Selected quad for the lemma: blood_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
blood_n	bread_n	eat_v	word_n	5,813	4	4.5462	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A94737	Romanism discussed, or, An answer to the nine first articles of H.T. his Manual of controversies. Whereby is manifested, that H.T. hath not (as he pretends) clearly demonstrated the truth of the Roman religion by him falsly called Catholick, by texts of holy scripture, councils of all ages, Fathers of the first five hundred years, common sense, and experience, nor fully answered the principal objections of protestants, whom he unjustly terms sectaries. By John Tombes, B.D. And commended to the world by Mr. Richard Baxter.	Tombes, John, 1603?-1676.	1660 (1660)	Wing T1815; Thomason E1051_1; ESTC R208181	280,496	251

p. 113. d. l. 1. p. 122. l. 8. r. thousand p. 124. l. 5. r. general p. 1●5 l. 39. r. deceived p. 126. l. 18. r. of an p 135. l. 1. 12. d. het p. 140. l. 25. r. one ROMANISM Discussed OR An ANSWER to the nine First Articles of H. T. his Manual of Controversies ARTICLE I. The Church of Rome is not demonstrated to be the true Church of God by its succession SECT I. Of the Title Page of H. T. his Manual of Controversies in which is shewed to be a vain vaunt of what he hath not performed AMong the many Writings which have been dispersed for the seducing of the English People from the Protestant Doctrine and Communion to the imbracing of the Roman Tridentin opinions a Book of H. T. that is Henry Turbervile at I am told hath been instrumental thereto It is stiled as Becanus Cost●rus and others before had done theirs A Manual of Controversies in which he pretends to have clearly demonstrated the truth of the Catholique Religion by which he means the Roman opinions branched by him into 28 Articles the truth of which he hath no otherwise demonstrated than by shewing that there is no truth in them Which will appear by considering that the two chief Points of the Roman Religion distinct from the Protestant are the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy and Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist into the very flesh and blood of Christ which he had of the blessed Virgin Now if he believe himself that he hath clearly demonstrated the truth of these by Texts of holy Scripture Councils of all Ages Fathers of the first 500 years common Sense and Experience yet there is so little said by him that carries a shew of proof of either or rather there is so much in his own Writing as gainsays it that were there not a spirit of error which doth possess men they would not believe him For that he hath not clearly demonstrated the truth of the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the whole Church is apparent in that he hath not demonstrated clearly Peter's Supremacy there being no Texts brought by him Art 7. to prove it but Ephes 2. 20. Matth. 16. 18. John 21. 16 17 18. Luke 22. 31. Matth. 10. 2. Mark 3. Luke 2. Acts 1. of which the very first proves that other Apostles were Foundations as well as Peter and therefore the term Peter or rock Matth. 16. 18. proves not the whole church so built on Peter as that thereby he is declared Supreme visible Head over them or over the whole church any more than other Apostles were Nor doth feeding the sheep of Christ prove any other Supremacy than was in the Elders of Ephesus commanded to do the same Acts 20. 28. and by Peter himself as a fellow-Elder with them required of them 1 Pet. 5 1 2 And confirming the brethren Luke 22. 31. is no more an argument of Peter's Supremacy than the same thing is of the Supremacy of Paul and Barnabas Acts 14. 22. The other Texts shew nothing but priority of nomination or speaking notwithstanding which H. T. p. 97. confesseth the Apostles to have been equal in their calling to the Apostl●ship nothing at all of supremacy and rule over the Apostles and whole church is deducible from them And for Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs body and blood in the Eucharist that which he alledgeth is the words of institution Marth 26. 27 28. Mark 14. 22 24. Luke 22. 19 20. 1 Cor. 11. 24 25. which he would have it believed are spoken without trope or figure of speech saying p. 130. to whosoever shall peruse the Text Matth. 26. 27 28. there is no mention of any f●gure in it and yet p. 154. confesseth there is a figure in the word chalice And for the Councils of all Ages saith p. 7. that the second and third Ages produced no Councils and p. 25. he saith In this tenth Age or Century I finde no General Council nor yet Provincial in which any controversie of moment was decided And for Fathers of the first 500 years neither do any of the Fathers he cites ascribe to Peter such a supremacy over the Apostles and the whole church as the Romanists assert nor would any man imagine that Iren●●us Cyprian or Augustine should intend such a supremacy to the Bishop of Rome who knows the controversies about Easter between Polycarpus and Anicetus Polycrares Irenaeus and the Asian Bishops and Pope Victor and about Rebaptization between Cyprian and S●ephanus between the African Bishops about Appeals to Rome and Ca●lestinus and other Bishops of Rome And for the point of Transubstantiation or real substantial presence of Christs flesh and blood in the Eucharist the sayings of Fathers being well viewed speak not what he would have them and Augustine's words cited by him p. 185. denying Judas to have eaten the bread which was our Lord himself must be understood as denying Transubstantiation sith he acknowledgeth he did eat the ●read of our Lord. As for common sense and experience how it should