Labyrinthvs cantuariensis, or, Doctor Lawd's labyrinth beeing an answer to the late Archbishop of Canterburies relation of a conference between himselfe and Mr. Fisher, etc., wherein the true grounds of the Roman Catholique religion are asserted, the principall controversies betwixt Catholiques and Protestants thoroughly examined, and the Bishops Meandrick windings throughout his whole worke layd open to publique view / by T.C.

CHAP. 23. Of the Bishops Confession that Saluation may be had in the Roman Church; and the Conse∣quences therupon.

ARGVMENT.

1. The Bishop (though not willingly) grants in Express terms; that some Catholiques may be sau'd; and in effect, that all. 2. A: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Argument That ours is the SAFER way because Protestants (as well as wee) confess it. SAFE explicated, and defended. 3. Ca∣tholiques not iustly tax'd with want of Charity for telling Prote∣stants they cannot be sau'd out of the Communion of the Ro man Church. 4. Nothing to be concluded in fauour of the Bishop

against A: 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Maxim, from the agreement of old, betwixt Ca∣tholiques and Donatists in point of Baptisme. 5. Catholiques, and Protestants doe not agree in any reall participation of Christ, proper to the Sacrament. 6. what Catholique Authors meane, when they speake of Spiritually-receiuing Christ, and of a Spirituall presence in the Eucbarist. 7. No perill of Schisme, Heresie &c. in Communicating with the Roman Church. 8. The Relatours various windings vpon this subiect, obseru'd. 9. No Parallel, betwixt A: C. argument, and that of Petilian the Donatist. 10. A: C. vniustly tax'd with vntruth By the Bishop. 11. Our aduersaries Remainder of instances consider'd, and satisfy'd.

1. IN this Paragraph the Bishop brings in the Lady asking him, whether shee might be saued in the Roman Fayth: and though by his answer he grants cleerly enough, that there is possibility of Saluation in the Roman Church, yet who those are amongst vs, whome he thinks may be sau'd, is not so cleer. Sometimes he seem's to say, that those only may be saued, who though they erre, yet want sufficient ground, eyther to doubt, or know their errours: as for instance, when he writes; the ignorant, that cannot discern the errours of the Church, so they hold the founda∣tion, and conforme themselues to a religious life, may be saued. And afterwards; wee haue not so learned Christ; as to deny Saluation to some ignorant silly soules, whose humble peaceable Obedience, makes them safe among any part of men, that profess the foundation, Christ. Likewise, there's no question, but many were saued in corrupted times of the Church, when their Leaders, vnless they repented besore death, were lost. In other places he seemes to intimate, that men may be sau'd in the Roman Church, though the Truth (by which he meanes the doctrine of Protestants) be sufficiently proposed to them, but not acknowledged by them: as where he sayth, Protestants indeed confess there is Saluation possible to be attained in the Roman Church; but yet they say withall, that the errours of that Church are so many, (and some so great, as weaken the Foundation) that it is very hard to goe that way to Heauen; especially to them, that haue had the Truth manifested. Now surely if it be but very hard going that way to Heauen, it is not altogether impossible. Againe, I am willing (sayth he) to hope there are many among them, which keep within that Church, (meaning the Roman) and yet wish the superstitions abolished, which they know, and which pray to God to forgiue their errours, in what they know not; and which hold the Foundation sirme, and liue accord∣ingly, and which would haue all things amended that are amiss, were it in their power. And to such I dare not deny a possibility of Saluation, for that which is Christs in them; though they hazzard themselues extremely by keeping so close to that, which is Superstition, and in the case of Images comes too neere Idolatrie. Item I doe indeed for my part acknowledge a possibility of Saluation in the Roman Church: but so, as that which I grant to Romanists, is not as they are Roma∣nists, but as they are Christians, that is, as they beleeue the Creed, and hold the Foundation, Christ himselfe; not as they associate them∣selues

wittingly, and willingly to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church. Js not this plainly to confess, that euen those of the Roman Church, who doe willingly, and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of that Church, may possibly be saued, though not indeed as they doe this, but as they are Christians, and beleeue in the Foundation, Christ? Lastly, when he asks, as it were in anger, would you haue vs as malicious, or at least as rash, as your selues are to vs, and deny you so much as possibility of Saluation? Euen Mistaken Charity (if such it were) is farre better then none at all. And if the MISTAKEN be ours, the NONE is yours etc. Doth he not cleerly pretend by this to be more Charitable, that is, to grant more to vs Catholiques in this particular of beeing sau'd, then wee doe to them? Seeing then, that euen wee Catholiques grant possibility of Saluation to those, who ioyne with the Protestant Church, if theyr ignorance be inuincible; wee cannot but suppose, his pretended charity grants more to vs; namely, that there is possibility of beeing sau'd to those that ioyne with the Roman Church, though their ignorance be not inuincible and though all, or the chiefe motiues, which Protestants bring; against vs, be neuer so sufficiently propos'd to them.

Now if, on the one side, both Catholiques and Protestants, agree in this, that such as hold all the opinions of our Church, and continue in them till death, notwithstanding their beeing thoroughly acquainted with all the contrary reasons and doctrine of Protestants, may attayne Saluation; and if, on the other side, all Catholiques, as well those that now are, as the infinite multitude which hath been since a thousand yeares last past, according to Protestants own account and confession, doe deny possibility of beeing sau'd to such as liue, and dye in the Protestant Church, except in case of inuincible ignorance, who can doubt, but that our Church is cleerly the safer way of the two to Saluation? and therfore in prudence to be embraced, rather then that of Pro∣testants?

2. But what shall wee say to those Protestants, who grant no more to vs, then wee doe to them in order to Saluation? How shall those among our Aduersaries be conuinc'd, that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Heauen, who will allow none of our Religion to be in a capacity to Saluation, but such, as are in no capacity of knowing, and vnderstanding their errours? J might bring many arguments to conuince them in this point; but for breuity sake J shall confine my selfe to these only, which follow.

That Church and Religion is the more safe way to Saluation, in which many are saued according to the principles which are granted on both sides, then an other, in which many are sau'd only according to the principles, or doctrine, of one party; but very few, or none according to the doctrine of the other.

But in the Roman Church, and Religion many are sau'd according to the principles which are granted on both sides, viz.

both by Catholiques, and Protestants: and in the Protestant Church many are saued only according to the principles, and doctrine of Protestants, but very few, or none according to the doctrine of Catholiques.

Ergo, the Roman Church, and Religion is a safer way to Sal∣uation, then the Church, and religion of Protestants.

The Maior I'conceiue none will deny. The Minor I proue thus. In the Catholique Church 'tis euident that many, beeing to depart out of this life, doe receiue the Sacrament of Pennance. These, according to the doctrine of the Roman Church, are saued, because by vertue of this Sacrament they receiue the grace of Iustification, wherby of sinners, they are made the sons of God. and Heires of Eternall life: nor can they be deny'd to be sau'd, according to the doctrine of Protestants, seeing they beleeue in Christ their Redeemer, they confide in Gods Goodness and mercy for the pardon of their sins, they truly repent of them, and truly purpose for the future to amend their liues: which is all, that Protestant doctrine requires to make men partakers of Christs sanctifying Grace; and is also necessarily requir'd by Catholiques, to make them free subiects for the Sacrament of pennance. Who can therfore doubt but that all such persons are saued, both according to the doctrine of Catholiques, and Protestants too? J say, who can rationally, and with charity doubt, but that Catho∣liques, generally speaking, beeing taught, that Fayth, Hope, true repentance for sins past, and a purpose of amendment, are ne∣cessary to the due receiuing of the Sacrament of pennance, doe not omitt to exercise those acts with all necessary diligence, and sincerity, especially when they are to prepare themselues against that dreadfull passage to Eternity.

