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 said points if they had not understood and firmly believ'd that they taught false and erronious Doctrines neither wou'd all the aforesaid Councils of the Primitive Church which my adversary in his challenge acknowledges to have then retain'd the true faith of Jesus Christ condemn their Doctrines if they were not also Hethrodox contrary to the true faith which they and their forefathers receiv'd from Jesus Christ his Disciples therfore whosoever desires to find embrace a Church wherein the old incorrupted principles of Christianity are â—aught and such Doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient pâ—râ— Church even of Roâ—e for up-wards of 500 years after Christ let him embrace the present Church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely professâ—d the old and the present Church of Rome being still the same in priÌ„ciples whereas the Doctrines of those who now call themselves reformers the Church of EnglaÌ„d PresbyteriaÌ„s Quakers c. wherein the said convinâ—icles do now diâ—â—er from the preseÌ„t Church of Rome 〈◊〉 never maintain'd by the ancient Church of Rome but 〈◊〉 â—â—piously brought in by a serâ—es of Hereticks who for these very Doctrines were from time to 〈◊〉 condemn'd by many 〈◊〉 national Provincial Councils â— also by the most eminent 〈◊〉 and Doctors of the primitive Church as the premisses do evidently make-out so that the reader may take noâ—â—ce of my adversarys ignorance and presumption for censuring contradicting a religion so ancieÌ„t which lawfull mission acknowledgment of antiquity holy Fathers several Councils divine miracles the word of God do plainly demoÌ„strate to be the only true and Apostolical line which leads Souls to the true way of everlasting glory happiness therefore reader if you have been heretofore of my adversarys opinion I beseech you for the love of Jesus Christ to compare seriously his principles and those of the Church of Rome togeather and then to consider â—ttentively the state and circumstances wherein you are out of â—he holy Catholick Church out of which there is no salvation to be expected as the following holy Fathers do openly declare St. Cyâ—rian in his book de vnitate Ecclesiae speaking of those who are out of the Church sayes thus do they thinke Christ is amongst them â—â—â— tho' they were drawn to torments â—xecution for the confession of the name of Christ yet this pollutioÌ„ is not wash'd away noâ— not with blood this inexpiable and inexcusable crime of schisâ—â— is not purg'd away even by death itself St. Chrysostome in his 11. hoâ— on St. Pauls Epist to the EphesiaÌ„s â—ayes also thus there is nothing so provokes the wrâ—th of God aâ— the division of the Church iâ— so â—uch that tho' we shu'd have perform'd all other sort of good thiâ—gs yâ—t we â—hall inâ—urr apâ—â—isâ—ment â—â— lâ—ss crâ—â—â— for dividing the vnity of the Church than those who have doâ—â— who 〈◊〉 and divided Christs 〈◊〉 St. Augustin in his 4. book of â—ymbole Cap 10. sayes â—â—e following words If any man be soâ—â—â— sâ—parâ—ted from her he shaâ—l be 〈◊〉 from â—he number of the childâ—â—n â—â—ither shall â—e have God for his Father 〈◊〉 wouâ—d not have the Church for 〈◊〉 â—â—ther â—nd it will nothing 〈◊〉 him to have rightly beliâ—v'd oâ— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so many good workes withâ—â—t the â—â—â—clusion of the soâ—eraign good 〈◊〉 sâ—pâ—r gâ—â—â—a Emar he sayâ— also the following â—ords out of the Church aâ— heretick â—ay have all things but salvation â—â— may have the sacraments he may â—ave faith and preach it only salvaâ—ion he cannot havâ— which may be â—urther confirm'd by the words of â—t James c. 2. v. 10. sayiÌ„g thus whoâ—iâ—ver shall keep the whole law and â—â—t offends in one point he is guilty of â—ll therefore being the salvation â—f your soul doth wholly depend â—f the true belief and intire obâ—ervation of all those points of â—ith which the holy Catholick Church sufficiently proposes â—â—iversaly teaches I do earnestly â—eseech you to open the eyes of â—our understanding for I know â—hat you have no invincible ignorance whereby yoâ— might be excus'd to embrace the principles and Doctrines of that pure ancâ—ent Church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail Matt. c. 16. v. 1â— assure your self that I do not invite you to any old heresie as my adversary does noâ— the Lord forbid but to the religion preach'd and taught by Jesus Christ and his Disciples to that I say where with your foreâ— fathers and anteceslors have been still contented since eveâ— they left Paganism untill in the 16. age they were deceiv'd by the erronious Doctrines of those false prophets Luther and Calvin hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast hard from me in faith and live which is in Christ Jesus 2. Timothy c. 1 v. 13 neither give heed to fables and endless genelogies which minister questions rather than Godly â—â—ifying in the faith from which some having sweru'd have turn'd aside unto vain jaâ—gling desiring to be teachers if the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm 1. Timothy c. 1. v. 4. 