denys Peter to have been bishop for it was resolv'd by those that were in that â—ssâ—mbly that it wou'd be expeâ—ient to send Bishop to the Samarians who then receiv'd thâ— faith in order to confirm them in the same so that it was agreed that John and the chifest Bishop viz Peter shoud go thither to perform the same which they did to the Samarians great satisfactâ—on After this Whealy produces an argument which he sound in a manuel of coâ—troveâ—sie priâ—ted at Doway the â—ear 654 proviÌ„g that to be the only Church of God whiâ—h hath had a cotinued succession of Bishops pastors from the time of Christ and the Apostles to this present daâ— which he denys with out giving any Authority or reason but promises in the following page to confute it I will be silent in the matter untill I see what he can alleadge agaiÌ„st it He afterwards â—ites out of the same manuel the following texts Isa c. 59. v. â— c. 60. v 1. 3. 1. c. 62 v. â— Ezâ—â—â—iâ—l c. 37 v. 26 Daniel c. 7 v. 13. 14 proving the infallibility of the Church which in Whealy's opinion can have no relation â—o â—â— they being write long before the Apostles dayes but if this shu'd taâ—e place it would as well prove that all the prophesies of the old Testament concerning Christs passion resurection and assention could have no relation to the said Mysteries they being prophesy'd loÌ„g before any â—f hâ—m came to pass all Whealy's witt can shew noe tolerable reason for denying the one and admitting the other as for the texts which he brings out of Matt c. 28 v. 20 John c 14 v. 16. Ephe c. 4 v. 11. 12 it is but some of Whealy's calumnyes to alleage that the Author of the said Manuel ever Produc'd them in order to prove St Peter supremacy whereas he only â—akes use of them to prove the visibility and infallibility of the true Church and its contiÌ„nued succession of Bishops Pastors from the time of the Apostles till now as appears in the 2. 37 45 page of the same Manuel After this Whealy denyes Peter to have been Bishop of Antioch or Rome for six several reasons and sayes in the first that he cannot grant it because the scriptures are wholy silent in the mattâ—r But if he can grant nothing wherein tâ—e scrâ—ptures are silent he is no true Christian for he does not believe or grant the Apostles creed or tâ—at the present Bible of which he makes use himself to be the uÌ„corrupted word â—f God or the baptism of children before they come to the years of discrection to be lawfull and sufficienâ— for salvatioÌ„ seeing the scriptures are â— holly silent in these matters beside he Possitively swears to several poiÌ„ts that are not mention'd therein and consequently contradicts his owne assertion this is too evident to require a proof for he wickedly swears believes that the true flesh blood of Christ are not really present in the blessed Sacrament that the Virgin Mary Mother of God hath no more power than a nother Woman that the Bishop of Rome hath no spiritual or temporal jurisdiction over England Ireland or Scotland and several other points propos'd by the present goverment therefore he believes and wickedly swears to several points as articles of faith wherein he himself pretends the Scripture to be wholly silent but let Whealy deny or own what he pleases its evident to us by the testimonies of all ancient writers and the following holy Fathers Doctors that Peter was Bishop of Rome viz St. Irenaeus in his 3. book c. 36. Tertullian in his book de Prescrip adversus hereticos St. Cyprian in his first book Epist 3. and in his 4. book Epist 2. Eusebius in his chronicle of the 44. year S. Epiphanius heresie 27. S. Athanasius in his Epist to those who lead a solitary life Dorotheus in his Inventory Sozomenus in his 4. book c. 4. Optatus in his 2. book against PerminiÌ„an S. Ambrose in his book of the Sacraments c. 1. St. Hierome de Viris Illustribus and in his first Epist to Damas St. Augustin in his 2. book against Petilian c. 51. and in his 165 Epist Theodoret in his Epist to Leo. Isidorus writing the life of Peter and all other ancient writers till the year 1400. before which time I defie Whealy to produce any Author that ever write of Peter's not being Bishop of Rome Whealy's second reason for denying this matter the office of an Apostle was deriv'd immediatly from Christ and by consequence more honourable and supream than that of Bishop which was ordain'd by men only it were therefore no less than madness to think Peter so weake of judgment to quitt the more honourable for the lesser or the superiour for an inferior But in this Answer Whealy makes two false suppositions first he supposes that Peter was ordain'd Bishop by men and not by Christ as Aron was formerly ordain'd by God chief Priest over the Isralites secondly he supposes that there is an incompâ—â—â—bility between the office of an Apostle and that of Bishop which â—s also 〈…〉 tho' they be two 〈…〉 they do not tend to incompaâ—ible effects for they both tend to the glory of God propagating