That they may exercise such acts, if they will, by the help of Gods ordinary Grace, and by exercising them, be effectually sau'd the Bishop himselfe cannot deny, seeing he grants so much to the Donatists themselues, whom he confesses at least to haue been Schismatiques, iustly condemn'd by the Orthodox Church, and in some respects in greater danger of damnation, then wee Romanists. His words are these. a A plaine bonest Donatist, hauing, as is confessed, true Baptisme, and holding the Foundation, as for ought I know, the Donatists did, and repenting of what euer was sinne in him, and would haue repented of the Schisme, had it been know'n to him, might be saued. Neither will (J suppose) any other Prote∣stant deny vs the possibility of exercising such acts; seeing they all grant, that with involuntary errours, true Fayth and repentanoe may stand; and haue no sufficient reason to thinke, that our errours at death, are voluntary and willfull; or that wee doe willfully omitt any thing, that wee beleeue to be necessary for the attaining of Saluation.

But now, according to the doctrine of Catholiques, there are very few, or none, among Protestants, that escape damnation, or that are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , if they liue, and dye out of the Communion of our Church. Not that it is a point of our beleese, that many

Protestants shall be damn'd precisely vpon the account of beeing Heretiques, (because heresie is an obstinate, and willfull errour against Fayth; and wee cannot easily, much less infallibly determin, whose errours are willfull) but because there are none, or surely but very few amongst them, but are guilty of mortall sinne against Gods Commandements; and because the ordinary meanes they vse, and prescribe, is not according to our principles, sufficient to expiate, and blott out such sinne. 'Tis well know'n, that though Protestants, to obtaine Saluation, beleeue in Christ, trust in his merits, and repent of their sins, yet they doe it not purely out of a perfect loue of God, so as to hate sin aboue all euills, meerly as it is an offence against the Diuine Maiestie, and to preferre God, and his holy Commandements before our selues, and all other creatures, (for this is a very hard, and rare act euen amongst the best of Christians) but at best, vpon inferiour, and lower motiues (as the manner of most men is to doe) viz. in consideration of the Beati∣tude of Heauen, as it is their own particular good, or for the auoyding of the paines of Hell, as it is their particular, and chiefest harme.

Now, according to our doctrine, such kinde of repentance as this, is no sufficient remedy to blott out sinne, vnless it be ioyn'd wich the Sacrament of pennance, viz. Confession and Priestly Ab∣solution, &c. which Protestants reiect. J say, without the Sacrament of pennance actually, and duly recoin'd, all Catholiques hold, that neither Fayth, nor Hope, nor any repentance, or sorrow for sinne, can saue vs, but that only which is ioyned with a perfect loue of God, wherby wee are dispos'd to loose all, and suffer all that can be imagin'd, rather then to offend God; yea though there were indeed neither Heauen to reward vs, nor Hell to punish vs: which beeing a thing so hard to be found, especially 〈◊〉〈◊〉 such, as beleeue a man is iustifyed by Fayth only, it followes euidently, that in our doctrine, very few, or no Prote∣stants are saued. The Conclusion therfore is vndenyable, that our Church is a safer way to Salua ion, then that of Protestants,

My second Argument is this. That Church, and Religion which affords all necessary meanes of Saluation, is a safer way to Saluation, then an other which does not.

But the Roman Church, and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation; and the Protestant doth not.

Ergo, the Roman Church, and Religion is a safer way to Saluation, then the Church and Religion. of Protestants.

The Maior is euident. The Minor consists of two parts; which I shall proue in order.

The First, which is, that the Roman Church, and Religion affords all necessary meanes of Saluation, appeares partly by the confession of Protestants themselues, who acknowledge generally, that in our Church, and Religion are contained all Foundamentall points; that is, all things absolutely necessary to Saluation: and partly, because it cannot be proued, that any thing is of absolute

necessity, in order to Saluation, which is not found in our Churches Communion. The second, that Protestants standing to their owne principles, neither haue, nor can haue things necessary for Sal∣uation, J proue by this one Argument.

Jt is certaine that diuine Fayth necessary to Saluation, ac∣cording to these places of Holy Writt, sine fide impossibile est placere Deo, Hebr. 11. (without Fayth it is impossible to please God) Qui non crediderit, condemnabitur. Marc. 16. (He that beleeueth not, shall be damned.) 'Tis likewise certaine, that this diuine Fayth must be firme, sure, and without doubt, or hesitation: in so much that if an Angel from Heauen should preach the contrary to what wee beleeue, it ought not to be altered, according to that of the Apostle. Galat. 1. 8. Now how is it possible, that Protestants stand∣ing to their principles, should haue this firme, Sure, and vndoubting Fayth, concerning any mysterie of Religion? They will say vpon the Authority of Gods Reuelation, or the written word. But Jaske, how is it possible for them to beleeue any diuine truth firmly, certainly, and infallibly for the Authority of scripture or the written word, vnless they doe first firmly, certainly, and infallibly beleeue, that scripture is the true word of God, and that the sense of the words is such as they vnderstand? and how can they beleeue this most firmly, and certainly, if they neither are, nor can be infal∣libly sure, according to their own principles, that the Church erreth not in deliuering such, and such bookes for Canonicall scripture? or that those passages, vpon which they ground their beleefe, are the very same with the Originall Text; or in case they vnderstand not the Originalls, that there hath been no errour committed in the Translation of them? yea doe they not hold principles absolutely inconsistent with this certainty, when they teach, that not only priuate men, but Generall Councils, and euen the whole Church may erre in matters of great consequence? How can they then be sure, that the words of scripture, for which they beleeue the Diuinity of Christ (for example) are to be vnderstood in that sense, in which themselues vnderstand them, and not in the sense, which the Arians put vpon them? If Generall Councils, and the whole Church, may erre in expounding scripture, what certainty of beleefe can wee haue in this, and in diuerse other like points?

Jf it be answered, that Christs Diuinity is a Fundamentall point, and that in Fundamentall points wee must beleeue the Church; J reply, this answer satisfies not the difficulty. For J aske, vpon what ground doe wee beleeue it to be a Fundamentall point? if because the whole Church teaches it to be so, and the whole Church cannot erre in points Fundamentall, I answer, it must first be proued, that the Arians are no part of the whole Church; for if they be a part of it, the whole Church doth not teach it. To say the Arians are noe part of the whole Church, because they erre in Christs Diuinity, which is a point Fundamentall, is to suppose that for certaine, which is principally in question. That Christs Diuinity therfore is a point Fundamentall, must be prou'd some other way, then by the Au∣thority

of the whole Church. If that way be scripture, the former difficultie returns, viz. how a man shall be sure, according to Protestant principles, that scripture is to be vnderstood in the Catholique sense, and not in the sense of Arians. And if it be any other way beside scripture, according to Protestant principles, it will not be infallible, but subiect to errour, and consequently will not be sufficient to ground infallible certainty. 'Tis euident therfore, that Protestants, standing to their grounds, cannot be∣leeue eyther the Trinity, or Christs Diuinity, and Incarnation, or the Redemption of mankinde by his death, or any other mysterie and point of Fayth with that firmeness and certaintie, which is requisite to an Acte of Fayth: nay it followes, that they cannot be altogether sure of these mysteries of Christian Religion, as they are, or may be of things related euen by heathen Historians; seeing more agree, that those things are true, then that the sense of scripture, in those controuerted points, is such as Protestants vnderstand.

These Arguments wee conceiue sufficient to conuince any rationall vnderstanding, that the Roman Church, and Religion is a safer way to saluation, then that of Protestants. Lett vs now take notice of the Bishops answers, and assertions touching this question.