6. 7. let not villfull or gross ignorance the temporal riches and vanity of this transitory world or complyâ—nce to the request of your frieÌ„ds deceive mislead you but consider seriously the very words of your Saviour and redeemer Jesus Christ Matt c. 16. v. 26. saying thus for what is a man profited if he â—hall gain the whole world loose his own soulâ— or what shall a man give in exchangâ— for his own soul what will it then a â—â—il you after this life to be now for few years or dayes in great honour favour request in this deceitfull world afterward to be perpetually tormented in pain grief miseryes with out any hopes of mercy or redemption where neither frieds pompe nor riches can prevail in order to give you the lest dram of consolation from which punishment the Lord Jesus Christ of his infinite mercy defend both you me all Christians Amen FINIS An Answer to what oâ—e Wâ—ealy â—lleages in his Almanack against St. Peters Supremacy AFter having compos'd this little work Wheaâ—y's Almanack for the year 1â—99 came accidentally into my haÌ„ds wherein he or some other malicious person in his name labours to infect the whole Kingdom with false pernicious Doctrine which he pretends to ground on some nonâ—ensical arguments that he forms against St. Peter the Pope of Rome's Supremacy and tho' 't is hardly worth any mans while to coÌ„fute them yet because it concerns what I have said in my Answer to mr lennings fourth poit â— thiÌ„ke it fit to let him know his own ignorance and the errors of his pretended Doctrine First he offers to infer by a new invented consequence of his own that Peter was neither Bishop of Antioch or Rome because as he falsly alleages the Papists have not as yet agreed amoÌ„g themselves about the time he first remov'd from
wou'd translate it into several other languages and the Apostles who had the gift of all tongues Acts c. 2. wou'd not only write the new Testament in Greek Hebrew â—atin as they have done but also in other languages in which they preach'd the gospel through out the universal world accordiÌ„g â—o that of St. Paul to the Romans â— 10 v. 18. neither wou'd S. Paul write in Greeck but in Latin to the Romans whose vâ—lgar language was not the Greeck but the Latin tongue and St. Peter and St. James wou'd not write in Greeck their Epistles to the Jewes buâ— in the languages of those countryes wherein they were dispers'd which then have been the Iewes maternal languages and not the Greeck neither finally wou'd St. Iohn write his first Epist in Greeck to the Parthians whose maternal Language was not the Greeck but another distinct Language whereby it plainly appears that neither the Apostles or the Primitive Church ever believ'd that it was necessary for all nations to have the word of God in their own tongue Now let us see who are those that are oblig'd to expound read and interpret the word of God to thew which I will produce the followinâ— Authorityes St. Basil in his 25 Qvestion sayes that it is the superiors obligatioâ— that is to say the pastors to know and â—earn those things whiâ—h afterwards they ought to teach others but of others not 〈◊〉 know more then behoueth them and S. Augustin in his first book de moribus Ecclefie c. 1. puts the Question inquiring what man if judgment doth not understand that the exposiition of the scripture is to be ask'd of them who by their profession are Doctors of the Church which may be further confirm'd by the Eunâ—ch's example Acts c. 8. v. 30. 