the Doctrine of Christ and establishing the holy Catholick Church which no man of sence can deny As to Whealy's third reason wherein he sayes that the commission of an Apostle go ye forth teach all nations c. was then more universal than that of Bishoprick c. If this wou'd prove any thing against Peters being Bishop it wou'd also prove that James was not Bishop of Jerusalen or John Bishop of Ephese because their commission was also to go forth and teach all nations c. which hinder'd them not from being Bishops of the aforesaid seas as all ancient writers do unanimously testifie as to that which he adds saying that 't is epressly agaiÌ„st the special command of Christ to accept of bishoprick at all 't is but some of his presbyterian Doctrine where with he not only attakes the Church of Rome but also the present Church of EnglaÌ„d as manifestly appears by what he produces in his last argument out of Luke c. 12. v 25 26. His fourth reason against Peter being Bishop is that Peter was Apostle of the circumcision and such as write his Epistles from Babylon not to Rome but to the scatered â—eâ—es c. which reason coÌ„tradicts Whealys third Answer where in he sayes that it was agaiÌ„st Christs commaÌ„d that Peter should accept of bishoprick at all because as he alleages he was oblig'd to go fâ—â—th and teach all nations but if Peter was oblig'd to teach all nations he was not only an Apostle of the circumcision for the word all nations compreheÌ„ds both the Jewes and Gentiles by which it appears that Whealy in his owne discourse coÌ„tradicts himself as for Peters being Apostle only of the circumcision and Paul only of the Gentiles 't
AN ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGE Of Mr. Henry Jennings Protestant Arch-deacon of Dromore which evidently makes-out the present Church of Romes doctrine to have been maintain'd in the first five ages the adversarys Principles to be only a heap of heresies lawfully condemn'd by the primitive Church To which is annexed An Answer to one Whealy Set forth by JAMES O SHIELL Reader of Divinity Remember the dayes of old consider the years of many generations aske thy Father he will shew thee thy elders they will tell thee Deut c. 32. v. 7. Permissu Superiorum 1699 TO THE QUEEN MADAM THis little book makes bold to adress it self to your Sacred Majestie not to inform or instruct you in any thing it containes for beside the gifts of nature and great perfections with which your Majestie is so richly indowed you had the advaÌ„tage of being born bred in the most Catholick Country of Europe beiÌ„g well educated throwly instructed in vertue piety religioÌ„ in all other things proper for so great a Princess to learn The end and scope of this small treatise is Madam first to answer a ChalleÌ„ge made to all Catholicks in General by one of the most dareing most presumptuous of the protesaÌ„t it party next to prevent unwary and well meaning Christians from being seduc'd or impos'd upon by such artifices which it will effect by Gods help so it be but countenanc'd by your Sacred Majestie If you consider only its style contexture or the Author that compos'd it it caÌ„not on either of those accounts deserve this honour but the Docttrine it comprehends being compiled faithfully extracted out of the scripture holy Fathers Ancient CouÌ„cils it may on that score well pretend the patronage protection of so great a Quen a desceÌ„ded from the Glorious House of Est which has furnish'd Europe for many hunderds of years with Illustrious Dukes Princes Famous Generals great states-men most Eminent prelates Church-men yet never did oblige it more than in giving it so great a Princess so fit a consort for our Gratious King whose piety zeal are with-out example who for his religion only has lost the Imperial crown of three Kingdoms for his great resignation ChristiaÌ„ patience will infallibly receive a crown of everlastiÌ„g Glory your Majestyes Heroycal sted fast resolution of still prefering religio beforé all Temporal inâ—rest and your great zeal for the service of God the Catholick cause do evidently prove that no other Princess but yourself could be so agreable to his Majestie so conformable to his generous inclinations in this particular as well as in all other Royal perfections The King your Majesties chief study is to maiÌ„taiÌ„ support that religion for which both have sacrific'd your all your daily businesse is to comfort the poor to cloath the naked to feed the hungry to provide for the Fatherless widowes to supply all their waÌ„ts ever to the straitning of yourselves in a word to promote in others ' by your own example the practice of all the workes of piety Charity imaginable Now since standing-up in defence of truth endeavouring to instruct the ignorant in matters of salvation has ever been accounted a work of Charity this little book how ever meanly write may deservé your Majestie 's Royal protectioÌ„ approbation this will render it more acceptable to all