3. Whereas therfore Protestants doe commonly taxe vs for want of Charity, because wee generally deny Saluation to those that are out of our Church, A. C. proued that this denyall, (besides the threatnings of Christ, and the Holy Fathers denounced against all such, as are not within the Communion of the true Church) is grounded euen vpon Charity; it beeing farre more charitable to forewarn a man plainly of a danger, then to let him run into it, through a false security. There is but one true Fayth (Sayth he) and one true Church, out of which is no Saluation; and he that will not heare this Church, lett him be vnto the (Sayth Christ him∣selfe) Matth. 18. 17. as an Heathen and Publican. If Saluation then may be had in our Church, as the Bishop with other Prote∣stants consessed; and there be noe true Church, nor true Fayth, but one, in, and by which Saluation may be had, (as is likewise confessed) it followes, that out of our Church there is noe Saluation to be hoped for, and consequently, that it is no want of Charity in vs to, tell Protestants of this, but rather want of light, and good vnderstanding in them, to thinke our admonition to be vncharitable. The Bishop himselfe confesses, that he, who will not both heare, and obey the Catholique Christian Church yea the particular Church in which he liues too, so farre, as it in necessaries agrees with the vniversall, is in as bad a condition as an Heathen, or a Pu∣blican, and perhaps in some respects worse. But he errs very much in the conceite he frames of the Catholique Church that must teach vs: it beeing a thing, according to his description, more like an Jdea platonica, or Chimaera of some phantasticall braine, then a true subsistent assemblie; or Societie of Christians: a thing as little able to speake, or declare with requisite authority, any certain and vniforme doctrine, or matter to be beleeu'd, as him∣selfe

and his party are vnwilling to hearken to the truth. For by the Catholique Church, in his notion, nothing else is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnderstood, but a mixed multitude of all 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and facts of Christians, viz. Greeks, Armenians, Lutherans, Caluinists, Pre∣laticall, and Presbyterian Protestants, Anabaptists, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and what not, beside the Roman Catholiques. But how is it possi∣ble, that such a Church as this, should euer instruct, and command vs, what to beleeue? How shall a man that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or in any other remote part of the world, heare the common voyed of a Church, which speaks by the mouth of so many disagreeing parties? or how shall a man be sure, that such, and such a doctrine is rightly commanded him by the Catholique Church, taken euen in the Bishops own sense, vnles he be first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , what the Fayth is, without which it is impossible to be a part of the Catholique Church? Lastly, how shall he before, that all who profess that Fayth, doe also teach, and command the doctrinal, which in obedience to the Bishops 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church, he is re∣quir'd to beleeue?

Againe, a if Donatists, for any thing the Bishop 〈◊〉〈◊〉 held the Foundation, (and consequently were a part of the Ca∣tholique Church) and if errours, that b come too neere 〈◊〉〈◊〉 are 〈◊〉〈◊〉 repugnant to the word of God, and doe shake the very foundation of Christian beleefe (as the Relatour pretends our opinions doe) may be found in that which is (〈◊〉〈◊〉 ) the greatest, and most considerable pair of the Catholique Church what reason could the Apostle haue to shy, that the doctrine of forbidding Marriage, and eating certaine meats, was a doctrine of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and that those who held it, should sall from the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 why might not the teachers of such doctrines be a part of the Catholique Church, as well as the Donatists, and those that maintaine other dangerous opinions, which, in the Bishops iudgement, doe Shake, but doe not ouerthrow the Foundation of true Fayth necessary to Saluation? or if they might be a part of the Catholique Church, notwithstanding their departure from the Fayth by holding of such doctrines, what shall hinder, but the Arians and all other Heretiques whatsoeuer, if they 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the doctrine of Christ, may, notwithstanding their errours and how euer they vnderstand the words of Christ, pretend to be parts of the Catholique Church, whose common voyce wee 〈◊〉〈◊〉 bound to heare, and with all submission to obey 〈◊〉〈◊〉 see here, good Reader, what a Church the Bishop assigns the to heare and follow, vnder paine of beeing in as bad, or perhaps in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 worse condition, then an Heathen and Publican.

4. His Lordship next taske is to impugn the Argument which A. C. brings to proue that the Roman Church and Religion is the safer way to Saluation, because both parties, viz. Catholiques, and Protestants doe agree that Saluation may be had in it, but doe not both of them agree, that it may be had in the Protestant Church, and Religion? The Bishop brings 〈◊〉〈◊〉 instances to shew, that this Agreement of both parties is no sufficient ground

to thinke, that ours is the safer way. His first instance is this. The Baptisme of the Donatists was held true, and valid both by 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Donatists themselnes, and the Orthodox also; but that of the

Orthodox was held true and valid only, by the Orthodox, and not by the Donatists: yet none of vs grant that the Orthodox were bound to embrace the Baptisme of the Donatists as the safer way of the two. How then does it follow, that a man ought to embrace the Roman Church and Religion, as the safer way to heauen, because both parties agree, that in the Roman Church there is possibility of Saluation, but doe not agree there is the like possibility among Prorestants? This is the Summe and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of his first instance.

To which J answer, that no Orthodox could embrace the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of the Donatists, as the safer way, but he must committ two sins; the one of disobedience to the Orthodox Church, which so bad communication with Donatists and all other Heretiques, in diuine Rites, such as the administration of Sacraments is: the other against Fayth, which obliged him to beleeue the Baptisme of the Orthodox to be as safe as the other. Now how could any man be fuyd to take the safer way to Saluation, by embracing the Baptisme of the Donatists for the agreement of both parties touching its validity, when the greatest, and most considerable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to witt, that of the Orthodox, hold it cannot be done, except in case of necessity, without damnable 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , which dobarrs the soule from heauen 〈◊〉〈◊〉 whereas the case put by vs is quite dif∣ferent from this. For wee suppose Protestants grant a man may line, and dye in the Roman Church; and that none of his errours shall 〈◊〉〈◊〉 his Saluation. whatsoeuer motiues he may know to the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 . But no 〈◊〉〈◊〉 did euer grant, that a man might with a snse Conscience embrance the donatists Baptisme knowing the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , reasons, and command of the Orthodox Church to the contrary: or that a man, who had so embrac't the Bap∣tisme of Donatists, might liue, and dye with possibility of Saluation except he acknowledg'd his fault, and repented of his 〈◊〉〈◊〉 .

You will say perhaps, that as a man ought not to receiue the Donatists Baptisme, thought valid in the iudgement of both parties, because the Orthodox held it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , and forbad it vnder paire of sinne; so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 may a Protestant, who is taught by scripture or otherwise, and is fully persuaded, that the Roman Church and Religion containes many gross errours, contrary to Gods words, embrace the Roman Church and Religion, though both 〈◊〉〈◊〉 great possibility of Saluation in the sayd Church, and Religion J. answer; and acknowledge, that as a few, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , or Arian, is not bound to embrace the Orthodox Faith of Christians, so long as he is fully persuaded that its a false and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 beleefe: so neither is a protestant bound to embrace 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Religion, so long as his conscience tells him, that it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 errours and superstitions contrary to Gods word. But J say withall, that as a few, Mahumetan, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 were bound

to alter their iudgement concerning the pretended erroncousness and falsity of the Orthodox Fayth, if sufficient motiues were pro∣pounded to him, and that according to the principles of both parties, the Orthodox Fayth were the safer way to Saluation: so likewise a Protestant would be oblig'd to embrace our Religion, if sufficient motiues to alter his present iudgement concerning our pretended errours, were offer'd to him, and that it could be prou'd by the ioynt principles of both Protestants, and Catholi∣ques, that Catholique Religion were the safer way to Saluation. Now that by the ioynt principles, or doctrine both of Catholi∣ques and Protestants, our Religion, or Fayth, is the safer way, wee haue already prou'd in our first Argument: and that Protestants may haue sufficient motiues to alter, and depose their present iudgement touching our pretended errours, whensoeuer they will attend to them, is sufficiently euidenced from hence; seeing, an infinite multitude of persons, who haue as good naturall witts as themselues, as tender consciences as themselues, haue read, and ponder'd the controuerted passages of scripture as much as them∣selues, vnderstand all contrary reasons, and obiections, as well as themselues, yet belecue with absolute certainty, as diuine Truths, those very points, which Protestants conceiue to be errours.