31 35 for when Philip ask'd him did he understand what he â—as reading out of Isaiah he answer'd saying how â—an I understand it except some man should guide me wherefore he desir'd Philip to sit with him in order to expound it to him which Philip willingly perform'd knowing that it was his obligation whereby it appears that the Eunâ—ch tho' a man of great Authority with Qeen Candace yet did not presume to interpret the scripture himself but ask'd thê meaning thereof from one of those who were appointed by God in order to instruct and teach others according to that of St. Paul to the Ephesians c. 4. v. 11 12 14 saying tâ—us and he gave some Apostles and some prophets and some Evangelists some pastors and teachers for the peâ—fectiâ—g oâ— the Saints for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the boâ—â— oâ— Christ tâ—at we hence forth may be no more children toss'd to and frâ— and carri'd about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cuning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive to prevent which danger St. Paul himselâ—â—â— his Epist to the Hebrewâ—â— 13 v. 17 expresly commands us to obey the pastors and to submit our selves to their judgments â—hom God imploy'd to rule us and watch over our souls for â—hich they must give an account for the want of which submission and due obedience to the lawfull Pastors and Doctors of the true Church ti 's aâ—â—â—st lamentable prospect to behold the miserable condition wherein those of Ireland England Scotland Holland c are ever since they unfortunatly by the aposâ—acy of Luther and Calvin in the 16 age have deserted their true and lawfull mother the Chuâ—â—at â—Rome which is as St. Augustâ—â— affirms in his first book of Symbol to the Cateched c. 6 the holy Church the only Church the true Church the Catholick Church that fights against all hereitcâ—s yet cannot be convine'd all hereâ—ies deserts heâ— even as usless twigs that are cut from the vine but she still remains in her root in her vine and in her charity which character the pretended reformers cannot give to any of their own new Conventicles who are alwayes in a continual confusion never agreeing among themselves for every different sect of them supports the tenets of it's own doctrine by some misinterpreted text of scripture even as those hereticks of the Primitive Church which is so inculeated in their brains that each of them is ready to sacrifice his life for the defence of his own particular Doctrine the Lutherans condemning the Calvinists the modern Prebyterians condemning the reform'd Church of England the Anaâ—aptists and Quakers despising all others in repect of their own purity some of them admiting all the books of scripture to be canonical others affirming part of it to be apocriphall some adding to their Bibles that which they suppose the Apostles either neglected or forgot others diminishing and taking away what in their opinion were first put-in over-plus which now a dayes they fiÌ„d disagreable to their own principles by reason of which alteration several of their Bibles do differ in many places which is to be admir'd for how durst they be so presumpâ—ious as â—e alter or corrupt it being he is curs'd who adds to or diminisheth the word of God Revelation c. 22. v. 18. 19. for since we are all certain that the first Bible which the holy Catholick Church receiv'd from the Apostles and us'd it for the space of 14. hundred and odâ— years after Christs birth was written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost what kind of any tolerable pretence can they have now after so many ages to alter and corrupt it whereas very often the alteriÌ„g of one letter changes the sense of a whole sentence much more wheÌ„ they alter words â—ay whole sentence as if what God ordain'd in the beginig had now need to be corrected by their wisdom to such presumptious people might be we apply'd the following words of Christ Matt. c 7. v. 6. give not that which is holy unto the dogs neither caâ—â—ye â—our pearlâ—s before swine lâ—st they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you So that it appears if those corrupters cou'd câ—oake â—y any pretention their ungodly design that they wou'd not leave one text in the whoâ—e scripture which they find disagreable to their own principles but what they woud a teror corrupt if in case any zelous Christian shu'd offer to diswade their followers from perusing it after that corruption they wou'd imprudently answer as they do now that if they shud be hinder'd from reading the word of God in their own tongue that they wou'd be keâ—pt in ignoraâ—ce and darkness as the Papists are so that as the serpent deceiv'd Eve perswading her to eat of the forbidden fruit that she might come to the knowledge of good and evil Gen. c. 3 even so the divel by his subâ—ility and ambussâ— deludes the poor ignorant people perswading them to read expound and interpret their corrupted Bibles and not to be beholding to the Church or pastrors who might deceive them in teaching that which wou'd be contrary to the word of God
