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
aforsaid do expressly testifiâ— and also Sozomenus in his booâ— c. â— Under whose wings did Sâ— Chrysostome fly for justice beit depos'd by Theophilus and hâ— adherences but under the winâ— of Innocentius the first as appeaâ— by St Chrysostome's 1. 2. Epiâ—â— to the same To whom did Forâ—â— naâ—us Felix being depos'd Africk appeal but to Corneliâ— Pope of Rome as St. Cyprian â—â— his first book Epist 3 declares To whom did Basilideâ— appeal but to Pope Stephen as St. Cyprian testifies Epist 68. To the Pope of Rome Valent and Ursacius came to give an account of their treachery against St. Athanasius and to crave pardon for the same as Epiphanius heresie 68 relates Marcion being excommunicated by his own Bishop in Asia came to Rome to be absolv'd by Pâ—us the first as St. Epiphanius relates heresie 42 who depos'd Anthimus the Patriarch of Constantinople and establish'd in his place Mena but Agapetus the Pope as Liberatus affirms in his bâ—eviatâ— 62. and also Zonarias writiÌ„g the life of Iustinian Who depos'd Flavianus the Patrian of Antioch but Pope Danias Theodoret relates in his 5 â—â—â— c 23 who depos'd Polychronâ— Bishop of Ierusalem about â— year 434 but Pope Sixtus thâ— as appears in the acts of Sixâ— Who depos'd Dioscorus Paarch of Alexandria but the of Rome as Gelatius's Epistle the Dardanian Bishops expreâ—â— declares wherin he also relaâ— that Pope Iulius the first resloâ—â— Athanasius AlexaÌ„drinus Pauâ— Constantinopolitanus Marâ—lus Ancyranus to their own Biâ—â—opricks who re-establish'd Peâ— St. Athanasius successor be wrongfully depos'd by the Aâ—â—ans but Pope Damas as Sozoâ— â—us affirms in his 6 boâ—k c 9. who â—estor'd Theodoretus being also â—rongfullâ— depos'd by the Aâ—â—iâ—ns in the 2 Ephesian svnod but Pope Leo as is manifest by the first action of the General Council of Calcedon It was only the Popes of Rome â—hat had iâ— the Primitive Church their deputies and Vicar-generals in all foraign and remote Countryes viz. Anastasius Bishop of ThesaloÌ„ica in the Orient as aâ—pears by St. Leo's 84 Epist Potentius ' in Africk as the same Leo's 87 Epist declares Aâ—acius Patriarch of Constantinoâ—le in Egypt whom the Pope of Rome commanded to depose the Bishop of Alexandria as Gelatius relates in his Epist to the Dardanian Bishops Celestinus Pope of Rome Authoriz'd St. Cyrill of Alexandria to procâ—ed against Nestor then Bishop of Counstontinople as appears by Caelestinus's Ep to St Cyrill which is to be seen in St. Cyrill's 4. tome where also St Cyrill declares in his Epist to those of Counstantinople that the charge of that Bishoprick was committed unto himself by the Bishop of Rome Pope Hormisda instituted Salustius Bishop of Sevil his Vicar-general through Spain and Portugall as appears by the said Hormista's Epist to the same and St Gregory instituted Vigilius Bishop of Orleance to be his Vicargeneral thro' all France as may beseen in St Gregory's 4th book Epïst 52. It was also the Pope of Rome's Legates that were Presidents in the General Councils of the Primitivc Church as for example Hosius Vitus and Vincentius St Sylvester's Legates have been presidents in the General Council of Nice as Cedrinus in his Compendio Potius in his book de 7 Synodis and St Athanasius in his Epist to those who leade a solitary life do relate St Cyrill of Alexandria Pope Caelestinu's Legate preceded in the Council of Ephesias as Liberatus in his Breviate c 15. Evagrius in his first book c. 4 do write Paschasius Lâ—câ—â—sius and Bonifacius St. 〈◊〉 Legates were Presidents in the General Council of Calcedon aâ— is evident by the â— action of â—he â—ame Couâ—cil and also by S Leo's 47 Epist Archâ—dâ—mus and Philaxenâ—s Iulius the first 's Legates preâ—eâ—â—d in the General Council of Sardâ—s as St. Athanasius in his â— Apology and Theodoretus in his a book c 15 do declare It was only to the Pope of Rome the decrees and Canons of all General and famous Councils where sent in the primitive Church in order to be approv'd and confirm'd by his holynesse as for example it was to St. Sylvester Pope of Rome the Fathers of the Council of Nice sent a letter most humbly beseeching his holynesse to Ratifie and confirme the decrees of the said Council which letter is to be seen in the second Tome of the Councils The Fathers of this Council were