, as far as the Catholic Church can be visible in any particular branch or member; but who ever said or thought, that the whole Catholic Church was at any time visible at Rome? that City, we know, was never so capacious, as to be able to contain all the Catholics that have been for these many age's, living at the same time in Europe, Asia, and Africa.  
11. And that it ha●s not been always 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 eyes) 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 show, that at any time, not only for these 1100. years last passed, but for 1600. years, even from S. Peter's, to these our days, there was any Catholic Church distinct from the church of Rome, and those in communion with her, whereas that church has been most perspicuously and apparently visible to the world in all ages, since the Apostles time to this present time: Besides, that the Catholic 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 years, transcends any man's understanding, but D. Boughens.  
12. It is more than probable (saith he) that there were in this very Island 7000. souls that were not tainted with Popish errors; but he brings not so much as a probable argument for it: By Popish Errors he means the ancient doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church; but it is most improbable, that there were so many as seven (besides such as were condemned for Heretics, and confessed to be such, even by Protestants themselves) that before Luther's 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 embraced their new Reformation, as you call it, but had been before a professed Roman Catholic.  
13. It is enough for us (says the Doctor) to prove them to be errors, to be against Scripture, and the received sense of the ancient 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 proved to be errors against Scripture, some indeed have barked against God's 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 answered hereafter in a more proper place.  
15. But the Doctor is sure, that he has manifested, that the Church of Rome, and those particular churches in her communion, are not, cannot be the Catholic Church.  
Answ. Indeed he has 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 Catholic Church] be either expressly, or implicitly in any thing that he has said before, I will then lay down the cudgels, and never lift up my hand more against D. Boughen.  
16. In his following discourse, I contesse the Doctor seems to say more than ever he said before, viz. That the church of Rome, and those in communion with her, might be a Catholic, but not the Catholic Church, a part, but not the whole.  
Answ. But, good Doctor, saying is one thing, and manifesting another; this must not be begged, but proved; all that he said before was, that Rome was a particular church, and this too was but only said, not proved at all; and now he (at least) seems to draw nearer to the question, and say, that the church of Rome, and those particular churches in her communion, are but a part of the Catholic Church; and that therefore the Catholic Church is of a larger extent, and comprehends within her bounds more churches than those only that are in communion with the church of Rome.  
This is easily said, but where are your proofs? where is your Scripture for it? or where is your authority of Fathers or Counsels for it? can you, or any man else show, that at any time, between the times of the Apostles, and Luther's Apostasy, 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 Catholic Father, or any Catholic Council, to be a true member of the Catholic 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 Catholic 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 Prelates to any General Council, wherein the whole Catholic Church was represented? or did ever any General Council 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 God's church? 'tis very strange, that there should be whole churches, whole countries and Nations, all true members of the Catholic 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. years together. These are strong arguments against you, Doctor, what arguments you will hereafter bring for yourself, I know not, but as yet, I am sure, you have brought none at all.  
17. I commend your wisdom 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 Council of Nice, which seems most to strengthen your cause, and has been so often objected by your party, and so often answered, has been proved upon diligent examination, to make directly against you, as appears plainly: Concil. Calc. Act. 16.  
18. But the Doctor is much scandalised at the maiming of the Lords Supper; so that if there were no other cause then that, he could not communicate with the Church of Rome▪ Sect. 11. It seems, Doctor Boughen cannot content himself with that, wherewith the good Primitive Christians were all satisfied. They could be contented to carry the blessed Sacrament to their houses, and reserve it there for times of necessity under one Species. They thought it sufficient to minister it to their sick under the Species of Bread only, to their children (when that by some was thought necessary) under the Species of Wine only, but the Doctor will have both, or none. None of the ancient 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 quicksighted, that he has discovered that which the whole church for 1500. years together could not find out.  
19 But, good Doctor, how do we rob the Laity of Christ's blood? if those creatures of Bread and Wine be after Consecration, truly, really, and substantially changed 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 blood: And if there be no such change (as I am sure, according to your doctrine, there is not) than we ●ob them, at the most, but of the sign or figure of Christ's 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 Christ's blood, still retaining its former nature and substance of wine, then may any one, in spite of the Priest or church, take a cup of wine, when and where he please, and make it to himself a sign of Christ's 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 sign but by virtue 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 own 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 Martyrdom, that communicate not under the Species of Wine as well as of Bread: certainly the Doctor (to say no worse) misunderstands S. Cyprian, for he was too great a Scholar to maintain 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 virtue 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 only, or the necessity of communicating under both, those words [Poculum Domini] the cup of our Lord, signifying there the blessed Sacrament in general, in allusion to the former words, [Poculum Martyrii] the cup of Martyrdom: and this will most plainly appear to any one that shall impartially ●ead that Epistle; all that can possibly be proved out of those words, is, that in some places in or about the time of S. Cyprian, the Laity we●● admitted to communicate under both kinds, which not Catholic ever denied or questioned; and that it was a custom even in S. Cyprians time to administer the Communion in one kind only, may easily be proved 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 confess are S. Cyprians, but they are less to the purpose then the former, as I shall instantly make it appear.  
There were certain Heretics in S. Cyprians time, who contrary to our blessed Saviour's institution (as this Father says) 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 blood of Christ, since water cannot by virtue of consecration, be changed into the blood of Christ, by reason of the defect of wine, which is the true matter of the Sacrament, 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 pass by divers impertinencies, and such things as have been already answered, let us come to the Doctor's Master-argument, (for doubtless he esteems 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 adventured 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 has not more heads, than this Syllogism has terms. But let us be once more favourable to the Doctor, and help him to speak sense; he means well, thohgh he has forgot his Logic: all than 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 Catholic Church, which never failed, must be distinct from the Church of Rome, and all those in communion with her.  
This I confess 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 proved thus:  
Marcellinus and Liberius, and ●o. 22. all Bishops of Rome, denied Jesus Christ to be the true God, and eternal 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 schismatical, because the King, or Arch bishop of canterbury (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 Heresy, or Idolatry? You confess, pag. 9 10. that there was a visible true Church of the Jews in those days, when both their King and High Priest 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 Logic 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 falsely charged with Heresy 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 showing, the Doctor is here as much out in his History, as he was before in his Logic.  
22. First then, Pope Liberius is accused of Arianism, but falsely; for he never subscribed to that damnable Heresy, never decreed, taught, or maintained it. He subscribed only to the banishment of S. Athanasius, to which the Emperor Constantius for●'t and compelled him by torments; as St. Athanasius himself testifies in both his Apologies, where he clearly acquits him of Heresy. And if St. Athanasius in an other place, and St. Hierom charge him with subscribing to Arrianism, it is to be understood, interpretative only; in that he subscribed to S. Athanasius' banishment, which was procured 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 forecited places testifies, that he was no Heretic, and that he did nothing in compliance with the Arrians, but what he was compelled unto by a tedious banishment, and force of torments. And that all Italy, and Spain should side with this Pope in that Heresy, 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 charged with Heresy is Honorius: but what his heresy was, the Doctor declares not. 'tis true, some Heretics have charged this Pope (upon what ground I know not) with joining with the Monothelites in their heresy: but it cannot appear, that ever he held or taught that Heresy, either publicly or privately. 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 renounced that Heresy, appears, Epist. Honor. ad Sergium. Act. 13. sixth. 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 heresy, Pyrrhus' Patriarch of Constantinople, being at her suit banished 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, charged with Montanism; but most unjustly. He was no Montanist; only out of a candid and peaceable disposition, he endeavoured to make peace between the Catholics and the Montanists; and this was all his Heresy. That plrce of Lyra by you cited, in Mat. 16. makes rather against you then for you. He says there, that some Popes have Apostatised, and thence concludes, that the Church depends not on any particular man's 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 Heresy, therefore the Church of Rome must be Heretical; but maintains the contrary.  
25. But behold Marcellinus an Idolater, who denied Christ, and offered sacrifice to Idols. Answ. So also did S. Peter deny his Master. Marcellinus externally denied Christ for fear of torments; so did St. Peter for fear of the Jews: yet they both confessed Christ in their hearts, though they both grievously sinned in their external denying of him: But as S. Peter repent, 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 denied 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 denied Christ in some exterior 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 of that Church. which was then in being, when he denied 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. Peter's denial; when he gave an end to the legal types and ceremonies, and instituted the substance, the blessed Sacrament of his precious body and blood.  
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●● thereof, gives Christ the lie; 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 falsely translate, to deceive the world; but, Thou art Cephas, (which in the Syrian language, which our Saviour then spoke, 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 [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 called him. And though the Catholic Translators of the New Testament, who profess to follow exactly the vulgar Latin Edition, as being more authentic, than any Greek Copy now extant in the world, have translated that place, as you do, viz. Thou art Peter, etc. 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, than you pretend to follow the Original. Thus you will always 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 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. Peter's 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 Governor; 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 Universal 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, Ancient and modern unanimously agree; and that this common and supreme Pastor of Christ's Church ever was, and ever must be S. Peter's Successor, who hithet●o (ever since S. Peter placed his Chair there) has been the bishop of Rome, and for aught we know, ever will be till the end of the world. And this those very Authors, Stella and Lyra, whom you have cited for yourself, will plainly tell you, even in those very places which you have cited.  
Besides, who ever confirmed the acts of any lawful General Council, but the Pope? In his absence had he not his Delegates, who sa●e in the supreme place of the Council, though they were not always Bishops, and that even in the Eastern Church? I could be more copious in this point, but I here intent a reply only, not a Treatise of Controversy.  
26. I come now to Pope John 22. who stands charged with a strange and monstrous Heresy, viz. for affirming, that God the Son is greater than God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, and Stella's authority is produced to prove it.  