good Christians supply it's want where-ever it is defective either in language or composition for this reason Madam the Author does most humbly presume to lay it at your Majesties feet to beg you wou'd be Graciously pleas'd not only to afford it the honour of your Royal patronage but also ot accept of it as a small testimony of the fidelity greatfull respect justly due from all his Country where with he is oblig'd daily to pray for your Majestie ever to continue MADAM Your Majesties Most obedient and most Loyal and most Humble Subject and Sevarnt JAMES O SHIELL An Answer to Mr. Iennings Challenge ALtho' this Treatise be but small yet it treats not of small matters the subject of it being of no less consequeÌ„ce than the salvation of those christians who are led astray from the true faith because they are not guided by any christian motive or Authority but rather by their own wordly interest and libertinism whith now a days too many preferre before gods cause and the salvation of their own souls notwithstanding all the convincing arguments both of our ancient and modern controvertists who with a great deal of pains have shifted the wheat from the tares and inspite of all oppositioÌ„ have made out very clearly the reall and naked truth of their assertions in all controverted points between our pretended reformers the present church of Rome for which reason I wou'd at present forbear writing of a subject so often scann'd and discuss'd before but that I was over perswaded at the earnest request of a certin person of quality who faithfully promis'd to be come a Roman catholick if she cu'd get but a satisfactory answer to an extravagant bold challange of one that stiles himself a prelat of the church of England now residing in the north of Ireland where he makes a great figure and wou'd faine perswade the ignorant and vnwary to belive that his notions are truely catholick To prevent wdich imposture and in hopes that some copyes of this litle work may for the good of souls pass over the seas to that afflicted country where books of controversy are very scarce J made it my business to get it printed haviÌ„g compos'd it as succint and compendious as the subject cou'd possibly permit that it may-be no burden in a mans pocket If the reader be not of the church of Rome I do advise him to perruse it with a serious consideratioÌ„ and remorse of conscience which if he does perhaps it may be an ocasion of leading him to the true light and way of salvation whatever he may carp vpon the method or language I shall bear it patieÌ„tly if he does but observe and consider the meaning and doctrine thereof But before I proceed further I must take notice of this daring champions legerdemain who being sensible â—â— of his own want of proofs and authoritys to make out any one point now controverted he wou'd faine turn the scale impose upon the Roman catholicks to prove their assertions whereas it is plain that since he owns the church of Rome to have been in a legal possession of the true faith for above 300 years after christ he ought coÌ„sequently to suppose that she kept the same faith all along unless he can prove the contrary yet this is no peculiar device of our bold challenger but rather the ordinary practice of all preteÌ„ded reformers who finding no solid grounds for their new notions are forc'd to trust wholy to negatives and endeavor upon that
account to impose the proof upon the lawfull possessors but among all methinks it seems very unfair for any that stiles himself of the church of England to deny this principle of lawfull possession since their own best writers do much insist upon it to make out their right against thoses secttaryes who like new swarms separated from the stock As the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers sosinians c. But to come to the present point let us see the arrogant challange of this proud Goliah which runs to this purpose Whosoever is deserious to find and embrace a church where the old incorrupted principles of christianity are taught such doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upward of 300 years after christ let him embrace the present church of England where the said principles are duely profess'd the old church of Rome and the present church of England being the same in principles whereas the doctrines which the presnt church of Rome has added over and above what the church of England maintains wherein the said churches do now differ were never maintain'd by the said ancient church of Rome but newly brought-in some eight or nine hundred years others seven the most of theÌ„ 600 years after christ In justification of which charge we alwayes have and still do bid defiance to any Roman catholick liviÌ„g to bring any sufficient sentence out of any old doctor or father or out of any old council or out of the holy scriptures or any one example of the primitive church whereby it may be clearly and plainly prov'd 1 That there was any privat