in number 318 and sate in the year 325. The Fathers of the General CouÌ„cil of ConstaÌ„tinople being in number 150 assembled in the year 381 writ to Damas Pope of Rome by Cyriacus Eusebius and Prisâ—ianus Bishops praying him to aprove and confirme their Canons this Councils letter is to be seen in Theodoret's 5th book c. 9. The decrees of the General Council of Ephesâ—s wherein 200 Fathers sate in the year 431 were sent to Pope Celestinus in order to be confiâ—m'd as St. Cyrill's Epist testifies which Epistle is to be seen in the 3 Tome of the Councils The Fathers of the General Council of Calcedon being in number 630 and sate in the year 451 sent their Canons to Pope Leo in order to be confirm'd by him as appears by the said Council's Epistle to the same which is to be seen in the 4th Tome of the Councils The Fathers of the Milevian Council sent their CanoÌ„s to Pope Innocentius the first in the year 416 to be confirm'd as appears by this Council's Epistle which is to be seen in the 1 Tome of the CouÌ„cils The Fathers of the Council of Carthage sent their CanoÌ„s the year 356 to be confirm'd by Pope Stephen as is manifest by their own Epistle which is to be seen in St. Cyrill's 2 book and also in the first Tome of the Councils I might produce several other convincing proofs concerning this point but that I may be easie to the reader I will conclude only with these followiÌ„g Councils who sate in the Primitive Church and acknowledg'd in their very Canons the Pope of Rome's Supremacy viz. the 20 chap of the Council of Rome who sate in the year 324. The 3 chap of the 3. 4th Council of Rome who sate in the year 502. The 3 4th 9th Canon of the Council of Sardis wherein 376 Fathers were The 6th Canon of the General Council of Nice The 5 CanoÌ„ of the General Council of Constantinople The 1 2 3 16. Action of the General Council of Calcedon who sayes thus in the 16th we throughly consider â—ruly that all Prâ—macy chief honour is to be keept for the Arch Bishop of old Rome Chap 5 Proving that the Real Presence was believ'd by those of the Primitive Church The very words of Iesus Christ and also the Authentical Testimonyes of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church do clearly affirm that Christ's true body and blood are Really and Substantially present in the holy Sacrament therefore this Doctrine was not newly brought-in since the Primitive Church the consequens is most certain as we shall see here-after
not rashly searâ—â— them over â—est you should burn in their search St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 370 in his book nam'd Ancoratus sayes thus We see thaâ— our Saviour tooke in his hands as thâ— Evangelist hath when he gave thanks he said this is my body none mistrusts his words for he whâ— dose not believe it to be his true fleâ—h falls from grace life and in a nother place cited by the Fathers of the 7th General Council in the 6th Action he sayes the following words Never shall â—o find our Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers saying that the unbloody sacrifice which is offer'd by the Priests is an Image but his very body blood St. Hierome who liv'd in the year 390 Epist to Hedib sayes thus but let us know that the bread which the Lord brake gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviours body himself saying to them take ye eat this is my body St Chrysostom who liv'd the year 398 Hon â—1 in Matt sayes the following words he who bestowed his own life for you why will he sâ—orn to give you his own body therefore let us hâ—arken the Priests how noble how admirable is that thing which is granted unto us he has given us his own flesh c. He also sayes thus Hom 53 Let us believe God let us not contradict him altho' what he sayes may seem strange to our sense imagination for it surpasâ—es our sense reason I beseech you what may we suppose of his words in all things chiefly in mysteries not only considering â—hese things which layes before us but also his words for we cannot be deceiv'd by them but our senses may easilie be deceiv'd his words cannot be false therefore because he said this is my body let us he convinc'd by noe ambiguity but let us believe perceive this with the eyes of our understanding O how many now sayes I wou'd fain seâ— his face countenance I wou'd wish to see his garments therefore you see him you