Answ. I confess Stella has accused him of it, but I must be bold to except against his authority and testimony in this matter of fact; for it cannot appear that Stella spoke this upon any just ground, or probability; for no man besides Stella, either Catholic, or Heretic (that I could ever yet read or hear of) ever charged Pope John 22. with that blasphemy: 'tis true, some Heretics, 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 Heresy, the Church never having defined the contrary, and divers ancient Catholic 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 declared, 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 withal, that he held the contrary opinion to be more probable, and I am sure it is most improbable, that Ockam his bitter enemy should charge him with this, and Calvin with the other, and yet neither of these should make any mention of that blasphemous Heresy which D. Boughen one of Stella lays 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 defined Heresy; they never commanded any heretical Doctrine to be received as a divine truth by the whole Church: They might fall into errors; so likewise did Peter, (as Stella says) 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, Peter's 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 Christ's Disciples? Liberius, Marcellinus, and Pope John 22. had their errors, what was this to the Church of Rome? had you read Stella but a very few lines further, you would have found small encouragement to have cited his authority for your opinion; for though he seems in some sense to grant your Minor Proposition (as you call it Sect. 18.) in your missh pen Syllogism, Sect. 17. viz. That Liberius, Marcellinus, and john 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, viz. That because 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 expressly, 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 Council of Chalcedon, he could not be induced, neither by the persuasions, nor threaten of the Emperor, to repeal an Act of that Council, in condemning those Tria Capitula, which the Counccl had received as Orthodox, nothing favouring the Heresy, either of Nestorius, or Eutyches, one whereof was the Epistle of Ibas, who publicly in the Council renounced the Heresies, both of Nestorius and Eutyches; another, the writings of Theodoret against Nestorius, for which Theodoret had formerly been deposed by the Eutychian Faction in that Latrocinal Council at Ephesus, and afterwards restored by the Catholics? I confess this is a very strong argument, that he was no Eutychian: but that he was one, you only say it, you allege 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 Vigilius, or of any other Pope whatsoever, only in general terms he says, That some Popes have apostatised, 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 Catholic.  
Answ. I confess the answer is most true, when you were a Church, you were in the Catholic Church; so also were formerly the Arrians, Macedonians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Entychians, Donatists, etc. all these before their respective Reformation, that is, before they fell into Heresy and Schism, were within the walls of the Catholic Church; before their separation, they were all in communion with the Church of Rome, and therefore true members of the Church Catholic; so likewise were you; and as the Arians, etc. by forsaking the communion of the Church of Rome, and opposing her doctrine and faith, cut themselves off from the communion of the Catholic Church, and so ceased to be members thereof, even so have you now ceased to be any Church at all, by separating yourselves 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, shall judge of those errors? Christ has made his Church Judge of your errors? what Heretics ever were there in the world, that did not, or might not have used the same Plea for their separation from God's Church? Was there ever any particular Church that presumed to censme the doctrine of the Catholic Church? Or was it not excessive pride, if not madness in you, to think that you were wiser than the whole Christian world had been for 1500. years before you? Can you show, that in any age since the Apostlos, the Catholic Church held and taught your doctrine? can you prove that ever any particular Church, or Nation, taught or maintained the same? nay, I will go further; can you produce any one man, in any age from Christ's Passion to Luther's Apostasia, let him be of the Clergy or Laity, either Catholic, or Heretic, that agreed with you in all points of your Faith and Doctrine, wherein you now descent from the Church of Rome? if you cannot, methinks yourselves should condemn yourselves for separating from that Church; in whose Faith and communion all your Ancestors for so many ages lived and died, and embracing a new Doctrine (and that out of your own judgement and fancy only) for which you have neither precedent nor authority.  
30. And yet I must confess that your Religion is not altogether now, it is a Religion, for the most part, patched up of old condemned Heresies, though there were never any Heretics before Luther, that held all your Doctrine. I know, your ordinary pretence is to appeal ●o, and to be judged by the Scripture: but do you not first make yourselves Judges of the Scripture? do you not impose new senses and interpretations on Gods holy Word, such as were never heard of before your Apostasy? do you not, against all reason, interpret plain places of Scripture by obscure, rather than 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, than you cry out, The Scripture has given sentence for you against the Church of Rome. I confess, since you have made yourselves 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 denounced by S. Paul (Gal. 1.) against all those that shall teach new Doctrines: We harken to, not censure the Church: We embrace her doctrine, not charge her with errors. But I would ask any reasonable man (though there were no Obligation, yet) whether it were not more prudential for a man to build his salvation on the authority of the whole Church, then of some particular persons, not altogether agreeing amongst themselves, and disagreeing from the whole world besides; or whether it were not more reasonable to embrace the doctrines and interpretations of Scripture, that were universally received by the whole Church for 1500. years, than 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 reformed yourselves, 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 yourselves could perceive? before your separation there was no particular branch or member of the Catholic Church, but was in communion with the Church of Rome, How then came you to see that light, which none besides yourselves could see? Was all the world besides you blind? Had you only the Scripture? Or could you only interpret them? But why do I speak of you, as of a company or multitude? For though Time has now made the difference to be between the Protestants and the Church of Rome, yet originally it was between Luther and the whole Church; you in England, as all other Protestants, are but Luther's 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 obscured, and unknown to the world. It is then your fault now, that you communicate not with the Catholic 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 received; the Church's arms are always open to embrace you.  
Before your pretended Reformation (according to your own confession, Sect. 19) you communicated with Rome; that is, you acknowledged your subjection to the Apostolic Sea of Rome. You confessed the Bishop thereof to be the supreme visible Head of Christ's Church, appointed by Christ himself to be so; as St. Peter's 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 yield obedience to the Sea of Rome, as the Head and Mother of all Churches, and to the Bishop thereof as Christ's 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 Christ's immediate Vicar, and under him, the supreme head of the Catholic Church. How come you to be wiser than all your forefathers, and the whole world besides? Can it be reasonably supposed, that those great Patriarches of the ●ast, the Patriarch of Constantinople, of Jerusalem, of Antiech, etc. 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 Catholic Church had been by Christ's especial appointment and commission? What colourable plea than can you allege 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 than a particular branch or member of the Church Catholic. For his words immediately following are these. (And yet we shall ma●gre Satan communicate with the Catholic Church; while with one mind and mouth we glorify God, etc.) Good Doctor, deceive not yourself, the Devil does but laugh at you for that idle fancy You cannot truly glorify God either in mind or mouth, whilst you separate yourselves from God's Church. Neither can you communicate with the Catholic Church, whilst you keep yourselves out of the communion of the Church of Rome. I told you before Sect. 2. that the Roman Church, and the Catholic Church are in some sense Synonymaes, signifying one and the same thing. The Church of Rome is that Catholic Church, out of whose communion whosoever dies, shall never see the face of God.  
Now in what s●nse the Roman Church is called the Catholic Church, though I have already shown you, yet I will here somewhat farther explain it.  
The Catholic 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 Catholic Church; and this is formally the Church Catholic. We say not, that the Roman Church is thus; that is, formally Catholic: She is in this sense a part, or member only of the Catholic Church. But if we consider the Catholic Church in respect of her Government, than the Church of Rome may truly and properly be called Catholic; 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. Peter's successor, and appointed by Christ to be the supreme Head and Governor of his whole Church, is the fountain and centre of Unity, which she infuses into the whole Catholic Church; causing all the particular members thereof to be united in one and the same supreme earthly Head and Governor. Those than that submit themselves to the Apostolic Sea of Rome, and are in communion with the Bishop thereof, by subjecting themselves to his Authority and Government, acknowledging him Christ's Vicar on earth, & the sole supreme Head of his Church, may most properly be termed, Roman Catholics.  
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 itself 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 yielded obedience; the whole Province received its Denomination from her: which notwithstanding, being considered as a particular Church or Diocese, 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 Catholic, are united; every true Church in particular, may be said to be within the universal Province, or Church of Rome. And the Roman Church (comprehending under her all particular Churches whatsoever, that are branches and members of the Catholic, to whom they all own 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 Catholic 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 Catholic Church of Rome: the Church of Rome, as truly comprehending all particular Churches of the Christian world; as the Province of Canterbury contained all the particular Seas of that Province. In brief, as the Sea of Canterbury was to all the particular Seas of that Province; so is the Church of Rome to all the particular Churches of the whole world.  
And by this you may perceive how frivoulous that trivial objection is, which has been so often made against that expression, [Roman Catholic] as if those words employed a contradiction, in signifying Particular, and yet Universal.  
32. And that the Roman Church has ever been in this sense, the Catholic 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, than this Doctrine of the Primacy of the Apostolic 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 Christ's coming in the flesh, and dying for the sins of the world. Are no● the writings of the Ancient Father's full of i●? has not the universal practice of the Church in all ages made it shine bright, even at this day to the world? Read the Fathers, examine the Counsels, view the practice of God's 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 it has been a Doctrine universally received, so has it no known beginning since the time of the Apostles; and therefore according to the principles of common Reason, we ought to embrace 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 ancient 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 reconciled to the Roman Catholic Church? Have not the Patriatches of Constantinople themselves professed and acknowledged their obedience and subjection to the Bishop of Rome, as S. Peter's Successor, and Supreme Head of Christ's 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 than that is no Roman Catholic, is none at all, since by his Schism he has cut himself off from the communion of the Catholic Church,, and to justify his Schism, he must necessarily fall into Heresy, by denying this Doctrine of Faith, viz▪ That the Roman Church is the Mother and Head of all churches, and the Bishop thereof appointed by Christ, as S. Peter's Successor, to be the Supreme Pastor and Governor of his Catholic Church.  
I know you will deny this to be a Doctrine of Faith, but you must then condemn the Fathers that taught it, the Counsels that declared it; The learned Fathers of the Church (S. Irenaeus li. 3. c. 3.) S. Hierome Epist. 57 S. Cyprian de Vnitat. Eccles. S. Basil contion. 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 Counsels: In the first General Council of Nice, Can. 6. in the Council of Ephesus, Act. 3. in the Council of Chalcedon, Act. 16. and in the Epistle, or relation sent to Pope Leo from the whole Council; in the Council 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 only there, but in the Universal Tradition and practice of the church. This Doctrine was received by the church of England for almost a 1000 years together, without interruption; How then come you to be wiser than all your Forefather's for so many ages? You received the Scriptures from them, and to think that they could no● interpret 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 proved by many learned Catholics, that it may be altogether unnecessary for me to add any further proofs, especially since my intention is to contain myself within the bounds of ● short R●ply.  
Wherefore the pretended Greek Church (though it abhor and de●●st your new Doctrines, as damnable and Heretical, as appears evidently by the book enti●●●led [●●remiae ●atriarchae 〈…〉, sententia definitiva ●● Doctr●●a & Religione Wittenberge●sium Theologorum, etc.] An. 1586.) is now no church at all, as neither are you, but a dead branch lop'd off by Schism and Heresy from the Tree of Life, a corrupt member cu● off from Christ's mystical body.  
33. But to justify this your Schism, you allege certain Canons of the c●u●ches, which a●●u●e you, that every Provincial Synod, is to order all things within the Province.  
Answ. If you mean by [All things] all things amiss in matters concerning manners and Discipline, I can easily grant it; but this will not satisfy you. The Church (you say) did usually reform, both in manners and faith, by Diocesan, and Provincial Counsels.  
Answ. I confess the Pope has confirmed the Acts and Decrees of divers Provincial Counsels, even concerning matters of Faith, as when they have condemned some apparent and notorious Heresy, and anathematised such Heretics as have opposed, either a Doctrine universally known, and received by the whole church, or else some Declaration and Definition of a former General Council: and this is all that you can gather, either out of the African Code, or the canons of any Council, either General o● Provincial.  