demonstrate clearly the Popes supremacy is beyond my apprehension yea against it sith Histories and Travellers tell me that the Greek and other churches to this day deny the Popes supremacy And that Christs real substantial bodily presence or transubstantiation should be demonstrated by common sense and experience is so impudent an assertion as no man can believe but he that hath tenounced common sense aud experience Nor can H. T. believe himself in that if he believe what he saith p. 203. The body of Christ in the Sacrament is not the proper object of sense p. 205. the evidence of sense is not infallible in the Sacrament which if there were no more said might satisfie an unprejudiced person that this Author doth not easily deserve belief but deals like a Mountebank that commends his Salves beyond their vertue and when p. 72. he forbids us to try by the dead letter meaning the Scripture or ●uman● reason it is a shrewd sign that what he said in the Title Page of his Demonstration was but a copy of his countenance no real thought of his own heart Nevertheless for the undeceiving of those who are willing to be undeceived I shall examine his Writing and shew that he hath not at all demonstrated the Roman Doctrine to be true nor answered the Protestants objections and that the true Fathers Prophets and Apostles and Teachers in the next Ages to them have not taught the now Roman opinions but the contrary SECT II. Of the Epistles before H. T. his Manual in which too much is ascribed to the Church and the Churches Authority deceitfully made the first point of his Treatise LEtting pass other things in the Epistles with the approbation and commendation of those of his own way as being no better than a kind of complement of one Papist with another of no moment but with that prejudiced party I shall onely take notice of that

authority of the Church but to know the true faith by which alone the true Church is known and it is a most impudent assertion which H. T. takes on him in his first Article to maintain that the Church now in communion with the See of Rome is the only true Church of God unless he can prove none are believers but they So that this very definition of the Lateran council is sufficient to overthrow the main drift of H. T. in this book and to shew how heedless or impudent a writer he is H. T. tells us also that the fourth Lateran council defin'd in the profession of faith can 1. that the true body and blood of Christ is in the Sacrament of the Altar under the forms of bread and wine the bread being transubstantiated by the divine power into the body and the wine into the blood Which is granted if it be true that the Council it self did define any thing and not Pope Innocent himself three years after the Council Platina saith in his life that many things then came into consultation indeed and yet not any thing could be openly decreed But were it the Council or the Pope alone that thus decreed it was a most bold and presumptuous act in either or both to make that a point of faith of which as Bellarm. tom 3. cont l. 3 c. 23. confesseth Scotus in quartum sent dist 11. q. 3. said that the tenent of transubstantiation was no tenet of faith before the Lateran Council and Scotus and Cameracensis expresly say that neither by words of Scripture nor by the Creeds nor sayings of the ancients are we compelled to the tenet of transubstantiation And Cardinal Cairt in 3. Aq. q. 75. art 1. saith that nothing out of the Gospel doth appear to compel us to understand these words this is my body properly To the same purpose John Fisher Bishop of Rochester contra capt Babylon c. 1. For which reason Cuthbert Tonstal l. 1. of the Eucharist p. 46. said perhaps it had been better to have left every curious man to his conjecture concerning the manner of Christs body being in the Eucharist as before the Lateran Council it was left at liberty and therefore he was ost heard to say if he had been present at the Lateran Council he would have endeavoured to perswade Pope Innocent to have forborn the decreeing of transubstantiation as an article of faith And indeed the reason of the Council is so grosly absurd that had there been any understanding men at the making of the decree it 's likely it had not passed For this reason they give of their decree that to perfect the mystery of unity we our selves may take of his what he received of ours the bread being transubstantiate into the body the wine into blood by the divine power intimates 1. That the bread is transubstantiate into the body and wine into the blood not either into body and blood and then he that drinks not the wine drinks not the blood nor is it said to be transubstantiate into it as an animate body so that that determination makes it a transubstantiation without life 2. It faith that we may receive of his what he receives of ours which in plain sense intimates that Christ receives our body and blood by eating and drinking as we do his 3. It makes this the mystery of our unity as if the mystery of our unity by faith were not perfect without this gross Capernaitish Cannibalitish eating Christs very flesh made from bread by a Priest and drinking his very blood with our mouth in drinking transubstantiate wine All which are such gross irrational unchristian absurdities as had not the age been blockish and Popes and popish writers and people dementate they would with abhorrency have rejected that determination H. T. adds that the fourth Lateran Council can 1. defined in the profession of faith that no man can make this Sacrament but a Priest rightly ordained by the keys of the Church given to the Apostles and their successors which although it be otherwise in the text Matth. 