masse in the whole world at that time for the space of six huÌ„dred years after christ 2 That the communion was administred unto the people under one kind 3 That the people then had their common prayes in a toÌ„gue which they understood not 4 That the bishop of Rome was then call'd the universal â—ishop or the head of the universal church 5 That then the people were taught to believe that christs body is really or substantially in the sacrament 6. That then the people did fall down and worship it with godly honour 7. That in the sacrament after the words of consecration there reman only the accidents shew without the substance of bread and wine 8. That whosoever had then said the sacrament is only but a figure a pledge a token or remembrance of christs body had therefore been judg'd for an here tick 9. That images were then sett up in churches to the intent that the people might worship them 10. That then the people did invocate saints or pray to them 11. That then the people believ'd that there is a third place which commonly the Papists call purgatory 12 That then the people were forbiddeÌ„ to read the word of god in their own tongue If these thiÌ„gs be as we alleage it follows that whosoever maiÌ„taiÌ„e the aforsaid abus'd principles are not of the aÌ„cieÌ„t church of Rome but only of the preseÌ„t corrupted church of Rome if our allegatioÌ„s be false we desire to be disprov'd Before I come to any particular answer to the several points of this extravagant challange which the mans ignorance or vanity makes him belive unanswerable I will only thus in general retort his own argument upon himself that J may form his discurse in the true and right method Whosoever desires to find and embtace a church wherein the old incorrupted principles of christiaÌ„ity are taught and such doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upwards of 300 years after christ let him embrace the present church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely profess'd the old and the present church of Rome being still the same in principles whereas the doctrines of those who now call themselues the church of England and wherein the said churehes do now differ were never maiÌ„tain'd by the aÌ„cieÌ„t church of Rome but rather impiously brought in by a series of hereticks who for those very doctrines were from time to time coÌ„demn'd by many general national and provincial councils and also by the most eminent fathers and doctors of the catholick church in those respective ages whose authorityes and very words I will hereafter produce in my answer to the several points heré controverted that every impartial reader may see how all the aspersions and calumnies rais'd by our pretended reformers against the church of Rome are but meer fictions without any toserable ground reason or authority In the mean time I think it is very plain that my retortion ought to take place before my adversaryes precaâ—ious sort of discourse and consequently that such a challange belogs properly to the church of Rome and not to any upstart sectary whatsoever for as J hinted before it is a principle in all well govern'd common-wealths that a peacable possessor ought not to be disturb'd untill by manifest proof he is convicted to be an unlawfull possessor but the church of Rome which undenyably was a peaceable possessor of thé true faith for the first 300 or as my adversary is willing to allows for six hundred years after christ was never convicted by any competent authority or proof that ever she fell from the true faith of Jesus christ therefore it necessarily follows that shee must be still suppos'd to retain the same true faith to this very day The major is manifest and a maxim in law and the minor J prove thus If the church of Rome could at any time be juridically condemn'd or declar'd to have fallen from the true faith it must have been either by some immediate revelation or commission from God as the written law was abrogated to make Place for the law of grace and as the high Priesthood was transfer'd from the house of Heli to an other family or by some other Church call'd and summon'd by the inspiration of the holy Ghost in some National or general Council as the Arians Macedonians Nestorians Pelagians Eutychians and many other Heresies were condemn'd in former times but neither of those can be alleag'd in the case propos'd the first is not so much as pretended nor can the later be alleag'd by any man in his wits for no National or General Council no nor any old Chronicles Registers Ecclesiastâ—al or prophane Histories makes tention that ever the Roman Church fell from the true faith so that if we except the inconsiderable dregs of coÌ„demn'd Heresies which lay hid in obscurâ— corners of the earth there waâ— no Church or society of ChristiaÌ„s extaÌ„t in the sixth seveÌ„th eighthâ— ninth c. Centuryes but were aâ—â— in communion with the Church oâ— Rome in their respective ages all the eminent Doctors Fatherâ— of those times seriously exposâ— her cause as the cause of Chrisâ— wherefore either the Church Rome kept the true faith inviolably all that while or Christ haâ— no true Church upon earth whicâ— is