5. Tho other instances, which he brings, seeme rather to argue a weakeness in the Relatour's iudgement, then in the Argument he impugns. In the point of the Eucharist (sayth he) all sides agree in the Fayth of the Church of England, that in the most Blessed Sacrament the worthie receiuer is by his Fayth made spiritually partaker of the true and reall Bodie and Bloud of Christ, truly and really.—Your Roman Catholiques adde a manner of this his presence, Transubstantiation, which many deny; and the Lutherans a manner of this presence, Consubstantiation, which more deny. If this Argu∣ment be good, then euen for this consent, it is safer Communicating with the Church of England, then with the Roman, and Lutheran: because all agree in this truth, not in any other opinion. Here are many words spent to small purpose. For first, can a man be sayd, in any true sense, to communicate rather with the Church of England, then with the Roman, or Lutheran, only by beleeuing that, where in they all agree? and yet the Bishops Argument supposes this. But put case by communicating with the Church of England he vnderstands such a beleefe of the English Protestants reall presence, as carries with it an express denyall both of Transub∣stantiation, and Consubstantiation in the Sacrament; how is it possible, that a man should be moued to this beleefe, by the com∣mon consent of Catholiques, Lutherans, and English Protestants; seeing only these last agree in this point?

That which the Relatour adds to this, is no less absurd. He cites 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , a Catholique diuine, as teaching, that to beleeue Transubstantiation is not simply necessary to Saluation; and triumphs therevpon against Catholiques, as if he had ouercome them with their own arms; asking A. C. what he can say to this; and seems

to admire the force of truth, which was able to draw this confession from an aduersarie. But J answer, what matter is it, though Suarez had really taught it not to be simply necessary to Saluation to beleeue Transubstantiation? were that sufficient ground to say, that he agreed with Protestants against the de∣termination of the Roman Church? must he needs thinke that Transubstantiation is an errour, or noc point of Catholique Fayth, because he held it not Simply necessary to Saluation? very true it is, all Catholiques teach that whatsoeuer is defin'd by the Church, is an article of Fayth, which may neither be doubted of, nor disputed: yet no man thinks 'tis simply necessary to Salua∣tion to beleeue euery point so defined, by an express act.

A Protestant, versed in scripture, would thinke it a sinne, if he should deny that Moyses his rod was turned into a Serpent: yet, J conceiue, he will hardly say, that it is Simply necessary to Saluation; or that he is bound, absolutely Speaking, to beleeue it with an express act of Fayth vnder paine of damnation. But the truth is, Suarez, speaks to no such purpose, as the Bishop alledges him. He confesses indeed, that the manner of explicat∣ing the change, or conuersion, that is made in the B. Sacrament, which Schoole-men vse, is no necessary part of the doctrine of Fayth in that particular, because it depends vpon Physicall and Metaphylicall principles; but as for the conuersion it selfe (or Transubstantiation) it is most euident, that he holds it for a point of Fayth, which to deny were Heresie. His words are these, in the section immediately precedent to that which the Bishop quotes. a Secundò infero etc. Secondly (Sayth he) J inferre, that if a man confess the reall presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament, as also the absense of bread, yet denyes a true conuersion of the substance of bread into the sulstance of Christ Body, he falls into Heresie; because the Catholique Church hath defined, and doth teach, not only the two first, but also this last. what say you to this, Protestants; you that looke vpon this Bishop as the pillar of your Church? was it truth and honestie (thinke you) that mou'd him thus to misreport an Author of that worth, that euen himselfe thought not fitt to mention him without some character of honour? They that please to consult the Author himselfe, in the e place alledged, will finde that HOC TOTVM does not signify to beleeue Transubstantiation, as the Bishop most falsely and partially renders it, but a farre different thing, as wee haue sayd aboue.

His quarrel with Bellarmin is no less impertinent; whome he censures (forsooth) of tediousness, and for making (as he con∣ceiues) an intricate, and almost inexplicable discourse aboute an Ad∣ductiue conuersion; a thing, which in the Relatours opinion, neither Diuinity, nor Philosophy euer heard of till then. But let the indifferent reader be Judge. Bellarmin explicates his Adductiue Conuersion thus. As meate is changed into the substance of mans body by meanes of nutrition, and becomes a liuing and animate part of man, not because the soule, which informs it, is de nouo produced in the matter duly prepar'd, but because the

same soule, which was in the body before, begins now to be in the new matter; so by vertue of this Adductiue Conuersion, the bread is turned into the Body of Christ, not as if Christs Body were (properly speaking) produced vnder the elements (for it was preexistent before; and nothing that is preexistent can in proper sense, be sayd to be produced) but because it was not there before, and begins now to be vnder the elementary forms, by vertue of Consecration. Lett any man iudge, whether this explication be not farre more intelligible, then what the Bishop himselfe sayes touching the point of reall presence.

First of all, he affirms (with Bishop Ridley, and other Protestants, g cited by him,) that the true, reall, naturall, and Substantiall Body of Christ, that very Body, which was born of the Virgin, which ascended into Heauen which sitteth on the right hand of God the Father, which shall come from thence to iudge the quick and dead, is truly, really, and Substantially in the B. Sacrament; and yet for all this, denyes both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation; that is, in effect, he will haue Christs Body to be really and Substantially in the Sacrament, yet neither with the Substance of bread, nor without it. He will haue Christs Body to be really in Heauen, and really also in very Substance on earth at the same time, and yet stiffly denies, with all Caluinists, that the same Body can by any power be really present in seuerall places at once. Is not this to say in effect, that Christs Body really is only in Heauen, and no where else, and yet to acknowledge, that at the same time it is really in the Sacrament on earth? But who is able to vnderstand, and reconcile these speeches? His saying, that Christs Body is receiu'd spiritually by Fayth, by Grace, and the like, is a plaine contradiction to what he had taught before; seeing by these words are only signified a metaphoricall presence, which in no true sense can be called reall. In my opinion Zuinglius, Peter Martyr, and those of the Sacramentary party, deale faric more candidly in this point, (who flatly deny and reiect all reall presence, both name and thing) then the Bishop, and some other Protestants alledged by him, who confess the name, but deny the thing.

6. The Catholique Authors, which the Relatour hath the confidence to bring, in fauour of his Protestant beleefe touching this matter, are grossly eyther misunderstood, or misexpounded by him. For 'tis euident, when they speake of spirituall Commu∣nion they meane, for the most part, that which is by desire and deuotion only, when for want of opportunity, or some 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reason, wee doe not actually receiue the B. Sacrament, but yet doe vse most of those affections, and deuoute aspirations of heart towards God, and our B. Sauiour, which wee are wont to practise, when wee doe really communicate. Sometimes indeed they dis∣course of Christs miraculous and ineffable beeing in the Sacra∣ment; where he is present not like a bodily substance, but rather like a spirit, that is, whole, in the whole consecrated host, and whole, in euery part of it. But sure J am, they neuer say, or thinke, he is there by such a spirituall presence, as Protestants meane;

that is, exclusiue of his truly-reall presence, and by Fayth only; or that he is not there as truly and really, as he is in heauen, whether wee exercise an act of Fayth, or no.

Now when the Bishop insists so much vpon a spirituall parti∣cipation of the true and reall Body and Bloud of Christ, truly and really by Fayth; eyther he meanes such a participation as is proper to this Sacrament, and cannot be had saue only in the orall and actuall receiuing of the Sacramentall elements; or he meanes such a participation of Christs Body and Bloud, as deuoute persons may haue in their soules, whether they receiue those elements corporally, or no. If he meanes this second only, then both parties cannot be sayd to agree in the proper point of Sacrament∣all participation; seeing it is now suppos'd to be such, but only a spirituall kinde of receiuing Christ, common to other devoute offices of Christian pietie, as well as to the Sacrament. If he meanes the first, viz. such a participation of Christs Body as is proper only to the Sacrament, and cannot be had, but when the Sacrament is orally and actually receiu'd, to make it appeare that wee agree with Protestants in it, they must first shew what it is, and particularly, that it is something really different and distinct from a deuoute eleuation of heart, remembrance of Christs Passion, trust, and application of his merits, etc. otherwise they relapse into the former difficulty, viz of putting such a participation of Christ, as is not proper to the Sacrament: for certainly none of all those participations of Christ last mentioned, are proper to the Sacrament, but may be exercised at other times, and by other meanes; as namely, when one eates his common food at the table, when he drinks wine or beere, when he looks vpon a Crucifix, when he prayes, meditates, or the like.