16. 19. expresseth wherein the keys not of the Church but of the Kingdom of heaven are mentioned as given to Peter not to the Apostles and their successors yet were it true that the keys were given to the Apostles and their successors this would overthrow the Popes supremacy if it be deduced from that gift of the keys For if Christ himself gave the keys of the Church to the Apostles and their successors then not to Peter only and his successors but to other Apostles and their successors as well as Peter and consequently according to their own principles to other Bishops as well as the Bishop of Rome As for the definition of the Council that none can make this Sacrament but a Priest then it is to Priests only that it is said do this for from those words he deduceth p. 215. the power to make Christs body but that is most absurd for then they only should eat the doing this being meant plainly of eating the bread being spoken not to the Priest conficient only but to all the Apostles at table also and if so not only the cup should be kept from the people but the bread also contrary to 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. 11. 28. H. T. tells us that they defined that baptism profits little ones as well as those who are of riper years unto salvation and condemned the heresie of Abbas Joachim which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants though it be suspected that if Abbat Joachim had not been a man whose reputed holiness and free speeches against the Popes and the clergy troubled them he might have escaped that censure The definition concerning confession and receiving at Easter are points of disciplin not part of the profession of faith and so impertinent to the present business H. T. mentions also the Council of Lyons Fathers one hundred Pope Gregory the tenth presiding Anno 1274. against the Grecians which is nothing against the common tenet of the Protestants and that which is added this hitherto saith the Council the holy Roman Church the mother and mistris of all Churches hath preach'd and taught besides the non-sense how frequently soever it be used of the Churches preaching and teaching who preach not nor teach but they are preached to and taught it is but a piece of palpably false flattery the Church of Rome being not the mother of all Churches it being certain that the Church of Jerusalem was before that of Rome and the Jerusalem from above is stiled the mother of us all Gal. 4. 26. Among his Catholick professors of this age H. T. nominates St. Dominick and St. Francis Institutors of their holy orders of Friers but how they should be Saints whereof one was a bloody instigator of war against the innocent sheep of Christ the Waldenses and the other an observer of humane inventions with neglect of Gods command to work with his

and men 1 Cor. 11. 23 24 25 26 27 28. after his blaming them for disorder about the Lords supper he saith thus For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and said take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying this cup is the New Testament in my blood this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me For as oft as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do shew the Lords death till he come Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 1 Cor. 10. 16 17. The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ for we being many are one bread and one body for we are all partakers of that one bread Which texts plainly shew that what is eaten in the Eucharist is bread and therefore not flesh and consequently no transubstantiation that the actions are commemorate signs of Christs death therefore no propitiatory sacrifice that bread was to be broken and eaten therefore not to be whole and swallowed down Heb. 9. 26. But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself Heb. 10. 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all which shew there is no more sacrifice or offering of Christ in the church of Christ to be continued by a Priest Rom. 1. 25. who changed the truth of God into a lye and worshipped the creature besides or more than the Creator 1 Thes 1. 9. ye turned to God from Idols to serve the living and the true God therefore they worshipped not bread nor crosses nor reliques as Papists do Rom. 3. 28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law Rom. 4. 5. But to him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted to him for righteousness Rom. 5. 1. Therefore being justified by faith we have peace with God Rom. 8. 1. There is no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ver 3 4. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us ver 18. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us Rom. 9. 11. For the children being not yet born neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand not of works but of him that calleth 16. So then it is not in him that willeth nor in him that runneth but of God that sheweth mercy Rom. 10. 3 4 5 10. For they being ignorant of Gods righteousness and going about to establish their own righteousness have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law that the man which doth them shall live in them For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation Rom. 11. 6. And if by grace then is it no more of work otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of work then it is no more grace otherwise work is no more work 1 Cor. 1. 30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus who of God is made unto us wisdome and righteousness and sanctification and redemption 1 Cor. 4. 