the arke was a prepariÌ„g Mâ—lachi c. 3 v. 3 and he shall sit is a refiner and a puriâ—â—er of silver and â—e shall purifie the sons of Levi and â—urge them as gold and silver that they may offer unto the Lord an offeriÌ„g in righteousnesse Which text signifies the punishment of Purgatory as the following Fathers do testifies Origines hom 6. in Exod. S. Ambrose in his commentary on the 36. psal St Hierâ—me in the exposition of this text and St. Augustin in his 20th book of the city of God c. 25. we find in the 2 book of Machabees c. 12. v. â—3 that Judas Machabeus had sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand peeces of silver to be offer'd for the souls of his souldiâ—rs here are the very words of the scripture and making a â—athering he sent twelve thousand dracmes of fâ—â—ver to â—erusalem for sacrâ—fice to be offer'd for â—â—nne well and religiously thinking of the Resurection for unless he â—â—p'd that they that were slaiâ—e should raise againe it should seem superflous and vainâ—â—â— prayfor the dead and because he conâ—ider'd thaâ— they which had taken their sleep with Godliness had very Good grace lay'd up for them It is therefore a holy and healthfull cogitaâ—ion to pray for the dead that tâ—ey may â—e loose from sinnes perhaps you may Answer saying that this book is not the word of God or canonical and consequently that it's Authority is of no force but in case it wou'd not be canonical it self it ought to be sooner belier'd then either Calvin or Luthers â—nd consequently prefer'd before their Authorityes being Juâ—as was always esteem'd to have â—een a most faithfull servant to God Almighty and then has â—een a high Priest of the true Church Moreover ti 's false that this book is not Canonical for Tradition and the Authority of the holy Catholick Church which is all the testimony we can produce to prove that any book of the whole Bible is canonical or the true word of God expressly affirms that this book is Canonical and consâ—quently the word of God as may â—e seen in InnoceÌ„t the first 's letter to Exuperius in St Cyprian's first book c. 3. in his book de Exâ—orâ—atioâ— Martyry c. 11. in St. Gregorie Nazianzens Oration de Machabaeis in St Ambrose's 2. book de Jacob c 10. 11. 12. in St. AugustiÌ„s 2. book against Gaudentâ—us Epistles c. 23 in his 2 book de Doc. Christ c. 8. in his 18. book of the City of God c. 36. and also in the 47 Chap. of the 3. Council of Carthage celebrated the year 397 whose very words are these Item placuit ut praeter scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numeri Deuteronomium Jesus nave Judicum Ruth Regâ—um libriquatuor Paralipâ—menon libri duo Job psalterium Davidicum Salomonis libri quinque libri duodecim Prophetarum Isaias Jeremia Ezechiel Daniel Tobias Judith Ester Esdrae libri duo Machabaâ—rum libri duo Novi autem Testamenti Evangeliorum libri quatuor Actuum Apostolorum liber vnus Pauli Apostoli Epistolae tredecim ejusdâ—m ad Hebraeos una Petri Apostoli duae JoaÌ„nis Apostoli tres Judae Apostoli una et Jacobi una Apocalipsis Joannis â—iber unus Whereby the reader may plainly see that my adversary can have no kind of tolerable reason to reject the books of Mâ—chabees more than any other book of the whole Bible Now let us heare those texts of the new Testament which speaks of Purgatory Mat. c 5. v. 2â— But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment whosoever shall say to his brother Racha shall be in daÌ„ger of CouÌ„cil but whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire Which text expressly declares the soul to be punish'd after leaviÌ„g this world for three several sinnes and that only for the last of them he shall suffer Eternal fire so that I mâ—y lawfully infer that there must be some other place wherin the souls are punish'd for the two other sinnes but that other place cannot be heaven as is evident neither is it hell as the text makes-out therefore it must be that place of teâ—poral Punishment which the holy Catholick Church commonly call's Purgatory Which may be confirm'd by the 2â— â—6 v. of the same Chap. where we read thus agree with your adversarâ— quickly whilâ—s you are in the way with him lest the adversary would deliver thee to the judge the judge deliver thee to the officer thou be cast in prâ—son verâ—ly I say unto thee thou shalâ— by nâ— means come ouâ— thence till thou hast payed the uttermost farthing Whereby the reader may see that the word of God confirms the premâ—sses by bidding us to make penance in this world lest we shu'd be sent to that prison out of which â—â— cannot go till we pay the last farthing that is to saâ— untill our souls will be purifi'd from all manner of â—innes as the following Fathers do expressly declare â—ertullian in his book de Anima c 17. S. Cyprian