But this, neither the Bishop, not any of his partie can shew, standing to Caluin and their own principles; that is, they cannot shew, what their spirituall participation, or receiuing of Christ, signifies in effect more, then a deuoute eleuation of heart, remem∣brance of Christs Passion, trust, and application of his merits, or something of like nature, done and performed oftentimes, as really without the Sacrament, as with it: and consequently it can neuer be sayd, that both parties (viz. Roman-Catholiques, and Protestants) are of the same sentiment, or doe agree in any reall reception, or participation of Christ, proper to the Sacrament. For all the world knows, the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 participation of Christ in the Sacrament, which Catholiques beleeue signifies a quite different thing from this.

7. Lett vs now consider, what his Lordship has to say to A. C. for his resolute affirming; there is no perill of any damnable He∣resie, Schismo, or other sinne, in resoluing to line and dye in the Roman Church. This the Relatour cannot digest; therfore he re∣plies, not so neither. For he that lines in the Roman Church with such a resolution, is presum'd to beleene, as that Church beleenes; and he that doth so, in the Bishops opinion, is guilty, more or less, not only of the schisme, which that Church caused at first by her corruptions,

and now continues by her power, but of her damnable opinions too in point of misbeleefe, and of all other sins also; which the doctrine and misbeleefe of that Church leads him into. He seemes by this plainly to retract what he formerly granted touching possibility of Saluation to Roman Catholiques. For how can they possibly be sau'd, that liue and dye in the guilt of damnable opinions and sins? or what sort of Catholiques are they, whome the Relatour thinks may possibly be in state of Saluation? are they such only as doe not beleeue, as that Church (viz. the Roman) beleeueth; but only liue in outward Communion with her, and making only outward shew and feigned profession to beleeue that, which in heart they disbeleeue? He giues indeed some cause to thinke, that this is his meaning, when he tells vs, how willing he is to hope there are many among vs, which wish the superstitions of the Roman Church abolished, and would haue all things amended that are amiss, if it were in their power, etc. and of such particularly professeth, that he dares not deny them possibility of Saluation. But how could it possibly sinke into a sober mans head to iudge him capable of Saluation, that for temporall and sinister ends only, contrary to knowledge and the light of his own conscience, complies outwardly with superstition and many other sinfull and Jdolatrous practices, all his life long, and deny it to him, who hates all superstition and sin in his very soule, and would not comply with any, if he knew it, but adheres to the doctrine and practices of the Roman Church meerly for conscience sake, and for noe other reason, but because he simply and sincerely beleeues all her doctrine to be true, and consonant to Gods word, and all her allowed customes and obseruances to be pious and holy? what is this but to say, he is an honest man, that takes his neighbours goods wittingly and willingly from him, knowing them to be his; and that he is a knaue and deserues to be hang'd, that takes them vnwittingly, and verily beleeuing that they are his own?

Secondly he tells vs, that 'tis one thing to liue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Church, and not to comunicate with it in Schisme, or in any false worship, and an other thing to liue in a Schismaticall Church, and to Communicate with it in the schisme and corruptions, which that Church teacheth; wee grant it; beeing our selues, in some sort; an instance of this truth, whome the Catholique Church permuts, both in England, Germany and other Countries, to liue amonge those she esteems both sehismatiques and Heretiques too, (though wee thinke, this is not, properly speaking, to liue in a schismaticall Church) yet she does not permit vs to communicate with them in their shisme. But when he proceeds therevpon to charge the Ro∣man Church with beeing worse and more cruell then the Church of Israell, euen vnder Achab and Jezabel was (when so many worshiped the calues in Dan and Bethel) because (forsooth) he doth not finde that this doctrine YOV MVST SACRIFICE IN THE HIGH PLACES, or this, YOV MVST NOT SACRIFICE AT THE ONE ALTAR IN HIERVSALEM, was eyther taught by the Priest, or maintained by the Prophets, or enioyned by the Sanedrim

—Whereas the Church of Rome (sayth he) hath solemnly decreed, her errours, and imposed them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties, yea, and erring, hath decreed withall, that she cannot erre; wee answer, this is not to argue, as a Logician should, ex concessis or probatis, but rather, vpon false and vnproued suppositions, to bring, in lieu of argument, railing accusation against our superiours; which the Apostle (Jude. 8. 9.) vtterly condemned. Is it sufficient for the Relatour to say, that Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Forbearance of the Cup are improbable opinions, and contrary to the express command of our sauiour?

8. Againe, what I pray, does our aduersary meane by his Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel, when he says the Church of Rome is worse and more cruell then she? does he meane the true Church there? that is, the number of those Faythfull Israe∣lites, which as the scripture testifies of them, neuer boued their knees to Baal? Jf so, his Lordship surely committs a huge Solecisme, when pretending to aggrauate the crime of the Roman Church, he sayes she was worse and more cruell, then the Church of Israel vnder Achab and Jezabel, as if that Church, at that time, had deseru'd the character of bad or cruell. If he meanes the other part of the Israelites, who were fallen from the true Religion, and worshiped Ieroboams calues, wee wonder vpon what ground he stiles them the Church of Jsrael, seeing manifest Idolaters are no way to be accounted parts of the true Church. But in what respect is the Church of Rome worse then that of Israel in the time of Iezabel? because (sayth he) the Church of Rome hath solemnly decreed her errours, and impos'd them vpon men vnder the greatest penalties, viz. of Excommuncation etc. whereas the Church of Israel did neyther solemnly teach, that men ought to Sacrifice in the high places, nor punish men for going to Sacrifice at the one Altar in Hierusalem. Admitt this were true; though it be more then the Bishop can proue, seeing Elias complaind in those times, that Gods Altars were throw'n down, and the Prophets persecuted and slaine with the sword, which argues there was no such liberty as the Bishop pretends: admitt, I say, it were true, yet if there be any force in this argument, it concludes more against himselfe, then against the Roman Church. The Bishop grants, that a Generall Council, lawfully called and orderly proceeding, may define errours contrary to scripture, and that in matters euen Fundamentall, and of maine importance to Saluation; yet he teaches withall, that the decrees of such a Council must stand in force, and binde all particular men at least, to externall obe∣dience, till the whole Church by an other Generall Council, reuerse the definitions of the former. Is not this likewise to be worse then the Church of Jsrael? Is not this to oblige people to make profession of false doctrine contrary to scripture and euident reason, or demonstration? yea, is it not to be, in this respect, farre worse then the Church of Rome? which requires indeed, that all persons doe submitt to the decrees of Generall Councils, but doth not require this as granting Councils to be

fallible or subiect to define errour in stead of truth in matters of Fayth; but as assuredly perswading her selfe that they are, by the speciall assistance of the Holy Ghost, infallible, and cannot define any thing in such cases, but what is truth.

Lastly, if inference be to be made from the practice of the Jewish Church it will serue rather to iustisie, then to condemne the proceedings of the Roman. When power resided in the true Prophets of God, and in his true and lawfull Priests, Idolatrie and disobe∣dience to the law of Moyses was seuerely punish'd; but in corrupted times euery one had libertie to doe what ill he listed. The Roman Church therefore is rather to be commended for her zeale, and imitating the Synagogue in the times of its greatest 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , to witt, by exacting strict obedience to her doctrine lawfully declar'd and established by Generall Councils; which she also beleeues, and is as well assured, to be according to diuine reuelation, and not repugnant to Gods honour, as the Synagogue was of their doctrine: the Roman Church, I say, is rather to be commended for this, euen from the example of the Iewish Church, then to be tax'd with cruelty, for not symbolizing with the corrupted and Apostatiz'd Synagogue, in giuing promiscuous liberty to all, to beleeue and practise what they list in point of Religion.