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
plainly giveing the lye not only to the Angel Gabriel who dâ—clar'd that â— of Christs Kingdoâ— which is his Church ther shouâ—â— be no end Luke chap. the 1. v. â— but also to Christ himself who expressly promis'd that the Gates of Hell shou'd not prevaile agaiÌ„st his Church Math. chap. the 16. v. 18. and that he wou'd be with his disciples in the administration of their function even to the end of the world Math. chap 28. v. the 20. For a further confirmation of this point it is evident that no Church or society of Christians can shew their lineal and lawfull succession of pastors and Bishops ever since the Apostles time but the present Church of Rome and such as are in communion with her for those that now stile themselves the Church of England cannot for their lives shew any before Cranmer in Edward the fixth time as appears by Goodman the Protestant Bishop of Hereford in his Catalogue of all the Bishops of England since the first plaÌ„tatioÌ„ of ChristiaÌ„ religion amoÌ„gst them where he expressly names Thomas Cranmer to be the first protestant Bishop thaâ— was ever seen in England Upon the whole matter since none but the preseÌ„t RomaÌ„ Catholik Church can pretend to have had since the Apostles time a continued series of Bishops with whom all their coÌ„temporaryes of the orthodox part of Christians alwayes agreed in one faith and comunion it plainly follows that she alone can pretend to the purity of the Christian faith And therefore whosoever desires to find and embrace a Church wherein the old incorrupted principles of Chrstianity are taught and such principles only as were maintain d by the Ancient and pure Church 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 as I shall manifestly prove in my Answer to the aforsaid points for being the ancient Father St. Basile in his 63. Epistle declares unto us That we ought not to pase â—â—er calumnyes not out of revenge but lest we shu'd seem to give way to a lyeor suffer men seduc'd to be further decev'd I shall therefore answer my Adversary a challeÌ„ge in the same order that he has laid â—â— chap. 1. Proving both publick and privaâ—â— Masses to have been celebâ—cated in the premitive Church This Challenger seens to lav his main stress upon the word privat Masse but what he means by it he does not explain t is certain that altho' Masses were said privately in all age especially during the persecution of the Heathens when Christians perform'd their Devotions in caves and vaults under ground yet the word privat masse was seldom us'd by Catholick writers either before or since the year 600. until Martin Luther by his book de-Missa privata oblig'd Catholick Divines to write upon that subject and confute to the full Luthers arguments against it but why is the question rais'd about private masse does my adversary own that publick Masses were in use in the primitive church If so he must either quitt the old as well as the present Church of Rome or condemn his own Church of England which declares against all masses both privat publick and indeed whosoever admits one can have no tolerable reason to deny the other contrary to the practice of so many ages But let him deny or own what he pleases t is evident to us by the undeniable testimonyes of several Fathers and Councils more ancient than the year 600 that both publick and privat masses were then in use in the Catholick Church and offer'd to the Almighty both for the living and the dead as occasion requir'd St. James the Apostle speaking to Almighty God in his liturgy sayes we offer unto thee an unbloody sacrifice for our sins and for the ignorance of the people And St. Andrew likewise said as the Priests and Deacons of Achia in the book they writt of this Apostles passion I sacrifice daily unto Almighty God an immaculate lamb who when he is truely sacrific'd and his flesh truely eaten remains still wholy and alive St. Ireneus who liv'd the year 180 in his 4. book against heresies c 32 after speaking of the sacrifices which were offer'd in the old law sayes that our Lord taught the Apostles to offer anew sacrifice which the Church afterwards beiÌ„g taught by the Apostles offer'd through the universal world St. Cyprian who liv'd