in his 4th book Epist 2 Origines hom 35 in Lucaâ— Eusebius Emiâ—senus homâ— de â—piphâ—ia St Ambrose expoundiÌ„g the 12. c of Luke St. Hierome on thee aforesaid text where he sayes the following words this is what St. Matthew declares you shall not go out of the prison till also the small sinâ— be punish'd Matt. c. 12 v. 32. and whosoever speakeâ—h a word against the son of maâ— iâ— shall be forgiven him but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neiâ—herâ—n the world to come Which words S Matthew wou'd â—ot have said If he haâ— not suppos'd that some siâ—â— will be foâ—given in the world to come We fiâ—d also the following words in St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians c 3 v. 15. â—f any manâ— wâ—râ—e shall be burnt he shall suffer cosse but hiâ—self shall be sav'd yet so as by fire By which words S. Paul clearly firms that some souls after leaving this world shall be purgâ—d and purifi'd by a temporal fire as the following Fathers do testifie St. Ambrose in his coâ—mentary on this text in his 20. ser on the â—18 psal Sâ— Hierome on the 4. Chap. of Amos St. Augustin on the 37. Psal S Gregorie in his 4. book of Dialogues c. 39. Now let us beare the holy Fathers very words S. Denis who has been St. Paul's Disciple in his book de Eccâ—es Hier c. 7. sayes thus Then the Venerable Bishops do draw near and perform the hoâ—y prayers over the dead beseechâ—ng the divine clemency to forgive the dead all the sinnes which he commitâ—d by his human weaknesse and to place hâ—â— in light and in the region of the living Terâ—ullian who liv'd in the year 230. in his book de Monogamia bids acâ—rtain womâ—n
sayes thus It was not in vain the Apostles order'd that they shou'd be remember'd in the venerable and terribile mysteries for they knew this to be a relief and help to them for when all the people with open arms and the priests offer that dreadfull sacrifice full of veneration how shall we not pacific God praying for them he hath such an other Authority in his 41. Homily on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians and in his 7. Homily on his Epist to the Hebrews he sayes thus speaking of Christ we offer alwayes the same truely noe other but still the same therefore it is one sacrifice for this reason because he is offer'd in several places are they many Christs no not at all but one Christ in all places who is wholy and intirely here and there one boâ—â— in his 32. de Consubstantiali â—â— Sharply reprehend those who neglect to hear masse and in his 2â— Homily de baptismo he compare those who leave masse before thâ— last benediction to Judas who the Lords last supper departe before giving thanks More â—â— his Authorityes may be seen nâ— only in his liturgy but also iâ— several places manifestly proving the ancient practice of celebrating masses St. Augustin whâ— liv'd in the begining of the 5. century declares in his 9 book oâ— Confession c. 12. that there wâ— masse said for the soul of his own Mothâ— Monica her body being laid beside tâ— sepulchre In his 32 Ser de verb is Apostoli speaking of the dead he sayes the following words the prayers of the holy church the comfortable sacrifice and the alms which are offer'd for those spirits is not to be doubted that they are help'd by them for this hast been deliver'd by the Fathers which new the universal Church observes that those whodye in the communion of the body blood of Christy are remembr'd when the sacrifice is offer'd who doubts them to be favour'd for prayers are not in vain offer'd for them to God And in his Enchiridion c. 110. he also sayes that it is not to be deny'd that the soul of the dead are oâ—s'd when the holy sacrifice is offer'd for them In his 22. book of the city of God chap. 8. he relates that when Hesperious's couÌ„try house was troubl'd by malignant spirits thaâ— he desir'd one of his priests to go thither by the vertue of whose prayers the spirits might give over one of them went saith he and offer'd there the sacrifice of the body of Christ and afterwards the House was no more troul'd More of St. Augustins Authorityes may be seen in hiâ— 46. Epist in his book de cura promorcuis c. 18. in his book desancta virgin c. 45. in his first book de origine animae c. 9. 