As for the Code of the Universal Church, by you cited, you must know Doctor, that it was compiled by Schismatics and Heretics, who to diminish and derogate from the just Rights and Prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome, have apparently falsified divers canons of the Council of Sardi●.  
But that General Doctrines universally received and taught by the whole Catholic Church, as Doctrines descending by Universal Tradition from Christ and his Apostles, and declared to be such by General Counsels; should be censured and condemned, first by one single person, and afterwards by those only that followed him in his Apostasy and Heresy, for damnable errors must necessarily appear to any reasonable and impartial spirit, not only most unreasonable and temerarious, but sacrilegious and damnable; yet this you have done, charging the whole world with gross and damnable errors, and alleging Scripture to prove them so, to which you appeal to justify your Apostasy, making yourselves 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 Catholic Church, his words cited are these; Quidam ex vobis firmissima fidei constantia intra communionem se me am continentes; se à coeteris extra Gallias abstinuerunt. And hence you conclude, that the Church of France at that time communicated not with Rome, unless we can prove Rome to be in France.  
Answ. This is much like your former consequences: S. Hilary was not so simple as to think the whole Catholic Church was at that time confined to one Country or Nation; he only commended the constancy of his Countrymen, in persevering in the Catholic Faith, and not communicating with the Arrians, which swarmed in divers places out of France. If then by those words [coeteris extra Gallias] you would exclude all the world, besides France, from the Catholic Church, you will but make yourself 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 Western 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; neque 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 Heresy, which doubtless S. Hilary well knew: Those then in France that retained their ancient Faith, kept themselves within the communion of the Roman Catholic Church, from whose communion never yet any separated, but Schismatics and Heretics  
34. The n●x● Father of the Church that I m●et with is Archbishop Lawd (as you are pleased to call him) whose authority you have often cited, which I cannot but wonder 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 Arch-bishops book, charges ●h● Church of Rome with four opinions ●●pugnant to th● pl●in words of Scripture, viz. 1. transubstantiation. 2 Administration of the blessed Sacrament to the Laity in one kind. 3. Invocation of Saints. 4. Adoration of Images.  
Answ. Though it be not much pertinent to our present purpose to examine these Doctrines according to Scripture; since the Doctor conf●ss●s that the Church of Rome, notwithstanding her errors, is a tr●● Church, and a member of the one Catholic, Sect. 12. yet because he believes 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 as may be to vindicate the Church of Rome from that foul and false calumny.  
35 First then, Transubstantiation (according to the Roman Catholic Doctrine) is a true and real change of the total substance of Bread and Wine, after, and by virtue of the words of Consecration pronounced by the Priest, into the true, real, 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 Saviour's 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 says of that which was Bread and Wine; This is my Body; and, This is my Blood. The Church of Rome says so ●oo. Instead then of a Repugnancy, here is a ful● consent and agreement between the plain word● of our Saviour, and th● Doctrine of the Church of Rome. Well, but the words are not to be taken literally, but figuratively. Be it so. Then is this Doctrine of the Church of Rome repugnant (at the most) but to the figurative sense, not to the plain words, or literal sense of Scripture. But to come closer; If the Doctor can produce any one Text of Scripture, that shall be but half 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 Doctrine of the Protestants, and not that of the Church of Rome, repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.  
36 But to justify yourselves, and to avoid the Catholic Doctrine of the real presence and Transubstatiation, you thus interpret those words; This is my Body, etc. viz. This is a sign or figure of my Body: but what Scripture have you for it? What authority? What Catholic Father, what Council 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 signs and figures only of Christ's Body and Blood. But behold God's 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 God's sacred Truth, has in St. Luke's Gospel, 22. 19, 20 utterly cut you off even from that very gloss 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. Luke's Gospel. And though both in the Latin and English translation the Relative [which] may seem to refer to [Blood] as well as to (Cup) yet in the Greek it is very plain, that it must refer to (Cup.) If then that which was 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 figure ●●ly of Christ's blood, or any thing else, but the true and real blood of Christ? For no sign o● figure of blood, but Christ's true and real precious blood was shed for the sins of the world. I will endeavour to make this Doctrine appear more plain by this Syllogism.  
That which was shed for the sins of the world, was the true and real precious blood 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 blood 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 than 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 Christ's blood.  
But that which was in the Cup was shed for the sins of the world. Ergo.  
That which was in the Cup was not a sign or figure only of Christ's blood.  
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 blood 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; wherefore that Cup could not be a sign only, but the true precious blood 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. Luke's Gospel are corrupted. This indeed is the answer that one of your great and learned Reformers, Beza, has given, though without any ground, or colourable proof: but he well knew, that the words of the Text were so plain, that they could not admit of any other shift or evasion; and by this shift you may evade any authority of Scripture that may be brought against you; and (had truth no other way to defend it sel●) we also might thus answer any text of Scripture, that can be alleged against any Doctrine of the Church of Rome.  
37. But let us now see what the ancient Fathers say concerning this fond Doctrine, and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.  
S. chrysostom 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 pleased that thou shouldest not only see him, but also eat him, touch him, and receive him within thy body. And that this seeing, eating, touching and receiving Christ, is not in a bare figure only▪ appears plainly by these words of the Father following in the same Homily; Quod Angeli videntes horrescunt, neque liberè audent intueri propter 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 splendour, 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 Christ's body and blood, such glorious lustre and splendour: Indeed Christ's true body, which good Catholics feed on, is a glorious body, ten ●housand times more glorious than 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 Christ's body by Faith and love only, hear what the same Father says in the same Homily, a little before the last words cited; Neque enim illi satis fuit hominem fieri, colaphis caedi, & crucifigi, verùm ut semetipsum nobis commiscet, & nos fide tantùm, verum & ipsa re, nos suum efficit corpus. He (Christ) was not only contented to become man, to be buffeted and crucified, but he also incorporates himself into us, and makes us to be his own body, not by Faith only, but truly and really. And (Hom. 61. ad Pop. Antio.) the same Father thus saith; Vnum corpus e●●icimur etc.  itaque non tantùm per charitatem hoc ●iamus, verum etiam ipsa re, in illam misceamur carnem; hoc namque per escam efficitur quam largitus est nobis. We are become one and the same body [with Christ, viz by the power of the blessed Sacrament] That then we may be so not by charity only, but truly and really let us be incorporated into that flesh, for this is brought to pass by that food which he has given us. And now Doctor, how is it possible that Bread and Wine should incorporare us into Christ's flesh; or that bare figures should make us become one body with him, and that not only spiritually and mystically, but truly and really? But let us hear the same Father speak once more; (Hom. 60. ad Pop. Antioch.) Nos Ministrorum tenemus locum, qui verò sanctificat ●a & immuta● ipse est. We supply the place of Minister's, 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 communicant.  
38. Let us now hear what S. Ambrose says, (the 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 Jesus, 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 jesus, 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 changed 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 Christ's omnipotent power, instrumentally by the words of Consecration pronounced by the Priest; then doubtless, not by the faith and charity of the communicant.  
39 Some of your Sect I know have been very forward to acknowledge Christ truly and really present in the blessed Sacrament; nay, that Christ's 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 Christ's body being really present there: If by those words you understand the manner of Christ's body being present in the Sacrament, then is his body present there apprehensively only; for by Faith the soul apprehends Christ's body, which in that apprehension is spiritually present to the faithful. and worthy communicant: but how then can this be cleared from a contradiction? for to be present apprehensively only by faith, is contradistinguisht from being truly and really present; so that to say, Christ's body is truly and really in the blessed Sacrament by faith, is in effect to say, Christ's body is truly and really in the Sacrament, and, Christ's 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 Christ's body being really present in the Sacrament, or a necessary condition, without which Christ's body cannot be really present there: then first you contradict the forecited Fathers, who say, that Christ's body is really present in the Sacrament by the omnipotent power of Christ in the words of Consecration pronounced 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 says, 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 blood by his word, by his secret power. How can Transubstantiation be more plainly exprssed, then in these words? Or what is Transubstantiation, but a change of creatures into another substance? Many more testimonies might be brought both from the ancient 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 contained 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 only? Or where is it said; You shall administer the blessed Sacrament to the Laity under both kinds? If any such precept be contained in plain words of Scripture, why has it never yet been discovered? and if there be no such plain precept there, than 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 obscure and ambiguous, cannot be better interpreted then by the ancient and universal practice 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 Manichees abstaining from wine, as a thing unlawful, condemned the use of the Chalice in the blessed Sacrament, divers Catholic Bishops in opposition to those Herctiques, commended the practice of communicating under both kinds: and afterwards, when this error was exploded, and a contrary succeeded, viz. an opinion of certain Heretics, who maintained the necessity of communicating under both kinds, because (as they said) Christ was not wholly and entirely comtained under either: Then the church to prevent a farther Schism, declared the lawfulness and sufficiency of communicating in one kind only, and did withal forbid the administration of the blessed Sacrament under both. The indifferency of communicating in one or both kinds, and the ancient practice of the church in relation thereunto, I have else where shown, Sect. 20 wherefore here I will only add those words of our blessed Saviour in confirmation thereof, Jo. 6. 59 He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. If then the end of the institution of the blessed Sacrament, which is eternal life, may be obtained by eating only the body of Christ; it cannot be necessary for salvation to communicate in both kinds, since salvation may be obtained by communicating under the Species of Bread only; and these words are a plain exposition of those words precedent, so often alleged against the Church of Rome by Heretics, Jo. 6. 54. Unless ye shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you: whereby it appears 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, Christ's body and blood being entirely contained under either Species, whosoever receives his body, must also receive his blood: and since Blood is properly the subject of drinking, not of eating, he that any way receives Christ's blood, may be said to drink it, drinking being as properly referred 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 eats Christ's body, must also necessarily drink his blood.  
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 Christ's Passion. Besides, it is to be observed, 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 administered the Cup, than he used them conditionally; Do this, as often as ye shall drink, in remembrance of me.  