the year 250. prohibit'd to offer any sacrifice for the soul of Gemininus Faustus because he did not observe the decree of his own antecessors the Bishops Cornelius Bishop of Rome who liv'd about the year 254. complains that the persecution was so great in his own time that they could not say masses either in publick Churches or in Caves under ground which Authority may be seen Tomo 1. Biblia Sanctorum Patrum Tertuiliam who liv'd in the same century sayes in his book decorona miâ—it s c. â— that masseâ— were then offer â— so the souls of the dead and Fusebius Cesariensis who liv'd the year 326 relates in his 4. book c 4â— that there were masses said for the soul of Constant the Great St Cyriâ—l of Jerusalem who liv'd in the same century Catech 5. sayes thus we belive that the holy and dreadfull sacrifice which is offer'd upon the altar is agreat relief to those for whom its offer'd so Zomenus relates in his 7. book c. 5. that St. Gregory Nazianzen said Masse in a privat chappel and Paulinus writing the life of St. Ambrose affirms that St. Ambrose said Masse in a certaiÌ„ Gentel somans house St. Ambrose himself in his commentary on the 38 Psal â— bids the Priests to offer this holy sacrifice for others Theâ—dâ—â—et who liv'd the year 4â—0 in his History c 20. declareâ— himself to have said masse in a Hermits cell and St Gregorie in his 37. Homily affirms that the holy Bishâ—p Cassins was wont to say masse in his oratory being hinder'd from going to the church by reason of his infirmity St. Hierome who liv'd the year 390. in his Commentary on the â— chap of the proverbs sayes the following words It s to be Observ'd that altho' there is no hopes of pardon for the wicked after their death yet there are those who dye with small sins and after their death can be discharg'd either by chastifing them with punishments or by their friends prayâ—rs alms and celebration of masses In his commentary on St. Pauls Epist to Titus he sayes thus If the Laity are commanded to abstaine from their wives in the time of communion what is to be suppos'd of the Bishop who daily for his own and the peoples sins offers to God the underfiled sacrifice he hath such an other Authority in his first book against Jovinian c. 19. speaking of the priests St. Chrisostome who liv'd in the later end of the 4. century in his homily on St. Pauls Epist to the Philippians speaking of those who dye in the fear of God
is false as is manifest by that of the Acts c. 15. v 7 where we find the followiÌ„g words when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said to them men bretheren ye know that a good while agoe God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should he are the word of the Gospel and believe c. as for that which Whealy adds that Peter writ his Epistles from Babylon and not to Rome c. it proves his ignorance and coÌ„firms what he would faine deny for in Peter first Epist c. 5. v 1â— by the word Babylon Rome is meant as Papias the Apostles Disciple cited by Eusebius in his 2. book of History c. 15. St. Hierome in his book de Viris Illustribus in Marco Eunomius Venerable Bedâ— and all the Fathers that ever writ a commentary on that Epist do unanimously declare and it is evident out of the 17. c. of revelations where John sayes that Babylon was builded on seaven hills and that i'ts Impire did extend over the Kings of the earth which notwithstandig should fall down and be destroy'd all which has beeÌ„ verify'd of the City of Rome and of no other City in the whole world for it was foâ—erly and is at present builded on seaven hills and it's Impire only did then reach all parts of the world yet what John fore see came to pass for the Roman Impire was reduc'd almost to nothing the City wholly run'd by the Goths Wandals Hunns Longobards but what occasion'd people in them times to call Rome Babylon was a certain similitude that was between the City of Rome and that of Babylon when in the time of NabuchodoÌ„oâ—or BabyloÌ„ was an Imperial City whose King Nabuchodonoâ—or crully persecuted the people of God duriÌ„g their captivity there eveÌ„ so in the time of the Apostles Rome was an Jmperial City whose Improur was Nero who persecuted most cruelly the people of God during his reign it 's therefore the City of Rome was call'd another Babylon Whealy's fifth reason is grounded on the audieÌ„ce given to Paul in the Apostles assembly Acts c. 15. v. 12. by which it seems that Peter till then was wholly a stranger to the wonders Paul told