4. I know nothing by my self yet am I not thereby justified ver 7. who maketh thee to differ from another and what hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it Gal. 2. 16 17 21. knowing that a man is not justified by the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ we seek to be justified by Christ I do not frustrate the grace of God for if righteousness come by the law then Christ is dead in vain to which may be added Gal. 3. 6 7 8 9 10 11. 5. 4 5. Ephes 2. 8 9. Phil. 3. 8 9. Tit. 3. 5 6 7. 1 John 1. 7. which overthrow forgiveness of sins for our satisfaction merit of glory by any Saints works righteousness by works and such other tenets as whereby Papists extol man and debase the grace of God which will more fully appear by refuting the shifts of the Romanists in the discussing of the following articles As for what H. T. saith here if the Church in communion with the See of Rome were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever if meant of the visible Church militant of which alone is the question it must rest either on this proposition every true visible Church militant is and shall be a true Church for ever which is proved false by the instances of the Hierosolymitan Antiochian Alexandrian Ephesian Corinthian and other Churches Where there are not now churches of Christ but Mahometans at least by this authors own doctrine they were not true churches while the Greek churches revolted from the communion of the Roman which he mentions p. 47. and it is manifest by Christs threatning that he would remove the candlestick from them except they did repent Revel 2. 5. Or else it rests on this that every church in communion with the See of Rome is and ever shall be a true church but there is no priviledge in Scripture to the church of Rome more than to other churches much less to every church that is in communion with the See of Rome yea it is said to the Roman church as well as other churches Rom. 11. 20 21 22. well because of unbelief they were broken off and thou standest by faith Be not high minded but fear For if God spared not the natural branches take heed lest he also spare not thee Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God on them which fell severity but towards thee goodness if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou even the Roman church to whom he then wrote also shalt be cut off However if it be proved that the church catholick invisible of the elect and true believers cannot fail and that a church visible indefinite shall

and infallibility in matters of faith yet were they each consonant to other in all their doctrines of faith and whatever was taught by any of them was stedfastly believed by all I reply H. T. saith in his Epistle to the reader that it is agreed by all parties that Christ our Lord hath founded and built a Church in his own blood which was the onely M●stris of divine faith and sole repository of all revealed truths at least for an age or two which if true then the Apostles were in that age to depend on their decrees But here he eats his words in the Epistle the Church was the sole Mistris of divine faith here the Church was to depend on the Apostles as on the first masters and proposers of faith How these hang together I understand not That which he saith here of the Apostles is very true understanding by masters not Lords but teachers The Church neither now nor in any age was Mistris of faith it is not the Church in right sense that is the teacher or propounder of divine truths but the learner It is the meer sophistry of Papists to term the Pope and Prelates the Church and to call a hundred or two of Bishops some of them meer titulars without any Diocesse such as never knew what the office of a Bishop was nor ever preached the Gospel to any people the Catholick Church The concession that the Apostles had each of them a peculiar prerogative of divine assistance and infallibility in matters of faith proves that this was not Peters prerogative and if it were a peculiar prerogative to each Apostle then it descends not to any successors and so by this Authors own words the infallibility of the Pope or council is a meer figment Nor is infallibility to be sought from any but Christ and his Apostles doctrin who do still propound matters of divine faith to us in the holy Scriptures Nor hath the Church of Rome any more priviledge of keeping or conveying to us the truths revealed by the Apostles then that at Jerusalem Antioch Ephesus Alexandria or any other which the Apostles founded and therefore Ireneus Tertullian and such of the Fathers as direct us to repair to the Apostolick Churches for establishment against hereticks direct us to other Churches where the Apostles preached besides the Roman It is further objected the Church hath now no new revelations nor can ●he make now any new points of faith therefore we are not bound to believe her definitions H. T. Answers I grant the antecedent but deny the consequence for though she can make no new points yet she can explicate the old and render that clear which was before obscure and can define against new herefies I reply The grant of the antecedent is sufficient to prove that if the Church as it is termed teach any other points of faith then were revealed to the Apostles we are not bound to believe her definitions and consequently she must prove her definitions by Apostolical tradition and not only say they are Apostolical ere we are bound to believe them it being still to be heeded which Paul saith Gal. 1. 