As for what he auouches concerning Transubstantiation, Purgatorie, and Forbearance of the Cup, that they are improbable opinions, and contrary to Gods word, wee answer, 'tis according to his custome to speake without proose; and therfore wee are not troubled at it. 'Tis that, which euery Heretique may say, if he please, (an Arian, as well as an English Protestant) the doctrine of the Roman Church is improbable, is contrary to Gods word, where it contradicts their particular Heresie. Nay, is it not a thing, they might as iustly say of the English Church, as of the Roman, viz. that she is in this regard worse and more cruell then the Church of Israel; that she hath Solemnly decreed improbable opinions, to witt the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Deity of Christ, and to keep of disobedience, how false soeuer her doctrine be, she binds it vp vnder paine of Excommunication; yea and kindles the fagot too sometimes, when nothing else will serue the turn? Witness the books of Canons, which inflicts Eccommunication ipso facto vpon any that denyes the 39. Articles of the Church of England; and the proceedings against seuerall persons, who haue been burn't, hang'd, draw'n, and quarter'd in this nation meerly for Religion, since Protestantisme bore sway here.

To false premisses the Bishop ioynes a Conclusion as eni∣gmaticall and ambiguous. This then (sayth he) may be enough for vs to leaue Rome, though the old Prophet (3. king. 13. 11.) left not Israel. By leauing Rome 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vnderstands (surely) their refusing any longer to adhere to the Roman Church, and to communicate with her in those things, which they account superstitions and errours. But did not both that old Prophet, and also all the true Prophets and people of God, in this sense, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 corrupted Israel, in the time of

Aobaband and Jezabel? did they ioyne (thinke you) with the Idolatrous Tribes in the Sacrifices at Dan and Bethel?

9. The like is to be sayd of the comparison he mak's between A. C. and Petilian the Donatist; it signifies not much. For who sees not a manifest difference in the case and argument of these two? Petilian would haue Catholiques refuse and desert the Churches Baptisme, to embrace that of the Donatists, only because Catholiques (or the Catholique Church) acknowledg'd the Donatists Baptisme to be in it 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , valid, or true Baptisme, though by reason of their 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same Church likewise taught it to be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sinne and inconsistent with Saluation for any Catho∣lique to seeke their Baptisme voluntarily, or to admitt of it otherwise then in case of extreme necessity: whereas A. C. would haue Protestants become Catholiques vpon this ground viz. because, that euen Protestants themselues, at least the most learned, most wise, and most considerable amonge them, Doc grant vs possibility of Saluation, notwithstanding any thing that wee beleeue, or doe. How then can the Bishop (as he pretends) answer A. C. iust as St. Austin answered Petilian the Donatist? That which deceiu'd him is, that he did not well obserue the force of A. C^s. maxime, viz. that 'tis safest in order to Saluation to take that way which both parties agree in; which imports not any agreement whatsoeuer, indefinitely speaking, but determinately and specially such an agreement, or an agreement, so farre betwixt aduerse parties concerning such a point, or thing, as to acknowledge the beleefe, or doing of it doth not destroy Saluation, or doth not hinder the parties beeing sau'd that does it. Had due notice been taken of this, it would haue sau'd him the trouble of bringing this, and so many other instances, to noe purpose; of which more in due place. Jn the meane time, wee conceiue the disparity betwixt the case and argument of Petilian and A. C. so manifest, that it needs no further illustration.

10. But here the Relatour growes into choler, taking A. C. of a most 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vntruth, and such, as an ingenuous man would not haue spoken, for no other reason but for saying, there is confessedly noe perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church. J answer, whateuer the Bishop granted, or granted not, in express terms to A. C. touching this matter, 'tis certaine, that from what he doth confess, it really and necessarily followes, that there is no perill of damnation per se loquendo, or precisely, by liuing and dying in the Roman Church. For first, as to the ignorant which hold the pretended errours of our Church, but cannot discern them, those he professedly exempts from perill of damnation, if they conforme themselues to a religious life. Secondly, he grants that such others of the Roman Church, as doe euen 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and knowingly associate themselues to the gross superstitions of the Romish Church, if they hold the Foundation Christ, and liue accordingly, are not to be deny'd Saluation. Whence I argue. If, according to the Bishops 〈◊〉〈◊〉 , 〈◊〉〈◊〉 voluntary, nor inuoluntary supersti∣tion excludes a Papist from possibility of beeing sau'd, it is no lowd vntruth, nor indeed so much as a mistake; to say, that in the

Roman Church there is confessedly noe perill of damnation, in the sense abouesayd, that is, meerly by liuing and dying in that Communion.

What he adds after this of some amonge vs, who wish the superstitions abolished which they know, and pray to God to forgiue their errours in what they know not, and would haue all things amended that are amiss, were it in their power, if he meanes, that such persons should know any superstitions taught and allowed by the Church as duties of Religion, or that they would haue any thing amended in the Churches publique Authoriz'd doctrine, he mistakes very much in supposing such persons to belong to our Church and Communion; it beeing contrary to Catholique Fayth to beleeue, that any such errours, or uperstitions can be taught by the Church; and he might as well suppose (if he had pleas'd) that those are Protestants, who goe to Church, and ioyne with Protestants in exteriour seruice, only to saue their estates, or for some other temporall ends, though they hold the Protestant Tenets, contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Church, for no better then Heresies, and would, if it were in their power, much more willingly heare Mass then common prayer, when they goe to Church. Neither can he be a Catholique, who prayes to God to forgiue his errours, in any matter or point defined by the Church: for that implies a beleefe, or doubt, that the Church may haue erred in defining some doctrine of Fayth; which, according to vs, is absolutely inconsistent whith true Fayth: no more then (wee presume) he could haue been thought a Christian, or Protestant in the Bishops opinion, who should aske God forgiueness for beleeuing some thing deliuered in Canonicall scripture.

Jn answer to A. C^s. Assertion, wherby he preferrs, both for number and worth, those who deny there is any perill of damnation by liuing and dying in the Roman Church, before those who affirm there is, the Bishop, that he might more easily confute the passage, first of all, cunningly diuides it, and endeauours to shew, that number alone, is no sufficient ground of truth. Who sayes it is? Not A. C. J am sure; who as cleerly as he could, ioyn'd both together, worth to number, as a necessary supplement, and concluds what he intends, ioyntly from them both. Now this term (worth) comprehending, not only eminency of power and authority, but also of vertue, learning, zeale, prudence, sanctity, etc. can any man doubt, but those, who haue the greater number and worth on their side, are in all prudence to be thought rather in the truth, then those who haue incomparably less, or indeed nothing at all in comparison of them? His long marginall alle∣gations therfore (which mention number only) serue to no purpose, but to amuse. And yet neither doth A. C. nor any of vs say, that our Fayth rests vpon the number or worth of men (as the Bishop will needs insinuate) but vpon Gods infallible veracity and authority: number and worth of men beeing only motiues of credibility, to induce, and direct vs prudently to determin, to which of the two parties wee are to giue credit, when they teach vs contrary doctrines.