11 in his 84. treatise in JoaÌ„nem All which I omit to produce for breviti sake shall only insert that of venerable Bede who in his first book c 29 â—â—lates that St. Gregory had sent Priestly ornaments to St. Augustin the apostle of England and in his 4 book c â—2 he tells that when Jâ—ma was taken captive by the enemyes that he cou'd never bety'd by reason of several masses which his brother Tunna the monke said for his soul believing that he was kill'd in the battel and also in his 5 book c. 13. speaking of that terrible vision of Driethelme who after his death reviu'd and told wonderfull things concerning the pains of purgatory from which said venerable Bede Prayers alms fasts and celebrations of masses doe release many before the day of Judgment Now let us see the councils Authorityes It was decree'd in the 5 can of the council of Vasens atowne in France where 18 Bishops gather'd the year 442 that kyrie eleison shu'd be said in the masses throughout all the Churches of France as it was said long before in the East and in all Italy here are the councils very words quia tam in sede apostolica quam etiam per totas Orientis atque Italiae provincias dulcis et nimis salubris consuetudo in tromissa est ut kirieelcison cum grandi affectu accompuÌ„ctione dicatur placuit etiam ut in ominibus Ecclesiis nostris ista consuetudo sancta et ad matutinum et ad missas et ad vesperam deo propitiante intromittatur Likewise it was enacted in the 6 can of the same council that the following words holy holy holy shu'd be said iÌ„mornig masses iÌ„ the masses of lent and in those masses which were offer'd for the dead as it was accustom'd to be said in solemn Masses the words of the CouÌ„cil are these In omnibus missis sive matutinis sive quadragessimalibus sive in illisquae prodefunctorum commemorationibus siunt semper sanctus sauctus saÌ„ctus eo ordine quo ad missas publicas dici debeat quiatam dulcis et desiderabilis vox etiam die noctuque possit dici fastidium non potest generare et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen Domini Papae quicunque sedi apostolicae praefuerit in nostris Ecclesiis recitetur Which Authorieyes doe not only make out the ancient practice of celebreating Masses but also the Popes supremacy of which I shall treate in my answer to the 4 point In the mean time let us hear the Declarations of other old Councils concerning the present point We read in the 18 can of the council of Agato celebreated the year 506 that the seculars were then oblig'd to receive the CommunioÌ„ trice in the year viz at Christemas haster and Whitsuntide and in the 47 can of the same couÌ„cil t is expres'd that they were oblig'd to hear masse every sunday Which plainly makes out that in the primitive Church it was lawfull for the Priest to say masse tho' none else wou'd receive the Communion along with him to confirm which I shall produce the Authorityes of the two following Councils who sate above a thousand years agoe the fathers of the 12 council of Toleto can 5 sharply reprehend'd certain Priests for not receiving the Communion when they said Masses which is asign that they acknowledg'd the Masse to be lawfull tho' none wou'd communicate but onely the Priest And the council of Nant c 30 quoted by Ivo p 3 deer e 70 â— prohibit'd the Priests to say masse alone withoÌ„ut the assistance of one to answer them which Authority proves the ancient practise of celebrating privat masses Tho' Luther and his doctrine aleadges the contrary for the fathers of that Council only obliges the Priests to have clerks to answer them but mentions not a word of a second person to be requisite for receiving the communion along with the Priest for they knew too well that there was no divine or Ecclesiastical precept obliging the Priest not to say Masse if none else wou'd communicate along with him and moreover that there was no Precept commanding others to receive the Communion as often as the Priest wou'd celebrat Masse for that was left to the
Antioch to Rome But in case this had been true which I will shew hereafter to be false his illegal consequeÌ„ce does not follow for tho' the Authors do not agree about the begining of the wâ—â—cks of Daniel c. 9. v. 24. prophesyiÌ„g the comâ—iÌ„g of Christ or how many years Saul did reign in Isrâ—el or how many years there are since the creation of the world shall we infer that Daniels prophesie never began that Saul never reign'd in Israel and that the world was never created no we leave such illegitimate consequeÌ„ces to Whealy who as it seems cannot infer better His secoÌ„d argument is he that suffers â—ebuâ—e is not superior to him that giâ—es it but Peter suffer'd rebuke from his â—â—llow Apostle Paul Gal. c. 2. v. 11. 12. â— â—herefore Peter was not superior to Paul This maâ—or is evideÌ„â—ly false as apâ—ears in the first book of KiÌ„gs c. 13 â—here we read that Saul tho KiÌ„g of Israel suffer'd to be rebuk'd by Samuel and in the second book of Kings c. 12. that David suffer'd to be rebuk'd by Nathaâ— finally we read in the 6th Chap. of St. John that our â—aviour suffer'd not only the Jewes but also the very Disciples to reprâ—hend his words â—hen he told them that he wouâ—d gâ—ve them his flesh to eat and his blood to drinke we see also by dâ—â—ly experience that Kings Magistrates and superiors are reprehended by their inferiors not only privatly but in publick Sermons wâ—en they preach against the â—ices of the said superiours indeed we see that the Prince of Orange has been often rebuk'd these six or seaven yearâ— past by Whealy in his yearly Almanacks wherein he reflects with the vâ—lest expressions imaginable on their â—acred Majesties King â—ames his Queen the