them he had perform'd amoÌ„g the Gentiles this consequeÌ„ce is false for tho' General Ginkle related in a Council of war before the Prince of Orange how he behav'd himself at the breach of Agherim against the Irish it cannot be infer'd that the Prince of Orange himself was till then wholly a straÌ„ger to the Irish affairs and that he never fought at the breach of the Boyne or elswhere against them tho' Peter gave audience to Paul telling the Miracles wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by him and Barnabas it does not follow that Peter never preach'd the Gospel to any of the Gentiles before that time as for Whealy's 6th reason that it was after Pauls said relation that the Apostles and Elders sent Barsabas and Silos with him to Antioch to assist in the ministry I allow that to be true but what Whealy would infer out of it is false for it does not at all follow out of this that the Gospel was never preach'd before in any of those Countryes but what might be lawfully infer'd is that Barsabas Silos were not commaÌ„ded to go with Paul to Antioch till after the said relatioÌ„ but before this time beiÌ„g the 18. year after our Saviours PassioÌ„ the Gospel was preach'd not only in Antioch but also in Rome by Peter as I will shew hereafter as for Whealy's new commeÌ„tary on the words of our Saviour Mathew c. 16. v. 18. 19. John c. 21. v. 15. 16 17. I believe no man of sense will prefer it before the exposiâ—ion of all the holy Fathers and Doctors which is coÌ„trary to that of Whealy's as may be seeÌ„ in my Anâ—wer to Mr. JeÌ„niÌ„gs 4 poiÌ„t as for that word only which our Saviour would have added if he meant Peter in particular as Whealy pretends I would willingly know by what reason can he or any other shew that the word only would be requisite here to prove Peter's supremacy and not in that of John c 6. v. 50. where he the present Church of England do wrest the words of Christ to a figurative sence without the lest meÌ„tioÌ„ of the word only or siguratively by which it appears how incoherently Whealy argues aâ—d pretends to expouÌ„d the worâ—s of Christ in the said tâ—xts ' its apparent that it would be superfluous for Christ to express the word oÌ„ly in either of these texts viz Matt c. 16. John c. 21 it was enough that he spoake to Peter personaly in the singular number in these words Blessed art tâ—ou Simon Bâ—rjona for flesh blood have not reveal'd it uÌ„to thee but my Father who is in heaven I say also unto thee that thou art Peter upon this râ—ck I will build my Church the gates of Hell shall not prevaile agaiÌ„st it I will give unto thee the Keyes of the KiÌ„gdom of HeaveÌ„ what soever thou shall biÌ„d on earth shall he bouÌ„d in heaveÌ„ whatsoever thou shall loose on earâ—h shall be loos'd in heaveÌ„ Mat. c. 16 v. 1718. 19 so wheÌ„ they had diÌ„ed Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me more than these he said unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my lambes he saith unto him again the second time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me he saith unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my sheepe he said unto him the third time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and he said unto him Lord thou knowest that I love thee Iesus said unto him feede my sheep John c 21. v. 15. 16 17. which words do plainly prove that our Saviour then meant Peter and none else of the Apostles for he excluded them by the words Simon Peter sonne of Jonas levest thou me which as the reader may observe our Saviour thrice coÌ„sequeÌ„tly repeated and after Peter answer'd each time he gave him in charge his lambes and sheepe commanding him to feede them which he would not have done if he had then meant equally all the rest of the Apostles as Whealy falsly alleages but would speake to them Generally in the plural number as he did in that of Matt. c. 18. v. 19 when he commanded them to go and teach all nations as for that new explication which Whealy gives saying that our Saviour speake particularly to Peter more than to the other Apostles because they were not in the danger that Peter was of swearing cuâ—sing denying his blessed Master as Peter afterwards did Matt c. 26. v. 7â— therefâ—re wanted not the consolation which the Saviour of the world judg'd nâ—edfull for the support of a faâ—linâ—