42. The third fond Doctrine, and repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, is, invocation of Saints. But where are those plain words of Scripture? I have read the Old and New Testament, yet never could find any such precept as this, Thou shalt not, or, no man shall invocate Saints. Or, Thou shalt not desire the Saints to offer up thy prayers to God. Or, Thou shalt not pray to the Saints to pray for thee; and if no such precept can be found in Scripture, in plain terms (as never any such was yet discovered there) then doubtless this Doctrine is not repugnant to the plain words of Scripture. But on the contrary, I find this Doctrine, viz. That the blessed Saints may be invocated, very probably (if not necessarily) deducible from Scripture. For if Angels may be invocated, why may not Saints, who see God as well as the Angels, and are in the same state of bliss and glory with those blessed Spirits? but that the Angels may be invocated, is most plain in divers places of Scripture. As from the examples of Abraham, Gen. 18. who in that one chapter prayed six times to the Angel: Of Lot, Gen. 19 Of Jacob, Gen. 32. and Gen. 48. 15. where Jacob blessing the sons of Joseph, after he had invocated his Angel Guardian, useth these words, And let my name, and the name of my Fathers, Abraham and Isaac be invocated on them. Which words are far more plain for Invocation of Saints, than any place of Scripture that you or any other can allege, can make against it.  
And I desire you to take S. Augustives' observation along with you upon those words, Vnde notandum est (saith he) nonsolùm ex●u●itionem, sed & invocationem dici aliquando, quae non Dei, sed hominum sunt. Aug. in Gen. to. 3. Whence we may observe, that sometimes, not only hearing, but invocation also is spoken of, as not belonging to God (only) but to men. So likewise from the example of Moses, (Ex. 32.) where the Angel of God appeared to him in a flaming bush, S. Stephen himself interpreting it so, Act. 7 30. Of Gedeon, judg. 11. 6. Of josuah, jos 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 alleged against this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints and Angels. For that blessed Apostle S. john, either knew him to be an Angel, or not; if he knew him not to be an Angel, than he mistook the Angel for Christ, as probably he might, because the Angel spoke in the person of Christ, saying; I am Alpha and Omega, etc. 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, than it cannot be reasonably supposed, that the blessed Apostle could sin in worshipping the Angel; because he having received the Holy Ghost, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and being so dear to our blessed Saviour, insomuch that he is styled 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. John's adoration of the Angel had been reproved by the Angel, as in itself 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. john was to Christ, and what secret and sublime mysteries had been revealed unto him, more than 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 nearer to God than the Angel himself; so that, in brief, besides the lawfulness of adoring Angels (and consequently Saints) there is nothing else from this place observable, but S. John's humility in adoring the Angel, and the Angels modestly in refusing the adoration.  
If then Abraham, Lot, jacob, josuah, Gedeon, and S. john 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 show but as much Antiquity for your Religion, as I can for this Doctrine, I will then shake hands with you, and become a Protestant myself.  
Let us then look back towards the Primitive times, and examine the ancient Doctrine and practice of the Church. Theodoret, who lived An. Christi 430. proves this Doctrine by the general practice of the Church in his time; Qui in peregrinationem aliquam mittuntur (saith he) petunt instanter hos (sanctos Martyrs') sieri viae comites, & deuces 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. 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 acknowledgement 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 Council 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 Marry, Mother of God, by whom the precious Cross is reverenced, and adored through ut the whole world. Let us hear S. B●si● (Epist, 205. ad julian Apost.) who lived in the year of Christ 370. Sanctos Apostolos Prophetas, & Martyrs i●●o●o, ut apud Deum supplement, & characteres imaginum ipsorum honoro & veneror his traditis à sanctis Apostolis. I invocate the holy apostles, Prophets, and Martyrs, that they may pray to God (for us) I honour and reverence their Images; these things being delivered unto us by the holy Apostles. Here we find that almost 1300. years since, this Doctrine of Invocation of Saints, and honouring their Images, was received by the Church as an Apostolical Tradition: and Calvin himself (Instit. li. 3. c. 20. n. 22. speaking of the third Council of Carthage, whereat S, Augustine was present, acknowledges, that at that time Invocation of Saints was practised 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 custom to say, Saint Marry, or Saint Peter, pray for us.  
S. Hierom (Tom. 1. pa. 59 edit. Paris. and To. p. 122. edit. basilians.) 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 john 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 confirmed 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 questioned without blasphemy: and if you deny the minor, you must give Theodoret & S. Augustine the lie, 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 Relics 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 charged; 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 Catholic Church concerning Images, which is this, The Images of Christ, of the Mother of God, and other Saints, may be had and kept, and due honour and reverence is to be given unto them; a● appears by the Profession of Faith composed and authorised by the Council of Trent. Where are the plain words of Scripture to which this Doctrive is repugnant? Where is it said in Scripture; in plain and express words, Thou shalt not give any worship, honour, or reverence 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. etc. but where is it said, Thou shalt not worship, honour, or reverence the holy Images of Christ, or of his Saints? Those Texes of Scripture forbidden 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 honour and reverence to be given to holy Images of Christ, and his Saints. I must again demand, where is the repugnancy between this Doctrine of the Church of Rome, and the plain words of Scripture? If you say, that those words Ex 20. Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven Image, etc. Thou shalt not fall down 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 lawful to honour 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 worshipped, 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 honour due to the holy Images of Christ and his Saints, not a divine, or absolute, but a certain far inferior worship, and merely relative. Is it a greater sin in me to adore Christ in or before his image, than it was in jacob to adore joseph in his Rod or Sccpter? S. Paul says, (Heb. 11. 21.) that jacob adored the top of josephs' Rod: wherein saith S. Chrisost. Hom. 66. and Theodoret q. 108. in Gen. josephs' dream was fulfilled, viz. That his Father should worship him. From jacob under the Old, let us come to the Fathers under the New Testament. You have already heard S. Basil Epist. ad julian, 205. publicly 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 Council of Ephesus (the third General Council) where himself was Precedent under Pope Celestine; it will not be impertinent to repeat his words, Hail Marry, mother of God, by whom the precious Cross is reverenced 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 than probable, that the whole Church then represented in that Council, did practise that Adoration; otherwise, doubtless, the Council would have declared 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. chrysostom, Theodoret, should maintain, and the whole Council 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 Relics of Saints? and is it not known to all the world with what holy zeal and bitterness S. Hierome inveighs against Vigilantius, for opposing and condemning that practice? Does he not charge Vigilantius with Blasphemy, for speaking against the Adoration of sacred Relics? Has not God by many apparent Miracles approved this holy practice? (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 Council, it was a custom to adorn Churches with Images; as appears by S. Gregory Nazi●nzen, (Epist. 49. ad Olympium) who sat in that Council: as also by this testimony out of Eusebius, who sat in the first General Council of Nice, held about the year of Christ 325. that in his time, and long before, Images of Christ and his Apostles were made and adored, Hist. Eccles. li. 7. c. 14. his words are these; Et nos Apostolorum ipsius (Christi) imagines, Pauli, & Petri, & ipsius etiam Christi vidimus per colores in picturis conservat●s, antiquis, ut par est, immutabiliter solitis hoc modo honorare, etc. We also have seen the Images of Christ's Apostles, Paul, and Peter, as also of Christ himself, preserved in Pictures by colours, our Ancestors being wont, as it is fit, to honour 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. Gregory's Coetanean, Bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, who purposely wrote in defence of this Doctrine: As also of the second General Council of Nice, which defined and declared this Doctrine to be an Apostolical Tradition, condemning and anathematising the Iconoclasts, or Image-breakers, as Heretics. I omit also the present practice 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 honouring and reverencing Images from superstition and Idolatry, against the Protestants. All these I purposely pass by, because I will contain myself within the first five hundred years, to which you have appealed. You see then, Doctor, the practice and doctrine of the Church within five hundred years after Christ's birth, in the Fathers and Counsels . Be now as good as your word, submit to their sentence for trial of the truth of Religion, and you will (by God's grace) soon return to your Mother, the Roman Catholic Church.  
Thus is that charge, which you say (Sect. 28. of your second answer) We know not how to shift off, fully answered.  
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 governed the Church about 200. years after the birth of our Saviour, excommunicated the Churches of Asia for their too much Judaizing in the observation of Easter, is a very strong argument against you. For first, S. Victor was a pious and blessed man, and therefore it cannot be reasonably imagined, 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 days esteemed the Bishop of Rome the common Pastor of Christ's 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 looked on the Bishop of Rome, as the supreme visible Head of Christ's Church. But because he conceived 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 sometimes did S. Peter; and as S. Paul never questioned S. Peter's Jurisdiction, nor denied him to be the chief and Head of the Apostles; so neither did S. Irenaeus, nor any of the Eastern Church, that were excommunicated by Pope Victor, question or protest against the Jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.  
And those words of S. Cyprian in the Council 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 says plainly (Epist. ad Quintinum, and Serm. de ●on. patiented.) that Christ built his Church upon S. Peter: and (li. 4. ep. 8. ad Cornel.) that the Unity of the Catholic 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● thyself, thou Bishop of Rome, while thou go●st about to cast out others, by this presumption thou hast cast off thyself 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 rebaptising Heretics: He never told Pope Stephen, that he had cut himself 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 Heretics 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 conceived) he too much complied with Heretics. And you know, Doctor, the very same Doctrine, for which Firmilianus was excommunicated, was afterward, in the first General Council of Nice, declared to b● Heretical.  
46. It is common (say you) in these days, 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 inventions 〈…〉 ●hese courses I abhor with a 〈…〉.  
Ans. Here D●ctor, you have directly given sentence against yourself: If you will but examine the Doctrines of the Roman Church, and your Doctrines, wherein you oppose and differ from her: but according to S. Augustine's Rule (the Baptis. li. 2. c. 23.) and the principles of common reason, you will soon discover which is the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints, received 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 show 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 proved 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 embraced new inventions, and totally forsaken the Rule of Faith delivered to the Saints, received from them by the Primitive Church, and transmitted to Posterity? If it can be clearly demonstrated, that all your Doctrines wherein you differ from the Roman Church are new; and if it cannot be proved, that any one Doctrine of the Roman Church had its beginning since the Apostles, either you abhor not these courses with a perfect hatred (as you profess) or else you must in all points embrace the Doctrine of the Roman Church.  
47. But stay; Here I meet with a brace of fierce Syllogisms, 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 proved 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 forced to fly to most ridiculous shifts and fallacies; and those fallacies I meet with here again, Sect. 3●. where the Church of Rome is charged with all sins almost imagineable, and divers Authors are cited to prove that charge. Let us see then how they prove it.  
Plarina and Onuphrius are produced to prove, that Schism was raised there. What then? Was the Church of Rome therefore Schismatical, because some raised a Schism there? I told you before, that the Authors only of the Schism, and those that adhere to them are the Schismatics, they have forsaken the Church, they have cut themselves off from Christ's body; the Church itself remains still sound and entire. But that Stella and Almain should charge the Church of Rome with Heresy, to say no more, is most false. I must once more put you in mind what Stella says 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 vicious? was the Church of Rome therefore vicious? and what if some Popes of Rome had fallen from their Faith, must the Church of Rome therefore forsake her Faith?  