Prince of Wales whereby the Prince of Orange himself is consequently rebuk'd yet never order'd the Author to be punish'd As for that action of Peter not eating meat with the Gentiles for which he was rebuk'd by Paul let the adversary know that if Peter had 〈◊〉 then eaten with the Gentiles he would â—â—â—harply reprehended by 〈…〉 the Jewes Pharâ—siâ—s who thought it to be unlawfull by any means to keep company eat or drink with the Genâ—â—â— anâ— so Peter beiÌ„g between these â—wo extreams he thought it beâ—â— to eat with the Gentiles and in so doing he is not only excus'd but highly commended by all the Eastern and Greâ—ian Faâ—heâ—s in their commentary on the aforsaid text and St. Chrisostome in his commentary on the 10. Chap. of the Acts affirms that it was done by divine dispensation which evidently appears Actâ— c. 1 v. 7. 8. 9. where we read that Peter was 〈◊〉 commaÌ„ded to eat with the Gentiles And the motive that mov'd St. Paul to reprehend him was fearing leâ—t that others who would not be in the same circumstances wherein Peter then has been or dispens'd with as he was should be lead by his example for inferiors are commoÌ„ly led by the examples of their superiors which to prevent in that point St. Paul thought it convenient to reprehend him whose humility for not contradicting Paul his inferior is most highly prays'd by the following Fathers viz St. Cypâ—ian in his Epist to Quintus St Augustin in his â—9 Epist St. Gregorie hom 18 oâ— EzekiÌ„el saying thus behold St. Peter reprehended by his owne inferior and does not feâ—◠〈◊〉 reprehension As for these texts which the adversary brings out of St. Pauls second Epist to the Cor. c. 11. 5. and c. 12. v. 11. they prove nothing against Peâ—er's supremacy for Pauls inteâ—tion was to sâ—op â—â—e mouths of some adversaryes he had among the Câ—rinthians that oppos'd his Doctrine alleaging it to be grounded â—n some subtile and sophistical arguments and not thought by Christ as that of Peter John Jameâ— was consequently ought not to be of any great Authority which suspicion occasion'd him to declare in the aforesaid text that he was not inâ—erior to anâ—â—f the Apostâ—es that is to say that his Doctrine was as true of as much Authority being written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost â— as any of the Apostles Doctrine which is true but nothiÌ„g to tâ—e present purpose Whealy's third argument he that is accus'd by other and pleadâ— his cause before them is not supeâ—â—or â—â— those that accâ—ses him or before whom he plead but St Peter was acâ—us'd before the rest of the Apostles â—lended his cause before them at Hieruâ—alem Acts. c. 11. v. 1. c. therefore Peter was not superior to â—he rest of the Apostles The major is false for tho' a King is accus'd by some of his own subjects and pleads his cause before the Paâ—lâ—ment or a Prince before a Council â— superior before his community It does not argue that the King has no superemmency over the Paâ—â—ment the Prince over his Council the superior over his câ—â—munity otherwise it might be lawfully inâ—er'd that our Saviour had no superemmeâ—cy over his own Disciples before â—hoâ— he was often accus'd by the Jewes as appears Matt. c. 21 Maâ—ke c. 15 Lâ—ke c. â—3 Iohn â—â— 7 8. As for that which Whâ—aly brings out of Peter's second â—pist c. 3. v. â— ti 's not to hiâ— puâ—pose tho' he deceiâ—fully wrests it in order to infâ—r aâ— uâ—atural consequence for it was Peâ—erâ— iâ—â—cut in that Chap. to assure certain people of Christs coming to judgment c. and to thinke the paâ—â—ence of God to conduce to their salvatioÌ„ as Paul write to them in his Epistles so thâ—t it was necessary for Peter to speake in the plural number but perhaps Whealy by some new fâ—und Ariâ—meâ—ick may make two into one â—â— foâ— I acknowledge that Peter ought to speake in the singular number but it is too late for Wâ—ealy after so many ages to pretend to teach him how ought to expresse himself in matters of such great consequences Whealy's fourth argument he that is sent is not superior to him that sends him but when the Apostles at Hierusalem heaâ—d that Samaria receiv'd the word of God they sent to them Peter Iohn Acts. c. 8. v. 14. therefore Peter was not superior to the rest of the Apostles this major is false for one may undergo such a mission by his iÌ„feriors advise of his own accord with out any subjection to those that sendâ— him as is evident in the second book of Kings c 15 where we read that Sâ—muel sent Saul tho' King to destroy Amalâ—â—k the children of Israel sent Phine has their high Priest and superior to the chiâ—dren of Ruben Gâ—d then in the land Gâ—lead as may be seen in the 2â— Chap of Joshua v. 13 and finally Hâ—rod sent the wisemen over whom â—e had noâ— pâ—wer to Beâ—helem to searge diligâ—â—tly for the child Matt c 2. v 8. so that Whealy can make no advantage of Peters missioÌ„ to Samaria which favours not his design in the â—esâ— but rather confirms the contrary whereas he