2 book of History Orosius in his 7th Eutropius also in his 7th book writing the life of Nero. Isidorus writing the life of St. Peter S. Leo in his first ser de Natali Apostolorum several other Fathers do testifie the same by which it manifestly appears that the Papists do agâ—ee among themselves about the time that St. Peter came to be Bishop of Rome for of all the Catholick writers there are only two who do not agree in this point viz Marianus Scotus who sayes that St. Peter came first to Rome in the fourth year of Claudius's reign and Onâ—â—phrius Panonius who sayes that he first fix't his sea in Rome before he came to Antioch and remov'd again from Antioch to Rome Whealy 's last argument when there was a dispute among the Apostles which of them should be counted greatest Luke c. 22. v. 24. our Saviour tould them v. 25. 26. the King of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but sayes he ye shall not be so but he that is greatest among you let him be as the younger and he that is chief as him that doth serve so that it seems Christ himself deny'd them any such supremacy and if Christ was in the right the Church now in communion with the sea of Rome is much in the wrong to exercise a jurisdiction which Christ himself Prohibited This argument proves what Whealy would willingly deny for these words greatest chief do plaiÌ„ly shew that there was one chief among the Apostles whom Christ commanded to be as their minister not obeying serveing them as servants doe but ruling governing them in humility Charity according to that of the Acts c. 20. v. 24. also to that of St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinth c. 11. v. 22. 23. this is the same title that the Popes of Rome give themselves in their buls patents for every one of them stiles himself thus servaÌ„t to the servants of God truely if these words would mean what Whealy pretends to prove they would plainly make-out that it is not oÌ„ly the Church of Rome but also the present Church of England exercises such a jurisdiction as he pretends to be prohibited by Christ for the Church of EnglaÌ„d allows of primates Bishops and several other Ecclesiastical dignitaryes perhaps this is what he would faine prove in order to run them down and make them all Presbyterians who do not allow of such dignitaryes not withstanding that St. Paul in his Epist to Timothy c. 3 v. 1. recomends the office of a Bishop as for that which Whealy adds saying that there was no such thing as suprematy heard of till about the year of Christ 196. 't is but some of his invèntions as may be seen in my Answer to Mr. Jennings fourth poiÌ„t wherein I have shew'd that St. Denis the Apostles Disciple calls S Peter the Supream c. and indeed if Whealy will not give better reasons and grounds for what he promises to prove in his followiÌ„g Almanacks than he has given in what he pretends to prove in this years Almanack he will shew but his owne ignoraÌ„ce presumption as he has done in what he write this year FINIS INDEX MAsses were said in the first five ages after Christs birth p. 20. The communion was given under one kind to the laâ—ty in the first five ages p. 38 Common prayers were said in a language not vulgarly vnderstood by all the hearers in the first five ages p 55 The Pope of Romes supremacy was acknowledg'd in the first five ages p. 68. The reall presence was believ'd in the first five ages p. 98. The holy Eucharist was ador'd in the first five ages p 125. Transuâ—statiation was believ'd in the first five ages p. 133. Images has been venerated in the first five ages p. 142. Saints were pray'd too in the first five ages p. 164. Purgatory was believ'd in the first five ages p. 188. All these of the first five ages had not the word of God in their maternal language p. 224. The reformers Doctrines are but a heap of old heresies lawfully condemn'd in the first five ages p 243 An Answer to what Whealy alleages against St Peters Supremacy at the later end p. 1. Errata PAge 8. 1. 13. r. prayers p. 13. l. 13. r. peaceable p. 16 l. 11. r. espous'd p. 30 l. 13 r. 64. p. 39. l 12. r. Luke p. 66. l. 5. r. Queen p. 85. l. 8 r. sayes p. 86. l. 16. r. relieve p. 109 l. 8. r. Num. l. 17. r life p. 1â—0 l. 4. r. the p. 118. l. 10. 151. l. 9. 172. l. 5. 173. l. 20. 174. l. 6. 175. l. 1â— 79. l. 12. 190. l. 16. 191 l. 4. 209. l 7. r. does p. 148. l. 3 r. things p. 76. l 18. r. a before preiudice p. 78. l. 14. r. souldiers p. 220. l. â— r. were p. 232. l. 4. r catechesed p. 237. l. 13. r. ruine these with â—ome other oversights which â—appen'd in the correction the â—ourteus reader is most humbly â—esir'd charitably to mend with â—is penn