8. If he or an Angel from heaven or any man preach I may adde or believe any other Gospel then what was preached by Paul and received by the Galatians he is accursed and consequently each person is to examine and judge for himself whether that which is preached or defined for him to believe by Pope or council agree with the Apostles Gospel or no and if the Church can onely explicate the old then an heresie cannot be made by a council which was not before and if Pope John the two and twenteth his tenet condemned in the council of Constance were heresie after the council condemned it it was so before contrary to what Bellarmin saith l. 4. de Rom pontif c. 14. and it follows he that can best explicate the old and render it clear which was before obscure hath the best title to infallibility and if the Church or Pope have no new revelations then he must explicate by study and so not by prerogative of his chair but by ability in languages arts and other knowledge in which if he have lesse knowledge as certainly some if not all the Popes for a thousand years have had one of them as Alp●onsus a Castro saith not understanding Grammer and one of them being necessitated to substitute another to do divine offices for him by reason of his ignorance in literature there is lesse reason to adhere to their explications then to others who have more skill therein Arias Montanus Vatablus and such other learned men are to be relied more upon for explications and definitions in points of faith then the Pope or Bishops if they be such as were in the Trent council of whom it is manifest by Frier Pauls history of that council that there were scarce any of them learned in the Scriptures especially in the main point of the Gospel concerning justification by faith then it is unjust to tye men to follow the Fathers who had lesse skill then others in interpreting Scripture as the learned of the Roman party do often shew in their writings then did Innocent the third ill to make a new point of faith in defining transubstantiation which was but an opinion before as Scotus and T●nstal have asserted then it is monstrous tyranny beyond all that ever any tyrants before practised to burn to death men women children old and young Bishops and Noblemen for not holding it then are the Pop●s and Popish party guilty of shedding a sea of blood in England France Belgia Germany Italy Spain Poland and elsewhere for denying transubstantiation the Popes supremacy and such other new tenets as Popes have thrust on the Christian Churches then hath Pope Pius the fourth done wickedly in imposing on men a new Creed and Popish Doctors do ill in justifying it and not opposing it But is not this a mockery to say the Church may not do it and yet they do it and H. T. avoucheth it what else are their tenents of receiving the eucharist under one kinde of worshipping images of purgatory invocation of Saints indulgences service in an unknown tongue monastick vows with many more but new points of faith and is it not all one to make new points of faith as by authority onely without any agreeablenesse to the meaning of the words so to explicate the Scriptures as that they shall be wrested to maintain that which is not there taught and that condemned as heresie which is not contrary to them Rightly said Chillingworth Answ to Char. Maint part 1. ch 2. num 1. Tyranny may be established as well by a power of interpreting laws as by making them and so doth the power of Rome set up the greatest tyranny that ever was in the world by usurping this vast power of being an infallible interpreter of Gods laws though in their Prefaces to their corrected editions of their

when Athanasius and others were not And he might have so interpreted the Speeches he allegeth of Hospinian and the rest I have not all the Books he citeth but some of their words I finde not as this Author would have them Bishop Jewel having said pag. 208. And to be short all the World this day crieth and groaneth after the Gospel adds And all these things are come to pass at such time as to any mans reason it might seem impossible when all the World the People Priests and Princes were overwhelmed with ignorance when all Schools Priests Bishops and Kings of the World were sworn to him that whatsoever he took in hand they would uphold it Which Speeches are to be understood onely of the Western Empire as when it is said Luke 2. 1. A Decree went out that all the World should be taxed it is meant onely of the Roman Empire and when John 12. 19. The World is gone after him it is meant by an Hyperbole of a great part so the words of Bishop Jewel are to be understood as is usual in such rhetorical expressions though the words are not as this Authour sets them down that the whole World Princes Priests and People were bound by Oath to the Pope Jewel Serm. on Luke 11. In like manner when Calvin saith lib. 4. instit c. 18. sect 18. that the abominations of the Mass presented to drink in a golden Cup hath so made drunk all the Kings and People of the Earth from the first to the last he alluding to the words Revel 18. 3. is to be conceived as in that Scripture and many more to be understood by an excess of Speech a great part in comparison of whom the rest are as if they were not To the same purpose were the words of Perkins Exposition of the Creed vol. 1. pag. 260. col 2. c. as the whole period recited shews which is this And during the space of nine hundred years from the time of Boniface the Popish Heresie to wit of the Popes Supremacy spread it self over the whole Earth and the faithfull Servants of God were but as an Handfull of Wheat in a Mountain of Chaff which can scarce be discerned The next words of Dr. White himself in the same period shews his meaning to be of freedom wholly and of appearing conspicuously and to the World visibly to be seen by all and separated from the rest For thus it follows And whether any company at all known or unknown were free from it wholly or not I neither determine nor greatly care Nor do I question but that the same is the meaning of the rest if their words were rightly cited and the Reader might perceive how they are wrested by H. T. against their meaning and they wrote those expressions in like meaning with those passages of holy Scripture which complain of corruption as universal when the greatest or most conspicuous part are so as Psalm 12. 