There was a time (you say, out of Baronius, An. Christi 908. n. 5. and An. 931. n. 1.) when Marozia, and her Daughter (a couple of lewd Strumpets) disposed of the Popedom 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 days was also vitions? or because Marcellinus, Liberius, and 10. 22. denied jesus Christ to be the true God and Eternal Life, therefore in those days Rome was no Church, but an Antichristian Synagogue, as you infer, Sect. 17. It follows as necessarily; that because some Popes have been boys, therefore in those times the Church of Rome consisted only of boys, and that there were neither men, women, nor children in the whole Church: as likewise, because some Popes have been fools and knaves, that therefore at that time there were no wise nor honest men in the Church of Rome. To such miserable and ridiculous shifts are Heretics 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, etc. An. 931. where you find Sergius mentioned in your former citation, An. 908. but a Pse●do-Pope; a mere Usurper, and his Bastard john 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 sede deponerent, & alios intruderent. Here you see those Princes so powerful in Rome, that they could dispose, and set up what Popes they pleased. 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, God's providence was over his Church, that notwithstanding these distracted and calamitous times, yet the Roman Church was preserved free, both from Schism and Heresy: 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 ho 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 ubique●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 discovered this undiscoverable consequence.  
48. Those other words that you produce our of Baronius (An. 373. n. 21.) whereby you would make the world believe, that Baronius held an opinion, that the Pope by his own authority might make and alter Decrees in matters of Faith, as he pleased, are to be understood only thus, That the Pops, with the advice of his Bishops, may in a private Council for the peace and quietness of the Church, till a General Council may be called, 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 Counsels concerning Doctrines of Faith, this Baronius never taught: he was too great a Scholar, and too good a Catholic 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 governed the Church) upon a supposition, that the Pope had admitted the Apollinarians to the Council 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 reconciled to the Pope, and admitted to the Council at Rome, he professed, 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 passed 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 answered, 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 the particular Church of Rome is a part or member of the Roman Catholic Church, and so were you before Luther; but with him you have apostatised, 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 Apostasy adhered to his Heresies, followed him also in his Apostasy, 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 yourselves from the Catholic Church, than were the Arrians, Nestorians, Macedontans, Pelagians, etc. no Heretics; neither were they separated from the Catholic Church, but were only under Reformation. Do not you oppose and deny Doctrines of Faith, as anciently and as universally received by the Church, as those that the Arrians, Nestorians, Macedonians, Pelagians, etc. opposed and denied? What difference can you make between Arrius and Luther, in respect of their apostasy? Did not Luther set himself against the whole world as well as Arrius? Did not the whole Christian world, besides yourselves, upon your first Reformation (as you call it) detest your new Doctrines, and abhor your communion? Did not the pretended Greek Church itself (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 entitled, 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 Christ's 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 of Images, c. 21. Was there any one man in the whole world, that professed your Foctrine before Luther? and yet, forsooth, yours was no separation from the Catholic Church, but a Reformation, a blessed Reformation, that must necessarily justify all former Heresies, that ever were condemned, and all Heretics and Schismatics that ever separated themselves from God's Church. To say no more, where is your succession of Bishops and Pastors, which are essential to God's 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 mary'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 Spalleto, 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, 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 Catholic Church might be properly called the Church of Antioch, which ever since has been called the Roman Church, and ever will be, until S. Peter's Successor shall translate his Chair to some other place.  
51. After this follows a most notorious falsehood, 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 heretical, and complied with Arrius: This is most apparently false by the Records of all Histories; for at that time the Western 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 it from the Catholic Church. But from those words of the Father [caeteris extra Gallias] you would prove, that all the world besides France was out of the Catholic Church; for (say you) There was then no communion with Rome, unless it can be proved, that Rome was in France, Sect. 23. But pray tell me Doctor, Was Alexandria and Sardinia more in France, than Rome? and yet you here confess, that at the very same time those were Catholic 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 Catholic and Orthodox, and if so, why not Rome? especially since that Father did not in particular charge Rome with Arrianism, more than 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 Catholic Church: Wherefore you have forced yourself 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 Catholic and Orthodox Churches, unless you can prove, that Alexandria and Sardinia are in France.  
52. Hitherto than you have showed no Church at all distinct from the Roman Church in any age, though you were pleased to say Sect. 3. of this second answer, That your learning is such, that you do know such a Church, and your charity such, that you have shows it.  
It seems you shown it so well, that M. T. B. was thereby fully satisfied, that the Catholic Church never was, nor can be distinct from the Church of Rome; and has thereupon embraced her communion, and is by God's grace, become a good Catholic. 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 against M. T. B. as your comparing him to Seneca's wives fool; your charging him for not being able to search the Scriptures, Counsels, 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 shown more wit and judgement in one line, than you have in all your Pamphlet, and has said more in one sentence, than you, or all the Rabble of your Sect can answer in an age. But let us see how you 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 ancient Doctrine than 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 public Service and Devotion? Is there any point of Faith or Doctrine absolutely declared and defined there▪ You will say, perchance, that in the three Creeds are contained divers Declaratious and definitions of Faith; I confess it, but those Creeds are not inserted there merely as definitions of Faith, with a precept under a curse, that all should believe whatsoever is there declared, but as parts of your Public 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 Discipline, than 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 Catholic Writers. Answ. I confess, that most (if not all) of the Doctrines deducible thence, were ever professed, and are visible in all Catholic Writers, because they are the Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, whence you have borrowed them, as you have your whole book of Common-Prayer, and the Scripture itself, only you have taken the sacrilegious boldness to expunge out of both what your private fancies would not admit: but if you can show any one of your negative or positive Doctrines contained in your book of Articles, and which is opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in any one Catholic Writer, Father, or Council, from the time of the Apostles to Luther's Apostasy, I here profess before all the world, that I will then become a Protestant myself, or whatsoever else you will command me to be.  
56. But whereas you say, That the most skilful (of the Roman Catholic Party) are not able to show a succession of men professing the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, in the first 700. years of Christianity: I am so amazed, 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 falsehood to the world, and not blush? certainly you never read the Fathers, nor Counsels, nor therein examined the ancient Doctrine and practice of the Church, or if you have (as you pretend) your judgement 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 Saviour's Divinity through so many stupendious miracles. The Sun itself 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 shown by divers learned Catholic Writers, by you yet unanswered? Has not Bellarmine, Baronius, Cardinal Peron, D. Stratford, etc. most evidently manifested it to the world? Were I not confined within the narrow precincts of a Reply, I could most plainly demonstrate it myself; but it would require a far larger volume than I have now time or opportunity to compose: It is sufficient for me, since you have appealed to the first 500 years after our Saviour's 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 Catholic Church.  
57 Your Church (of England) you say, has been visible since the first or second Conversion, though not always 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 Catholic; but when you began your blessed Reformation, you then ceased to be a Church, or a part of the Catholic Church. For in K. Hen. eight's days you began your Schism, separating yourselves from the communion of your holy Mother the Church of Rome, and the Bishop thereof, the common Pastor of Christ's Church; and in K. Edw. the Sixths Reign your Schism begat Heresy, and under this happy 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 reform you, had more authority and reason for it, than you had to reform the whole Church, or to censure Doctrines of Faith universally taught by God's Church, and received as such by all your Forefathers, from the time of England's conversion to the Christian Faith, till after Luther's apostasy: You considered not, when under pretence of Reformation you forsook the whole Church, that you did but leave a pattern to your Successors, how they also, when they should think fit, might forsake you, and reform this your blessed Reformation, as by God's just judgements 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.  
58. But you say Sect. 9 That you never read in Fathers or Counsels, That to communicate with Rome, is either a sure, or any token of a good Catholic. 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. quicunque extra hanc Domum agnum comederit, prophanus est; si quis in Arca No● non fuerit, peribit regnante diluvio; quicunque tecum non colligit, spargit; Hoc est, qui Christi non est, Antichristi est. I am (saith S. Hierom) joined in communion to your Holiness, that is, to Peter's Chair, upon that Rock I know the Church to be built, whosoever out of this House eats the Ldmb, is profane; whosoever shall not be in Noah's 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. Peter's Chair, with the Church and Bishop of Rome, is out of God's Church, and therefore no Catholic.  
Neither did you ever read S. Ambrose's Funeral Oration on the death of his brother Satyrus, where you might have found these words, Advocavit ad se Episcopum, etc. percontatusque ex eo est, utrumnam cum Episcopis Catholicis, hoc est, cum Romana Ecclesia conveniret. He called unto him a Bishop, and ached him, whether he were in communion with the Catholic 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, etc. He (Caecilianus) might despise the conspiring multitude of his enemies, when he perceived himself to be united to the Church of Rome, where the principality of the Apostolic Chair ever flourished, by communicatory letters. These three learned Fathers, and glorious lights of God's church were Co●taneans, though S. Ambrose died in the fourth century after Christ's 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 these words; Scripsisti etiam, ut exemplum, etc. 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 Catholic 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' Doctrine, who lived 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 undique fideles; It is necessary that every Church, that is, all the faithful from all parts, should range themselves to this Church (of Rome) for its more powerful principality, li. 3. c. 3. And now Doctor, what can you say? Methinks you look somewhat black upon it; you must withal take notice, that all these Fathers lived 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 Catholic, to communicate with the Church of Rome. A thousand testimonies more might be alleged, but these are sufficient to publish D. Boughens ignorance to the world. I thought it not impertinent to add one testimony more (in confirmation of this, and what I said before, Sect. 32. of John Patriarch of Constantinople, in his Epistle to Hormisda, who about the beginning of the century, viz. An. 514. was elected Pope, that thereby the communion of the Greek Church with the Roman, and her subjection to the Apostolic Sea of Rome, may plainly appear. Promittentes in seque●te tempore, etc. We promise (saith he) hereafter not to commemorate those in the sacred mysteries, who have been secluded from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who consent not fully with the Sea Apostolic. Here is the opinion of the great Patriarch of the East, above a 1100. years since, That those who were separated from the Sea Apostolic, were out of the communion of the Catholic Church: and by this it appears how true your following words are, viz. That faith which we received from the Apostles, and Counsels, 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 falsehood to the world? By this appears also how evidently false that saying of yours is (at least as you apply it) in the beginning of your 11. Sect. viz. That this National Church is as much Catholic and Apostolic as can be desired.  