A. C. thought it so euident a thing, that those of the Catho∣lique beleefe, in the points controuerted betwixt vs and Protestants, doe incomparably exceed those of the contrary partie, as the Bishop would neuer haue call'd for a proofe of it; as indeed it needs none. For if wee compare those spread ouer the whole face of Christendome for the last thousand yeares (a space of time common∣ly granted vs by our aduersaries) who beleeu'd, as wee beleeue, and neuer dream't of any perill, eyther of schisme, Heresie, or sinne, by liuing and dying in the Roman Church, with those few, that since yesterday as it were, began to dissent from vs, and pretend there was perill of schisme &c. by liuing and dying in the sayd Church, wee shall finde these, in worth and number iust nothing in regard of the other. So that in truth, the Relatour himselfe (had he well consider'd it) should haue blusht at his own extrauagant obiection (you haue not yet prou'd your partie more worthy for life or learning, then the Protestants) and not bid his aduersary blush for speaking the truth. For in this case who sees not, that all true Christians, who for a thousand yeares together liu'd in the world, were, and are of our party?

II. But let vs consider what other instances the Bishop brings to impugn A. C^s. maxime, that 'tis safest to follow that way in Religion, in which the differing parties agree there is possibility of Saluation. His first is taken from the article of our Sauiours descent into hell. The Church of Rome (sayth he) and the Church of England (dissenting parties) doe agree, that our Sauiour descended into hell, and that hell is the place of the damned. Therfore, according to A. C^s. rule, it should be safest to beleeue that our Sauiour descended into the place of the damned. But this (say's the Bishop) the Romanists will not endure; because St. Thomas, and the schoole generally agree in it, that he went really no further then LIMBVS PATRVM. I answer by denying his proposition. There is no such agreement of parties, as the Bishop pretends; though the Church of Rome and the Church of England doe (both) agree, that our Sauiour descended into hell, yet they doe not (both) agree that by hell, eyther in the Creed, or in all places of Scripture where hell is mentioned, is vnderstood the place of the damned. Here therfore our aduersarie cleerly disputes ex falso supposito; and the argument, in truth, may be much better retorted vpon himselfe, thus. Both parties agree, that Christ descended into hell: but both parties doe not agree, that by hell is vnderstood here the place of the damned (for the greater and better part of Diuines hold the contrary) ergo, 'tis safer not to beleeue that he descended into the place of the damned, then positiuely to assert it, as some English Protestants doe.

His next instance is about the Sacraments beeing receiu'd in both kindes; and as little to the purpose as the former. For though wee agree that our Sauiour instituted the Sacrament (that is, made it himselfe, and ordain'd it to be made by his Ministers) in both kindes; yet wee neither agree, that he instituted with intention, or gaue any command, that it should be always receiu'd in both kindes, by all the Faythfull: nor doe wee grant

possibility of Saluation to any, that out of priuate Hereticall persua∣sion holds, it ought to be receiu'd by all, or out of contempt of the Churches order to the contrary, doe receiue it in both kindes. Our Sauiour gaue it in one kinde only to the two Disciples at Emmaus (Lucae. 24.) as both St. a Austin, St. b Chrysostome, c St. Hierome, d Theophylact, and e others of the Ancients witness: whose example the Church following, alwayes allowed the vse and manner of receiuing this Sacrament, free as to the Faythfull, viz. eyther to receiue it in both kindes, if their deuotion inclin'd them thereto, or only in one, in case they desired no more: till of later times, the custome of receiuing it in forme of bread only, growing more generall, and inconueniences of receiuing it in both kindes multiplying, the Council of Constance totally abrogated the manner of receiuing it in forme of wine, and inioyn'd what is now in vse. Whence likewise it appeares, 'twas not iniuriously, (as the Bishop pretends) but iustly requir'd of the Bohemians, not to condemne the practice of the Church for receiuing in one kinde, when she dispensed with them to receiue in both.

To what he obiects against the doctrine of concomitancy, inuented (as he sayes) by St. Thomas of Aquin, and contrary to truth; for that the Eucharist is a Saerament of Bloud, shed and powred forth, and not of Bloud contained in the Body; I answer, that howeuer the term it selfe might (perhaps) be first vsed by the Angelicall Doctour; yet the thing thereby signify'd was always the constant doctrine of the Catholique Church; which euer taught, that by Consecration, vnder each species the entire Sacra∣ment, or whole Christ, was putt; and therfore vnder each of them, as well the Body as the Bloud, and as well the Bloud as the Body was contain'd: notwithstanding it be certaine, that the precise words, in the Consecration of bread express noe more, then Christs Body; nor those vsed in the Consecration of the chalice, any more, then Christs Bloud. Wherfore to shew what is in the Sacrament by force of the precise words of Consecration, and what by vertue of naturall connexion, or vnion, Diuines commonly make vse of this distinction, ex vi verborum, and per Concomitantiam. Ex vi verborum, or by vertue of the precise words of Consecration, Christs Body only is vnder the forme of bread, and his Bloud only vnder the forme of wine: but per Concomitantiam, by reason of naturall connexion, or vnion, (wherby the parts of Christs Humanity are neuer to be diuided one from an other) the Bloud is vnder the forme of bread also, and his Body vnder the forme of wine, and his foule, and diuinity or Godhead, vnder both. And this the Bishop must grant, if he hold the reall presence; except he would haue vs thinke, that Christ is dead in the Sacrament, contrary to St. Paul, who plainly tolls vs, Rom. 6. 9. He dyes no more. As for the Priest that conse∣crates, there is a double necessity for him to receiue vnder both kindes. The first is gathered from Christs words spoken to his Apostles at the institution of this Sacrament, and interpreted to vs by the vniuersall doctrine and practice of the Church. The

second, grounded vpon the nature of the thing; which is not only a Sacrament, to be distributed amonge the Faythfull, but a true, proper, and perfect Sacrifice, representing that vpon the Cross; where not only Christs Body was Crucifyed, but also his Bloud was shed for vs. And therfore the Priest, who offers this Sacrifice of the Altar, must not only consecrate in both kindes, but receiue in both kindes, to compleate the sacrifice.

His third instance is about the Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist, wherein he pretends that they and wee agree. But this is false, speaking in the Protestants sense, or of such a Comme∣moratiue Sacrifice, as excludes that, which is reall and proper. Where did Catholiques euer agree with Protestants, that it was not 〈◊〉〈◊〉 sin in them, to deny the true, reall, and propitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist? or, that they might be saued, acknow∣ledging only such a Commemoratiue Sacrifice in the Eucharist, as they doe? Lett one only Author of the Roman Church be named, who teaches this; or that bread broken, and wine powred out (vnderstanding naturall and substantiall bread and wine, as the Bishop must doe, according to Protestant principles) were, in true and proper sense, a Commemoratiue Sacrifice amongst Christians. For this were to say in effect, that Christians vnder the Gospell, did really Sacrifice to God naturall bread and wine; and therby adde another Sacrifice to that of Christs Body: which were a very gross errour.

In his fourth about the intention of the Priest in Baptisme, he lapses againe. For what wee agree with Protestants in, wee stand to, as most safe to be done in order to Saluation. Now this is only (in the present case) that due matter and forme must necessarily be vsed for the validity of Baptisme. Doe any of vs, or can any man deny, but it is safer in order to Saluation, to vse due matter and forme in the Sacrament of Baptisme, then not to vse them? The Bishop indeed would gather from hence, that wee must also account due matter and forme sufficient without intention. But this is more then the rule obliges vs to doe. The rule, certainly, bindes A. C. to no more, then to acknowledge the thing, wherein differing parties agree, to be saser then the con∣trary, or negatiue of it; which wee doe cleerly in this case.