1. Micah 7. 2. Phil. 2. 21. SECT II. The Argument of H. T. to prove the nullity of the Protestant Churches for want of Succession is turned against the Roman Church H. T. further argues thus Without a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had But Protestants have no continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets the nine and thirty Articles or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points Therefore Protestants have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time The Major is manifest because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined The Minor is proved because Protestants have never yet been able nor ever will to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their nine and thirty Articles or Luther in his Augustan Confession when he revolted from the Catholick Church no nor yet any one single Diocese or Biscop Answ 1. THis Argument is thus justly retorted Without a continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another in the profession of the same Faith from Christ and his Apostles to this time a continued Succession cannot be had But Papists have no continued number of Bishops Priests and Laicks succeeding one another from Christ and his Apostles to this time in the profession of the same Faith or Tenets the Canons of the Trent Council the Articles in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth or any other set number of Tenets expresly holding and denying all the same points therefore Papists have no continued Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this time The Major is manifest because it proceeds from the Definition to the thing defined The Minor is proved because Papists have never yet been able nor ever will to assign any such number of men whom they have succeeded in their Trent Canons and the Articles of the Creed injoyned to be professed and sworn to in the Bull of Pope Pius the fourth If any man pretend to such a Catalogue let him name none but such as held explicitely the Doctrine of the Tridentin Canons the Roman Catechism the Articles of the Creed injoyned by Pope Pius the fourth his Bull all granting and denying the same points that the late Faction of Romanists or Italian popish Sectaries granted and denied or that our new Reformers the Jesuites deny and grant for if they differ from them in any one material point they cannot be esteemed Catholiks Let him not name Christ John Baptist Peter Paul or any the Apostles or the Roman Church in their days For they did not admit and embrace the now called Apostolick Ecclesiastick traditions unwritten and other observances and constitutions of the Roman Church nor held it the right of the Roman Church to define the true sense and interpretation of holy Scripture to be received by all nor truly and properly seven Sacraments of the new Law instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ and necessary to the salvation of mankinde nor allowed the received Rites of the Roman Church used in solemn administration of all the Sacraments nor all the things which concerning original sin and justification were defined and declared in the Council of Trent nor did acknowledge that in the Mass is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the quick and the dead and that in the holy Eucharist is truly really and substantially the body and blood with the soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into his body and of the whole substance of the wine into his blood which conversion the Roman Church calleth Transubstantiation nor that under one kinde onely all and whole Christ and the true Sacrament is received nor that there is a Purgatory

and their invocation of what sort he meant being not expressed it serves not the turn to prove his confession of the Fathers of the first five hundred years holding Popish Invocation of Saints deceased SECT VI. The Answers of H. T. to the Objections of Protestants concerning their Succession are shewed to be vain and the Apostacy of the Roman Church proved AFter the rest of his scribling H. T. under the Title of Objection solved saith thus Object In all the Ages before Luther Protestants had a Church though it were invisible Answ This is a meer Mid-summer nights Dream that a Church which is a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations should be extant for a thousand years and yet be all this while invisible neither to be seen or heard of in the World I reply who frames the Objection as this Authour sets it down I know not sure I am that many of the Protestants do frame it otherwise that the Protestants had Churches afore Luther who did oppose popish innovations and that these were visible though not to their Enemies nor in so conspicuous a manner as the Roman Senate or Common-wealth of Venice and this is no Mid-summer nights Dream any more than that Papists have a Church in England in communion with the See of Rome and that they have Masses Baptizing c. although it be not known to Protestants nor so conspicuous as that we know where to go to them And these Churches have been seen and