I confess, this National Church (that is, those that preserve the ancient Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and keep themselves within the communion of the holy Catholic Church) is, God be praised, as much Catholic and Apostolic, as can be desired: but I am sure, those of your Congregation, or pretended church, are neither Catholic or Apostolic, unless to forsake the communion of the Catholic Church, and the Doctrines and Traditions of the Apostles, be to be Catholic and Apostolic, as I have already abundantly proved. And that Rule which you cite out of Vincent Lyrinens. in the later end of your 10. Sect. [Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus, etc. That which hath been believed in all places, at all times, by all the Fathers, that is truly Catholic] will rise up in Judgement against you. By this Rule you have condemned yourself of Schism and Heresy; 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 show any one place, any one time, or any one Father; nay, any one man before Luther's Apostasy, that maintained 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 descent from, and oppose the Church of Rome, except such only, as were noted by the Church for Innovators in Religion, and condemned for Heretics.  
59 And whereas you are pleased 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 yourself 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 faithful me● in the which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same] Mr. T. B. never denied, or questioned; 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 Catholic, 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 Catholic Church, which observes not that which is essential to the Catholic 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 heresy, that for Doctrines of Faith necessary to salvation teaches blasphemous fables? Art. 31. Or that Sacrilegiously robs the Laity of Christ's blood▪ with which you charge the Church of Rome, Sect. 11. of your first Answer: Or that maintains Doctrines repugnant to plain words of Scripture? Sect. 24. ib. Or that errs 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 Relics, wherewith you charge the Church of Rome. Sect. 34. ib.? Can any Church be blasphemous, sacrilegious, idolatrous, repugnant in her Doctrines to plain words of Scripture, erroneus in Doctrines of Faith, and yet not be heretical, but continue still essentially a true Church?  
But because you are pleased to extend your Charity beyond Reason towards the Church of Rome, I will not quarrel with you about it; only 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 Diocese, 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 Angel of the Church of Pergamos; which by many Catholic Expositors both Ancient and Modern; as also by divers of your own Sect and Religion, is interpreted, The bishop of the Church. If the Church of Pergamos had held the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans, She had been Heretical, and consequently no Church: but it was the Bishop, not the Church, that was heretical. And if God may charge the Bishop of the Church of Pergamos with Heresy, 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 heresy?  
60. your taking the Church of Rome for maiming the blessed Sacrament. Sect. 13. has been fully answered already. Sect. 18. 19 and. Sect. 41.  
61. But the Doctor is very hot in proving, that the Church must err with her Bishop; and therefore the Church of Rome was no Church, when her Bishops were heretical. Such as the Bishop is (says 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 urged to prove it, who says, that as the Bishop is in the Church, so is the Church in the Bishop. I confess, 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 Priest, 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 Kingdom, or a General in his Army; and the Church likewise is in the Bishop, not formally, but communicatiuè; all the particular members thereof being in communion with the Bishop, as their Head. And this is all that can be gathered from those words of the Father. Since then the Church cannot be Formally in the Bishop, but only by way of communion, subjection, government, or Discipline; why may not the Church be Catholic, though the Bishop be Heretical?  
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 Catholic, when the Bishops thereof were heretics. Sect, 19 All Heretics (says he) while such, both themselves and all that side with them, are secluded from Ecclesiastical communion every way. But divers Popes were Heretics or Schismatics; 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 heresy, yet not Heretical. But behold another argument to prove the Church of Rome not Catholic: When all Episcopal Acts were void, the Church could not possibly be Catholic. But when the Bishops were Heretics, all Episcopal Acts were void; therefore the Church could not possibly be Catholic. Answ. This consequence is much like the other: All the Acts of Heretical Bishops are void; therefore the Church cannot possibly be Catholic; 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, than the Western.  
62. Besides, you may remember, Doctor, that in the beginning of this second answer, you confessed, that in S. Hilaries time, at that very time when Rome (as you falsely say) was Arrian, Sardinia was a Catholic and Orthodox Church: How can that agree with this which you here endeavour to prove out of S. Hilary? Was not Sardinia part of the Western Church? How then could all the Western parts be excluded from Christian communion, besides France, when Sardinia, which is in these Western parts, was (as yourself confess) a Catholic and Orthodox Church? How can these two possibly consist together? It seems you have forgot yourself. Oportet mendacem esse memorem.  
60. After all the other Popes. Faelix is brought in for communicating with Arrians, and Socrates and Zozomen are alleged to prove, that therefore Rome itself was then accounted Arrian. What then, says Socrates? that Liberius was banished for his constancy in defending the Catholic 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 consensisse, & omnino, quantum pertinebat ad Religionem, reprehensione caruisse. Liberius (saith he) was deprived of the Bishopric of the Roman Church, to which Faelix, a Deacon of that Clergy, was preferred, who is ●said to have always consented to the Faith of the Nicene Council, and was never  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 Catholics at this time communicate with Heretics in England, France, Germany, etc. in outward conversation and civil commerce, though not in their Heresy? and you neither have proved, 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 Catholic.  
61. To pass by your impertinent distinction between a professed and a close Heretic, 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 censured to be Heretics. Answ. This is to be understood when the Bishop is Catholic, and keeps himself within the communion of the Catholic Church; but if the Bishop be heretical, and the Church shall communicate with him in his Heresy, the Church also becomes heretical, be the Bishop thereof a professed or close Heretic, it matters not: but by this your own Rule you must confess yourselves Heretics, because you did originally s●ver yourselves from your Canonical Catholic Bishops, and followed your own, and other men's 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 professed or close Heretic, and yet the Church may be Catholic: and this yourself expressly grant in your following Sect. 22. where you say, That you believe that the King of England, and Archbishop of Cauterbury, ●ither, or both of them, may be Heretics, and this Church not so; since it is not their being, but our complying that makes us heretical. Herein you have fully contradicted yourself, and granted whatsoever I have said concerning this point: For if the Church of England may be Catholic, though both King and Metropolitan thereof be Heretics, why may not the Church of Rome be Catholic, 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 Catholic. All your pretended bishops may be heretical (as they were all for about these 100 years together last passed) and yet there may be a Catholic Church in England. It is possible that the particular members of each Diocese may not comply with their bishop in his Heresy; and then, according to your own saying, they are not heretical. The inferior Priests and people may preserve their faith, though all the bishops fall from it: but what is all this to the purpose? Were ever all the bishops that were subject to the Patriarchal Sea of Rome, at one and the same time, Heretics? I suppose, no man besides yourself was ever possessed with such a ridiculous imagination. What if your Archbishop of Canterbury alone had been an Heretic, and all the other bishops within his Province Catholic? will you therefore conclude, that the particular Church or Diocese of Canterbury must necessarily have been heretical? If you say so, you plainly contradict yourself, who even now said, that it is not the Kings or Archbishops 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 join 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 accounted. Secondly, if they were accounted heretical, does it herefore necessarily follow, that they were so? Does truth and falsehood depend on the opinions of men? if so, than every man in his own opinion would be Catholic, and all the world besides, that concur not with him in his judgement, would be Heretics. It is not necessary that every one must be good or bad, catholic, or heretic, 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 accounted, 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 Valens and Eudoxius by joining together in heresy withdrew many, partly by power, pardly by example from the Catholic Faith; does it therefore always necessarily follow, that when the Prince and Priest join in heresy, the people also must be heretical? Must every thing come to pass, because it may come to pass? No, Doctor, the young Sophisters will tell you, that, à posse & esse non valet argumentum.  
65. And whereas you say, that under King Edward VI and Queen Mary, the Religion of the church was judged of by the Governors: 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 ancient Catholic Faith, that constitutes a church) was judged of, not by the Governors, but by the Laws that were made in K. Edw. VI and Queen mary's days respectively, either to establish a new upstart Religion, never before heard of in the world, or to re-establish the ancient Catholic Faith: So that in K. Edw. VI days the Nation might be said to be heretical, but the Church was even at that time Catholic, otherwise it could not have been a church; and in Q. mary's days both church and Nation were Catholic. 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 Catholic faith, yet the Church of Rome might still have retained her prerogative of being the Mother church, and Head of all particular churches in the world. And though the Pope might have forfeited all his Ecclesiastical power and Jurisdiction, and so ceased to be Head of the church, yet the right of S. Peter's 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 err 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 Creeds, is a mere calumny, spoken gratis, without any colour or show 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 practice of the church, and you your new fantastical 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 excused from heresy, because you oppose other Doctrines of Faith that are not contained 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 jointly, or severally.  
66. And whereas you charge the Church of Rome, with imposing a new Creed of Pius 4. upon the church, against a canon of the Council 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 expressly comprehended in the Creeds. It can no more properly be called a Creed, than 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 Council, and confirmed by Pope Pius 4. It was neither composed, nor commanded by the Pope alone, but by him jointly wi●h the Council. 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 Council of Ephesus; that Council, at the most, for bidding only private persons to set forth, or publish any Creed, that should contain in it any Doctrine contrary to any article of belief in those former Creeds, Neither indeed could the church in the Council 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 Council of Trent, to set forth a new form of Profession of Faith, than it was for the church assembled in the Council of Nice, or Constantinople? No Council can rob the church of that power which Christ hath given her. And by this Profession of Faith the Roman Church has neither altered the letter, nor sense of former Creeds; though you dare be bold to say, She has strangely altered the sense. I confess, you are bold to say any thing, but you have proved 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 says, This is my Body which is given (or broken) for you; This is my Blood 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 Blood. You deny, that the bread and wine which our B. Saviour took and blest, was truly and substantially converted into his body and blood, and are not ashamed to say, that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture.  
Let all the world judge, 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 ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latin, the Declarations of Counsels, the ancient and universal practice of the whole church, which always adored the B. Sacrament, after consecration, with divine worship.  