His fifth instance is, that Catholiques and Protestants agree, that in the English Lyturgie there is noe positiue errour: but both parties doe not agree, that there is no errour in the Roman Missal. Therfore, (says the Bishop) according to A. C^s. rule, it should be better and more safe to worship God by the English Lyturgie, then by the Roman Missal; which he is sure wee will not grant. I answer first, all Catholiques doe not agree, that there is no positiue errour in the English Lyturgie; neither dares the Relatour affirme they doe: but only that some Iesuits confess't so much in his hearing. Secondly, though they did; that is, though all Catho∣liques did grant, there were no positiue errour in the English seruice∣booke, yet it followes not, that therfore the English Lyturgie is better, or more safe to be vsed in the seruice of God, then our

Missal. Why? because Catholiques doe not agree, that it is so much as positiuely safe, or consistent with Saluation, to vse it as Protestants doe that is, out of Hereticall persuasion, and with Hereticall contempt of the Roman Missal. For though it containes no positiue errour, yet to vse it out of any such principles, is certainly damnable sin, and destructiue of Saluation. The Arian Creeds contain'd no positiue errour against Fayth; yet because they did not containe all that was necessarily to be beleeu'd and confessed by Christians, and were sett forth by such as were know'n enemyes of the Catholique Fayth, which was wanting in them, they were always anathematiz'd and condemn'd by the Church, as much as if they had contain'd positiue and express errour. Did Catholiques grant, that those, who both vse the English Lyturgie, and reiect the Roman Missal as Protestants doe, were for all that, in state of Saluation, though they neuer repented, and did sufficiently know the grounds and reasons, why the Church forbids the vse of it, the argument would haue force: but seeing 'tis otherwise, our maxime stands yet good, and 'tis safer in order to Saluation, to worship God according to the Roman Missal, rather then according to the English seruice-booke; notwithstanding it were granted (which wee doe not) that the English booke contain'd no positiue errour.

To his Sixth of the Arians confessing Christ to be of like substance with the Father, and the Catholiques consessing him to be of the same substance, J answer, the Catholiques neuer granted possibility of Saluation to the Arians vpon the account of that Confession, but always withstood and condemn'd it, as an Here∣ticall, False and impious assertion, taken in their know'n sense, that is, restrictiuely, and as importing no more then like. For in this sense, that Maxime holds good, nullum simile est idem: and to say the son of God was of like substance with the Father in that sense, was plainly to deny him to be true God, and of the same substance with the Father.

The like is to be sayd of his seauenth, grounded vpon the agreement of dissenting parties in the Metaphoricall Resurrection of the soule from sinne; whence the Bishop would gather, that by A. C^s. rule, it should be safest to beleeue only the sayd Meta∣phoricall Resurrection of the soule, and lett that of the body alone. But most vntruly. For did euer any good Christian allow possibility of Saluation to any that deny'd the Resurrection of the body? If not, how is this instance within the rule? which supposeth, that both parties must agree in granting Saluation to one, in his way, or contested opinion.

The same Fallacy is apparent in his Eighth and Ninth. For did euer any Catholique Christian allow Saluation to a Turke, or a Jew, in his Religion, because they beleeued one God; or to a Nestorian Heretique, because he beleeu'd that Christ was true man? what gross impertinences are these? But no maruaile. For 'tis too apparent, our aduersarie has quite forgotten the rule, and fram'd another thing of it. A. Cs. rule speakes precisely this,

andnomore; viz. that when two parties differ in point of Religion, 'tis in prudence safest to take that way, wherein both parties grant Saluation to be obtainable, or to containe nothing in it opposite, or inconsistent with Saluation: whereas the Relatour presents it in an other dress, and makes it speake thus; viz. that when parties disagree, as abouesayd, 'tis safest to resolue a mans Fayth into that, in which the dissenting parties agree, and to beleeue no more then they doe agree in: which is farre from truth, and a thing which neuer came into A. C.s thoughts: and yet vpon this mistake 'tis euident to any that will consider them, most of the Bishops instances runne.

Tlius all the Relatours examples, duly weighed, are found too light, and discouer'd to be indeed rather amusements, then proofs: A. Cs proposition, that 'tis safest in Religion to goe that way, which is confessed by both parties to afford possibility of Saluation, or to containe no damnable sinne in it, remaining in the meane while, a firme and vnshaken truth, notwithstanding all our aduersaries endeauours to vndermine it. If any thing yet be wanting to the due iustifying of it, it shall be declar'd in the following chapter. At present, the Bishop hauing made soe many assaults in vaine, seems to retire, and put himselfe vpon the defensiue; pleading, he is not out of the Catholique Church (though out of the Roman) because the Roman is not the Catholique, but a member of it, as the Church of England (he sayes) is: and requiring vs to shew, how one and the same Church can be, in different respects and relations, both a particular, and also the Catholique Church. But I answer, how often hath this been shew'n already, by all Catholi∣que writers, (had his Lordship been more willing to vnderstand the truth from them, then to cauill about words) and also by vs in this treatise? namely, that the Roman Church, as it signifies the Christians of the Diocess, or Prouince of Rome only, is a particular Church; but as it signifies the Society of all such Christians, as professing the Catholique Fayth, doe acknowledge the Bishop of Rome for St. Peters Successor and Head of the whole Church vnder Christ, so it is (formally and properly speaking) not a particular, but the very Catholique and vniuersall Church of Christ; they beeing all, eyther Hereticall, or Schismaticall Churches (or both) that doe not acnowledge this.

Our aduersary therfore might flourish as much as he pleas'd, with his vain and feigned Allegorie of an elder and younger sister; but wee tell his followers, such Rhetorique may serue to palliate, but shall neuer iustifie, nor excuse Schisme. The Roman Church will be found, in the day of account, to haue been, not an elder sister, but a mother; and such a mother, whose a Law and Au∣thority was not so lightly to haue been forsaken, and reiected by any of her petulant and disobedient Daughters. Nor matters it much, whether Brittains first Conuersion were before St. Peters coming to Rome, or after. He was Pastour of the vniuersall Church, before he settled his seate at Rome: and the Brittish Christians, if any such were before that time, might very well (at least for

ought the Bishop shew's to the contrary) be instructed by their preachers to beleeue, and acknowledge him for such.

Notes

• Ibidem.
• §. 33. num.
• §. 36. num.
• Ibidem.
• §. 35. punct. 5.
• Ibidem.
• §. 35. punct. 5.
• a

  Ibidem.
• A.C. pag. 650
• §. 35. num. 20.
• a

  Ibidem. punct. 5.
• b

  Ibidem.
• 1. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 4. 3.
• §. 35. num. 3.
• §. 35. num 3.
• a

  Secundò infero, si quis confiteatur praesentiam corporis Xti, et absentiam panis, neget tamen veram conuersione vnius in ali∣ud, in Haere∣sim labi: quia Ecclesia. Ca∣tholica non solùm duo priora, sed ctiamhocter∣tium ter∣tium definit ac docet. Suarez. in 3. partem. D. Thomae. disp. 5. quest. 75. Sect. 1. §. vlt.
• SVAREZ.... and he a very Learned Ad∣uersary. Relat. Ibid. pag. 287.
• e

  Zuarez. vbi suprá. §. 2.
• Bellarm. lib. 3. de Eu∣charist. cap. 18. §. Ex his colligimus: et in recgonit. huius loci.
• g

  §. 35. num. 3.
• Ibidem. num 3.
• Ibidem. punct. 5.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem.
• 3. King. 19. 18.
• §. 38. num. 15.
• Ibidem.
• §. 34.
• §. 35. punct. 5
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem.
• Ibidem. 〈◊◊〉〈◊◊〉
• Ibidem. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 2.
• a

  Aug. lib. 3. de Consens. Euangelist. cap. 25.
• b

  Chrysost. Homil. 16. operis imper∣fect. in Math.
• c

  Hieron. in Epitaph. Pa lae.
• d

  Theophyl. in cap. 24. Luc.
• e

  Hesych. lib. 2. in Leui∣tic. cap. 9. Beda. in cap. 24. Luc.
• Ibidem. punct. 3.
• Ibidem. punct. 4.
• Ibidem. punct.
• Ibidem. num. 8. punct. 1.
• Ibidem. punct. 2.
• Ibidem. punct 〈◊〉〈◊〉 .4.
• Ibidem. num. 9
• Ibidem, in margin.
• See chap. 10.
• Ibidem.
• a

  Prou, 1. 8.