known in the World partly separate from the Roman Church partly continuing within the Roman Church but yet opposing the p●pal usurpations and corruptions As for H. T. his Definition of a Church it is to me more like a Mid-Summer nights Dream For is the Church a congregation of visible men preaching baptizing and converting Nations Are all the visible men in the congregation which is the Church men preaching baptizing and converting Nations May not a Church be a congregation of men that convert not any Nation if themselves be converted that baptize not others if themselves be baptized that preach not if they have heard received and profess the Word preached Are not Women part of the congregation which is the Church Do they preach and baptize However it is well this Authour sets down Preaching and Baptizing as acts whereby the men who are of the congregation which is the Church are visible which is all one with the marks of the visible Church given by the Protestants to wit preaching the Word and administring the Sacraments H. T. adds Object The Church in communion with the See of Rome was the true Church till she apostatized and fell from the faith Answ If she were once the true Church she is and shall be so for ever she cannot fail as hath been proved nor erre in faith as shall be proved hereafter I reply It is true Protestants yield that the Churches in communion with the Bishops of Rome were true Churches while they held the faith of Christ entire and did not by their innovations subvert it which was in process of time done by altering of the rule of faith the Apostolical tradition of the holy Scripture into unwritten tradition the Popes determinations and canons of councils as the sense of the Scripture or the revelations of the Spirit of God and by bringing in the invocation and worship of the Virgin Mary and other Saints altering the Sacrament of the Lords Supper instituted for a commemoration of his death into a propitiatory sacrifice for quick and dead asserting transubstantiation and adoring of the bread worshipping images and reliques perverting the Gospel by bringing in the doctrines of humane satisfactions for sin power to fulfill the law justification by works and meriting eternal life instead of free remission of sins to the penitent believer only through the blood of Christ and justification by faith in Christ without the works of the law In which points that the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized is apparent by this argument Those Churches have apostatized who have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ But the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have left the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ therefore the Churches now in communion with the See of Rome have apostatized The Major is evident from the terms apostasie being no other thing than leaving the faith once delivered to the Saints by the Apostles of Christ The minor is manifest by comparing the doctrine of the council of Trent and Pope Pius the fourth his Creed with the Apostles writings especially the Epistle to the Romans by Paul which shews what once the church of Rome believed For instance it is said Rom. 15. 4. For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect throughly furnished unto all good works Eph. 2. 20. And are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone which plainly prove the Scriptures use for all sorts sufficiency and divinity and the needlesness of unwritten traditions to guide us to salvation Rom. 12. 5. We being many are one body in Christ and every one members one of another 1 Cor. 12. 12. For as the body is one and hath many members and all the members of that one body being many are one body so also is Christ Ver. 13. For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews or Gentiles whether we be bond or free ver 27. Now ye are the body of Christ and members in particular ver 28. And God hath set some in the Church first Apostles c. Ephes 1. 22. and gave him to be head over all things to the Church which is his body which prove the Catholick Church to have extended to all believers of Jews and Gentiles and that they and not the Roman only or those that are in communion with it are that one body or Catholick Church and that there is no other head of the whole Church but Christ nor any Apostle above another and consequently the Roman Church and Pope have no supremacy over the rest of the Churches Rom. 10 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believed 1 Tim. 2. 5. There is one God and one Mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus which prove they then received not the invocation of Saints nor made the Virgin Mary or any other deceased Saint Mediators between God

infallible since sensible evidence in a world of ey-witnesses unanimously concurring is altogether infallible how fallible soever men may be in their particulars But there are worlds of ey-witnesses and hand-witnesses and tongue-witnesses and nose-witnesses and ear-witnesses of fathers and sons who all unanimously concurring discern and say of what they have seen felt heard tasted smelled that there is no flesh nor blood but Bread and Wine in the consecrated Host therefore the report that there is no flesh and blood but Bread and Wine in the Eucharist after Consecration or consecrated Host and consequently no Transubstantiation is altogether infallible So inconsistent are this Authours sayings in one place with that he saith in another as indeed Popish Doctrine being a Lie must of necessity be self-repugnant SECT III. The obligation of the Church not to deliver any thing as a point of