68 In Sect. 29. I meet with another absurd and impertinent distinction, between error in Faith, and error in matters of Faith; as if errors in Faith, and errors 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 judgement; 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 Catholic Church, but a false opinion of God does. How then is that of S. Paul true, Heb. 11. 6. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Can a man violate Faith, though but in some one point, and yet be a Catholic? who ever thought so besides your ●elf? by the same reason one and the same man may be at the same time both Catholic and Heretic. But to prove your new opinion, you produce an ancient testimony of S. Augustine, (de fid. & Symb. c. 20.) Haereti●i de Deo falsa sentiendo, ipsam fidem violant, quapropter non pertinent ad Ecclesiam Catholicam. Heretics by having a false opinion of God, violate Faith itself, wherefore they belong not to the Catholic Church. Answ. Here is now a fine proof, if well examined. 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 Catholic Church, because they have violated the Faith, than it necessarily follows, that every violation of Faith cuts a man off from the Catholic 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 Doctor would have him. What shall we discover then? even this consequence, Heretics by having a false opinion of God are cut off from the Catholic Church; therefore every violation of Faith cuts not off from the Catholic 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 God's favour. Murder and Adultery exclude a man from God's favour; therefore not every damnable sin excludes a man from God's 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 Luther's 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 gravelled the poor Doctor, that he is forced to fly to most miserable and ridiculous shifts. M. T. B. very rationally and judiciously says, by way of objection, that Christ's mystical Body is but one; and although the Body be made up of divers members, yet all these members must communicate one with another; for if a member be separated but by Schism, it is like an arm cut off from the Body, or a branch from the Vine, which makes that arm or branch no part of the Body or Vine. To this the Doctor answers thus, What though all this be granted, will this make one of the two no Church? I believe not. Reply. '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 Catholic Church, both in Doctrines of Faith and external communion, and yet not be Schismatical, but still continue a Catholic Church? who ever before D. Boughen could say or think so? Well, but S. Paul's authority is alleged, 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 rejoicings 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 rejoicings one with another; therefore to avoid Schism, there is no other communion necessary. I am sure, this is no necessary consequence; but with such poor fallacies as these, Heretics have always endeavoured 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 says, that as all the members of the natural body mutually assist each other, and without any Schism, that is, any division, or discord, jointly concur to preserve the body; so also in the Church, which is Christ's 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 all that S. Paul intends in that place, as by the context of the whole cha. will 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 Catholic Churches. There be divers particular Churches that differ from each other in some ceremonies, and yet are in perfect charity, and communicate with each other. As for example, The Western 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 Greek Church has always accustomed to consecrate in leavened bread: besides, these two Churches differ in divers ceremonies of the Mass, though not in any substantial or essential part thereof. And yet these two churches are in perfect charity and communion with each other. (I speak here of the true Catholic Greek Church, not of those schismatics and Heretics, who have cut themselves off from the Catholic Church; whom notwithstanding you are pleased to call the Greek Church.) Neither do those churches abhor each others ceremonies as superstitious or unlawful, but the particular members of each church are most ready to conform to the ceremonies and discipline of each other, according as any of them shall travel or pass from one church to the other. As when a bishop or Priest of the Eastern church travels into any part of the Western, he than makes me scruple to consecrate in unleavened bread, as formerly in his own church he consecrated in leavened; but when any two churches shall abhor●e and detest the Doctrine and ceremonies of each other, as heretical, sacrilegious, idolatrous, and repugnant to plain Scripture, there is then a perfect schism. And since these two abhor each others communion, charging each other with sacrilegious, idolatrous, and damnable errors, they cannot both meet in the Catholic Church; and therefore one of them must necessarily be cut off from Christ's mystical body, either by heresy or schism, 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 heresy, or schism, or both; and therefore no part of the Catholic Church.  
72. It is then now time to show who is the schismatic. And that you are schismatical, I prove thus.  
Those that have separated themselves from the communion of the Catholic Church, are schismatical.  
But you have separated yourselves from the communion of the Catholic Church.  
Ergo. You are Schismatical.  
The Major is evident, and often granted by the Doctor; the minor is thus proved.  
Those that have separated themselves from the communion of the bishop and Church of Rome, have separated themselves from the Catholic Church.  
But you have separated yourselves from the communion of the bishop, and Church of Rome.  
Ergo. You have separated yourselves from the communion of the Catholic Church.  
The minor is acknowledged 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 authentic testimonies more in proof thereof. S. Cyprian says, (li. 4. ep. 8. a d Cornel. Pontif.) Placuit ut per Episcopos, reteni● à nobis rei veritate ad comprobandam ordinationem tuam, etc. ut te universi Collegae nostri, & communicationem tuam, id est, Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter & charitatem probarent firmiter & tenerent. We thought fit, etc. that all our fellow bishops might steadfastly approve of and embrace you, and your communion, that is, the Catholic Church's unity and charity. Is it not plain by these words, that the unity of the Catholic Church consists in the communion with the Bishop of Rome? And if there be no Catholic unity, but in communion with the Bishop of Rome; it is apparently impossible, that any one can be united to the Catholic 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 testimony more out of S. Cyprian. (Epist. ad Quintinum.) Nam nec Petrus, quem primum elegit, & super quem aedificavit Ecclesiam suam etc. For neither Peter, whom our Lord chose to be the first, and upon whom he built his Church. etc. 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; wherefore 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 lived in the year of Christ 250. and therefore long within the first 500 years, to which you have appealed, Sect. 27. so that you must either confess the Prorestants to be out of the communion of the Catholic Church, and consequently schismatical, at the least; or else you must revoke and renounce your appeal.  
If you will say, that the sense of the whole Church appears not fully in the writings of particular Fathers; you shall hear the confession and acknowledgement of 520. Fathers assembled in the fourth General Council at Chalcedon, in the year 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 Council) thou wert as the Head over the members. And it is to be observed, that this Council was held in the Eastern Church, and consisted for the most part of the Fathers of that Church; wherein notwithstanding Pope Leo's Delegates sat in the uppermost Seat, and took place of the Patriarch of Constant inople himself, even in his own Patriarchate; which would never have been permitted, had not the Pope's Jurisdiction extended to the Eastern, as well as the Western Churches. About 50. years after the Council, 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 john Patriarch of Constantinople excluded all from the communion of the Catholic Church, that were divided from the Apostolic sea of Rome; which, doubtless, the great Patriarch of the East would never have acknowledged, had it not descended by universal Tradition, that the Bishop of Rome was appointed by Christ to be the supreme Pastor and Governor 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 styled the Pope, his Lord, if his power in the Eastern 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. etc. These things have I now written by Patricius to our Blessed Head.  
By this it plainly appears, that in those days, within the first 600. years of Christ, the Bishop of Rome was acknowledged the Head of the Eastern Churches, as well as of the Western; and that by the Eastern Bishops themselves, even by their chief, and Head-Bishop, the Patriarch of the East; who likewise (as you have already heard) confessed, that all Catholic Communion flows from the Apostolic sea of Rome, as the Head and Fountain thereof. And what better interpreter of Scripture, or more faithful preserver of Apostolic Traditions can therebe, than the ancient and universal practice of the Church?  
To the practice of former Ages, and Declarations of ancient Counsels, let us join the defini●ions of later times, viz. of the Council of Florence, in the year 1439. where the Patriarch of Constantinople was present in person, and all the other Patriarches, either personally, or by their Delegates. Let us then hear the whole Church speaking in that Council.  
Item definimus Sanctam Apostolicam sedem, & Romanum Pontificem in universum Orbem tenere primatum, etc. (Concil. Florent. Act. ult.) Also we declare, that the holy Apostolic Sea and Bishop of Rome hath the primacy over the whole world, and that the Bishop of Rome is S. Peter's 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 Patriarches of the Church, and amongst the rest the Patriarch of Constantinople himself. You shall have his subscription, as it is set down in the Acts of the Council. Joseph miserations divinâ Constantinopolis, etc. Florent. An. 1439. I Joseph, by the mercy of God, Archbishop 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 Christ's Catholic and Apostolic Church of Old Rome believes and embraces, 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 jesus Christ's Vcar, and I deny not that there is a Purgatory for souls. And note, that this is the profession of a dying man past hope of life. Here you see a concurrence of the later ages with the former. Here you see all the churches of the world consenting to the Primacy and Jurisdiction of the Church of Rome. Here you have seen the practice of the ancient church, the Declarations of former Counsels, and the Definitions of later; then which nothing can better interpret Scripture, or more faithfully preserve divine truths and Apostolical Doctrines to posterity.  
Since then the Church of Rome is the Head and Mother-church of the world, and consequently the Fountain of Unity, whosoever shall separate himself from her communion, cannot possibly be a member of the Catholic Church: And since the Church of Rome by her power and Jurisdiction diffuses herself 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 called the Catholic Church. And because the Catholic 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 God's 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 Catholic Church, ever was, or can be guilty of errors in faith, or of superstitious, sacrilegious, or any damnable Doctrines whatsoever.  
73. Besides, when Luther first forsook 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 lived, whose Faith and Doctrine he embraced, and join himself to no other congregation in the whole world, professing the name of Christ, either in doctrine or external communion, and yet be no schismatic? 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 joined 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 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 joined yourselves 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 Catholic Church? then you contradict yourself, who grant Sect. 12. that Rome herself is a Church, a member of the one Catholic. You must also then confess, that the Greek Church (as you call it) is no part of the Catholic Church, and the truth is, you have good reason so to do, since she refused to receive you into her communion, 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 involved in the same Schism.  
74. Let us now see how you can vindicate yourselves from heresy. I will not look beyond those four Doctrines wherewith you have charged the Church of Rome, as being fond, sacrilegious, and repugnant to plain words of Scripture, 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 Heresy.  
First then I demand, whether the Fathers assembled in the four first General Counsels were not competent and lawful Judges of the heresies of those times; as the Arrian, Macedonian, Nestorian, Eutychian, etc. and whether they had not power to condemn those heresies, and to anathematise those that held and taught them as heretics. If they had no such power, than did they most injuriously and tyrannically usurp a power and Jurisdiction, which of right belonged not unto them. But this cannot be prudently supposed, that so many holy, reverend, and learned Fathers should usurp an authority, or arrogate to themselves that power, which was not lawfully derived 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 Council might extend; neither would their piety suffer them to transgress the limits of that authority. If then those four first Counsels had power to judge of, and to declare and define doctrines of faith, and to anathematise all those that should oppose them; how came the Counsels in succeeeding ages to be deprived 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 Schismatics, or heretics? 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 Council of Nice (which was held above 800. years since) to judge and define what reverence and honour is due to holy Images; and to condemn the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers, as it was for the former Counsels to condemn the Arrians, Nestorians, & c? And why was it not as lawful for that great and glorious Council of Lateran, wherein were present both the Patriarches of Constantinople and Jerusalem, to judge of, and declare the true, real, and substantial conversion of the creatures of bread and wine after consecration, into the true and real body and blood of Christ; and to declare the manner of that conversion, as also to express the ancient doctrine of the church by the proper signification of a new word [Transubstantiation] as it was for the first General Council of Nice to judge of, and declare Christ's consubstantiality with the Father, and to invent that new word to express the ancient doctrine, descending unto them by universal and in fallible Tradition of Christ's coeternal and coequal Divinity with the Father? You will 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 Council of Constance (Sess. 13.) to define and declare the indifferency and sufficiency of communicating the Laity under one kind only, and to anathematise those that should pertinatiously oppose that doctrine?  
Lastly, why was it not lawful for the Council 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, confirmed, declared, and defined to be sacred truths, and Apostolical Traditions by four General Counsels. You have also seen them held and practised by the ancient Fathers, that lived within the first 500 years of Christianity, Sect. 35. 36. 37. 38. etc. what can you say for yourselves? what can you plead for yourselves, 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 Catholic, but of the Church of Rome only, and those in communion with her, which you say is but part of the Catholic Church. But this will not now serve your turn: whether the Church of Rome and those in communion with her, be a part only of the Catholic Church, or the whole Catholic Church itself, (as I have sufficiently proved it is) it matters not, you cannot be excused from heresy. For when Luther was a Friar, 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 received, embraced, and publicly professed by the whole Christian world. Not the Church of Rome and those in communion with her only, but those also that were out of her communion (as the whole pretended Greek Church) received and professed these doctrines in their universal, public and daily practice; 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 doctrines 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 Luther's apostasy, received, held, and maintained them? and if those that shall thus separate themselves from, and oppose the whole church in doctrines of faith, received by the whole church as such, and acknowledged by her to be of universal and Apostolical tradition, be not heretics, there never was, neither is it possible that there ever should be any heretic in the world. And yet yours was no separation, but a reformatson. But what can be invented more absurd or ridiculous, than that one single apostate in Germany, or a few avaricious and flattering Courtiers in England. should first forsake the communion of that church wherein they had lived from their Baptism, and wherein all their forefathers for almost 1000 years lived and died, and afterwards renounce doctrines of Faith universally received by the church, and then take upon them to be Judges of the whole church, which Christ has made the Supreme Judge of all controversies, and to reform the whole church, and that in matters of doctrine? but you must know Doctor, that the Catholic Church cannot teach, or maintain sacrilegious doctrines, or such as are repugnaut to plain words of Scripture: For than she would cease to be holy, and consequently to be a church, holiness being essential to God's church; as appears 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 Friar, taught and maintained those four forementioned Doctrines, which you are pleased 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 yourself 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, etc. since you oppose her in doctrines of Faith; and by your schism (a sin directly against Charity) have cut yourselves 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 prove yourself very malicious or very ignorant.  
78. In your 35 Sect. I find nothing, but what is either impertinent, or already answered.  
79. In the next Sect. I meet with a bold challenge. I challenge (says the Doctor) the most able of your faction to show me any one passage in our Common-Prayer Book, that is not Catholic.  
Answ. If your Book of Common-Prayer be Catholic, 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 refused and abhorred your Book of Common-Prayer, as being Popish and super stitious. But if all in that Book be Catholic, it is rather an argument, that the Church of Rome is Catholic, from whence you took it, then that you are so. For all in that Book may be Catholic, 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 Catholics 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 clearly apprehended the unlawfulness thereof. Wherefore it behoved the common Pastor of God's Church to put them in mind, how impious and sacrilegious it was for Catholics to communicate with those, who were guilty both of Schism and Heresy, in divine Service.  
80. And whereas you allege 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 General Counsels) the laws and Canons of the Universal Church, made, and generally received by the Church, as the ancient Canons concerning Festivals, and Fasts, are not matters of indifferency; and cannot be violated without schism or Heresy.  
81. But I wonder with what face you can call your Congregation the Mother-Church of Catholics, Sect. 39 'Tis you that have forsaken your Mother-Church, that Church wherein all your forefathers lived and died, for about. 1000 years together. you confess 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 God's Church, that you should take upon you to charge the whole Church of Rome with errors, both in faith and manners? by what rule have you done this? you pretend Sect. 37. to walk by a sure rule; but I am sure you walk not according to the rule of Christ's Catholic Church. For she walks according to the rule of God's Word, interpreted by universal and Apostolical tradition, which you contemn and laugh at: but you, by the rule of Scripture interpreted by your own private fancies, and deceitful imaginations.  
82. Now the Doctor gins 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 Priest and people join in heart to God in prayer, though the language of the Church's prayers be not understood by all present? S. Paul confesses, 1. Cor. 14. 14. that a man may pray in spirit, in an unknown tongue, though not with his understanding. The Priest and people of the Jews could join together in prayer, and prayers to God, before Christ; though their Service were performed in the Hebrew Tongue, a language no more than understood by the vulgar Jews, than the Latin is now by the vulgar Christians, why then may not the Christian Priest and people join together in prayer, though the church Service be performed 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 performed throughout the whole Christian world ever since the time of the Apostles, are languages well known to the world: all men may learn them. They are not such unknown languages as those were, which S. Paul speaks of, 1. Cor. 14. which were miraculously infused into many of the Primitive Christians, the end whereof was the edification of the church, and the conversion of Infidels. Now those tongues were neither understood by the people, nor always by those that spoke them, as appears, 1. Cor. 12. and 1. Cor. 14. 13. These languages miraculously infused by God, the Primitive Christians used in their public meetings; first to instruct the ignorant; secondly to convert Infidels; where their instructions and prayers were always extemporary, according as they were immediately assisted by God's holy Spirit. But the public prayers of the church are not in such unknown languages. Secondly, they are said in the same languages, wherein the public Service of the church was ever performed in all ages since the Apostles, as appears by the ancient Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Missales; which is an argument unanswerable, that such languages are not against S. Paul's Doctrine, 1. Cor. 14. nor any other place of God's Word. Thirdly; the end of our present public meetings in the church, is not to instruct, edify, or convert, as those meetings were, whereof S. Paul speaks in that chapter; but to offer up to God the tribute of prayer and praises that is due unto him; as also to draw down God's blessings, both spiritual and temporal upon the people. And to this end the people join with the Priest in their exterior acts of devotion and Religion, thereby professing their assent to the public prayers, and praises of the Church. And can it be thought necessary for those ends, that all the people present should expressly understand every word of the Church's 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 etc. and yet for all these they grew up together comfortably, and continued in the same body. Answ. When the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches were concerning such Doctrines as were not declared in any General Council, nor could appear by the universal tradition or practice of the Church, they were then only errors, not heresies: but when any of the Eastern Churches opposed the Western in such Doctrines as appeared either in the practice of the Church, or by universal tradition, and consent of Nations, or were declared and defined in a General Council, they then fell from error into heresy; and were thereby cut off from the Catholic Church.  
Your 41. Sect. is answered, Sect. 29. and Sect. 65. and Sect. 30. 84. In your 42. Sect. you say, That the keys were given to all the Apostles alike. Answ. This I confess in some sense may be true, but makes nothing for you. That all the Apostles had the keys of remitting and retaining sins, is true. I can grant also, that they were all universal Bishops, yet they had not all equally the keys of external government and Jurisdiction. S. john at Ephesus had not that power, which S. Peter had at Antioch, or afterwards at Rome. For whatsoever S. Peter was, he had a Jurisdiction over the rest of the Apostles, as well as the whole Church besides, which S. John never had.  
Your, 43. Sect. has been already fully answered.  
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 God's grace to accept of nothing, but what is deduced from thence, or proved thereby, according to the interpretation of the ancient Fathers and Counsels. That of S. Paul I confess; and withal 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, Counsels, and the tradition of the Church (as Vincentius Lyrinensis advises you, ch. 1●) you will soon become Roman Catholics.  
Your 45. and last Sect. contains nothing but what has been by you said before, and by me sufficiently answered, Sect. 18. and. Sect. 21. 29. etc.  
I have done with your Answer, and now crave leave to speak somewhat to you by way of exhortation in the Spirit of meekness.  
You have hitherto been a guide to others; let not a vain fear, or apprehension of any dishonour that may eclipse your former reputation, by confessing your errors, and that you have been a blind leader of the blind, come between you and your eternal Salvation. Let not the deceitful lustre of vain glory tempt you to preserve your credit in the world, with the loss of Heaven. You own God your reputation as well as your life, or whatsoever else is most dear unto you: consider at how dear a rate Christ purchased 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 soon behold that light, which will infallibly guide you to your last end, God; and the eternal friution of the Beatifical Vision. God's candle, since it was first lighted by Christ and and his Apostles was never put under a bushel; 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 seem to approve the Principles of Vinceutius Lyrinensis; follow them, and you are safe. Let Antiquity and Universality be your guide, and you cannot err. Let not some few scattered, obscure, and misunderstood places of some Fathers prevail more with you, than a thousand plain places, whole treatises and volumes purposely penned in defence of Catholic truth. Divest your soul of pride, malice, and interest, and instead thereof let humility and impartiality take place, and then God's grace will sweetly invite you to a sincere and humble acknowledgement 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 jaws of death. Remember that the ancient Fathers and Doctors of the church have condemned you, the Counsels both Ecumenical and Provincial have declared against you; the universal doctrine and practice of the church, both before and after Luther's Apostasy, have given sentence against you. And as for those Canons, which you have alleged in your book, you must needs know yourself, that some of them make against you, others are impertinent, but none of them impugn the power and authority of Christ's Vicar▪ (the Bishop of Rome) over the whole Catholic 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 lies at stake, rely not then on other men's, nor your own fallacious judgement, or fancy, in those things that concern your salvation. Let Gods holy church be your guide and interpreter of Scripture, lest you wrist it (as some did of whom S. Peter complains, 2 Pet. 3. 16.) to your own damnation: consider that the best way to appease God's 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 Catholic 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 world's censure fright you from heaven; be but humble and impartial, and it is as impossible for you not to be a Roman Catholic (at least in judgement and opinion) as it is for a man, that has the benefit of sight to open his eyes, 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 (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 provoked by your blesphemous speeches against Gods holy church by your unnecessary taunts, and causeless 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 hearty pray, that instead of replying to this answer, you may be reconciled to God's holy Catholic Church.  
Amen.  
FINIS.   

POSTSCRIPT.  
IF the Doctor or or any of his Party, be yet unsatisfied in this Controversy, I propose, that, rather than bestow a Reply to these cursory Papers of mine, the most Learned of them would considerately examine Mr. Cressy's Exomologesis, or Motives of his conversion, etc. and rushworth's Dialogues, in the last Edition, as it is corrected and enlarged by Mr. Thomas White, in a 80, of the Long-Primer letter; both which they must acknowledge to be as much unanswerable, as these light papers of Dr. Boughons' are fully answered.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 17. line 23. read, at Rome. p. 36. l. 18. r. were a great. p. 59 l. 18. r. coetanean. p. 63. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 65. l. 23. r. but a. p. 67. l. 24. r. verùm &, and l. 25. non ●ide. p. 78. l. 7. r. as well as. p. 79 l. 27. r. offerun●. p. 82. l. 8. r. prayers made at. p. 86. l. 10. r. is it. p. 114. l. 7. r. sixth Century. p. 115. l. 13. r. nor Apos▪ p. 118. l. 11. r. odious. and l. last. r. your taxing. p. 119. l. 17. r. cl●fia. p. 126. l. 13. deal of. p. 127. l. 28. r. ad. p. 137. l. 27. r. makes no.