Faith but what they received proves not unwritten Traditions a Rule of Faith H. T. proceeds thus A third Argument If Christ and his Apostles have given to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they had received from them as such then is was impossible that they should deliver any thing for Faith to the second Age but what they had received from them as such and so from Age to Age to this time But Christ and his Apostles did give to the Church of the first Age together with all points of Faith this for the Rule of Faith that nothing on pain of Damnation ought to be delivered for Faith but what they received from them as such Therefore it was impossible that the Church of the first Age should deliver any thing to the Church of the second Age for Faith but what they had received as such from Christ and his Apostles or consequently that they should erre in Faith The Major is proved because to make her deliver more for Faith than she had received in this supposition the whole Church must either have forgotten what she had been taught from her infancy in matters of Salvation and Damnation which is impossible in a world of ear and ey-witnesses as hath been shewed or else the whole Church must have so far broken with Reason which is the very nature of man as to conspire in a notorious Lie to damn her self and posterity by saying she hath received such or such a point for Faith which in her own conscience she knew she had not received and this is more impossible than the former even as impossible as for men not to be men as shall be shewed in the next Argument The Minor is proved by these positive Texts of Scripture Therefore brethren stand ye fast and hold the Traditions which ye have learned whether by word or our Epistle 2 Thess 2. 15. Those things which ye have been taught and heard and seen in me these do ye Phil. 4. So we have preached and so ye have believed 1 Cor. 14. 15. How shall they believe in whom they have not heard and how shall they hear without a Preacher Rom. 10. 17. The things that thou hast heard of me before many witnesses the same commend thou to faithfull men which shall be fit to teach others also 2 Tim. 2. 2. If any man shall preach otherwise than ye have received let him be Anathema Gal. 1. 9. Although we or an Angel from Heaven preach to you besides that which we have preached to you be he Anathema Gal. 1. 8. Answ 1. THe Conclusion were it granted is not the Position to be proved that the true Rule of Christian Faith is Apostolical oral Tradition not Books nor is it included in it sith some in the Church although not the whole Church of the first Age might deliver to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son that for Faith which was not received from Christ or his Apostles and it be after received as from the Apostles as is manifest in the reports of keeping Easter on the fourteenth of the Moon of the Millenary opinion as from John and in points of Faith the whole Church might mistake or forget not deliver all truth yea might erre and so not be fit to be a Rule of Faith 2. Were it granted that unwritten Traditions of the whole Church of the first Age to the second were a Rule of Faith yet are not the Romanists Traditions unwritten proved Rules of Faith unless they be proved to be delivered by the whole Church of the first Age to the Church of the second Age and so from father to son without alteration which they cannot prove Nevertheless sith this Argument tends to the asserting of an Infallibility in the Church of the first Age distinctly taken from the Apostles and their Writings I grant the Minor and omit the examining of the Texts brought to prove it though some of them yield a good Argument against unwritten Tradition But I deny the Major as being contrary to experience both in the Jewish Church to whom it was forbidden to add to or diminish from Gods commands Deut. 4. 2. and yet they did Mark 7. 8. 9. and in the Christian Church as is most evident in the Traditions of the Chiliasts about Easter and sundry other things And though the whole Church of the first Age did not deliver points of Faith to the second Age yet in the second and after-ages corruptions did come in which were taken for universal Traditions as in giving Infants the Eucharist which Augustine and Pope Innocentius took for an Apostolical Tradition though the Trent Council condemn it And many things there are now taken for Apostolical Traditions as Worship of Images praying to Saints not allowing the Wine to be drunk by all the Communicants which yet are manifestly repugnant to the Apostles Doctrine As for the proof of H. T. I say 1. The eye and ear-witnesses of all the points of Faith are not a whole World 2. Errours may be traduced as from the whole Church of the first Age and from the Apostles which were not from them 3. The Church delivers not Doctrines but the Teachers in them whereof many sometimes are Hypocrites sometimes weak in understanding all of them being men are liable to mistakes passion forgetfulness inadvertency and those that are not sincere may against their conscience deliver errours Sure if Polycarpus an Auditour of John the Evangelist and Anicetus Bishop of Rome in the second Age Polycrates and Pope Victor in the same Age Cyprian and Pope Stephanus in the next contradicted each other about Traditions no marvel later and inferiour Teachers such as Papias a credulous man and others mistook about them and the after Churches follow them in their mistakes 4. The Churches were in the Apostles days easily drawn away from the Doctrine which Paul had evidently taught them by hearkening to Seducers as the Galatians Gal. 3. 1. though the