feele him you eat him you desire to see his garmeÌ„ts truly he deliver'd himself to you not only that you may see him but also that you may touch him intertain him in yourself In his 3. book de sacerdotio he sayes thus he that â—its above with his Father even in the same instant of time is touch'd by the hands of all gives himself to all those who are willing to receive him whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes plainly confirmiÌ„g the same may be seen in his 8â— Hom. on Matt. 45th on John 3 on St. Paus's Epist to the Ephes in his 2. to those of Antioch and in his 6th book de Sacerdotio St. Augustin who liv'd the year 420 expounding that of the 33. Psal he was carri'd in his own hands puts the question inquiring how can these words be understod aÌ„swers sayiÌ„g thus we cannot find this in David according to the litteral sense but we may find it in Christ for Câ—râ—s◠〈…〉 in his own haâ—ds wâ—e gâ—v◠〈…〉 body he said thi◠〈…〉 he caâ—rid that bâ—d◠〈…〉 In his â— book 〈…〉 legis eâ— Prophet c 9 he sayes â—he following wâ—rds wâ— receive the Mediator of God man Ieâ—us Christ with a fuâ—l heart mouth gâ—vâ—ng us his own flâ—sh blood to be 〈◊〉 dranke Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declar'd that we do not receive the flesh blood of Christ in figure and by faith only as my adversary believes which may be further confirm'd by S. Augustin's own words in his 2. ser de verbis Apostoli where he sayes thus we understâ—nd the true master divine redeemer kiÌ„d Saviour recommending unto us our price his own â—lood for he spoke of his own body blood More of S. Augustin's Authorityes proving the Real presence may be seen in his 11th 26th 27th 31 Treatise in John in his commeÌ„tary on the 98th psal in his 2. book agaiÌ„st PetiliaÌ„s letters in his 17th book of the City of God c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. 10. in his book super Leviticum â— 57. In his 2. ser de Temp. anâ— in several other places which wouâ—d be too tedious to produce here therefore I will conclude only with the two following Authorityes S. Cyrâ—ll of Alexandria who liv'd in the year 430 in his Epist to Nestor which Epist was aprov'd of by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesiâ— sayes thus so immediatly we come to the mystical blessings we are sanctifi'd being partakers of the holy body precious blood of Christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it to be common flesh God forbid But made the proper flesh of the word himself that â—s to say of the son of God It was defin'd in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice That Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice ought not to give the body blood of Christ to Priests who have that power All which proofs do evidently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd iÌ„ the Primitive Church that Christ's body and blood were really and substancially preseÌ„t in the holy sacrament and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical or figurative meaning in the institution of this sacrament So that it is to be admir'd what pretence can my adversary aleadge for denying the real presence If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries that surpasles his own weake understanding if so he may be the same rule Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation ResurrectioÌ„ c. for they surpasse his understanding and capacity as well as this of the reall presence Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was ador'd worshipp'd by those of the Primitâ—ve Church If it was lawfull to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour but it was lawfull to falldown worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world therefore t is lawfull to fall down worship the holy Eucharist with Godly hoÌ„our The coÌ„sequence is most certain as we shall see hereafter and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be prov'd tâ—us the same Saviour Jesus Christ who was worship'd in this world is really substâ—ntially present in the holy Sacrament as I have prov'd in my answer to the adversarys 5th point and will confirm it in my answer to his 7th therefore if â—t was lawfull to full-down and worship our Saviour Iesus Christ with Godly honour wheÌ„ he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship tâ—e holy Eucharist with
for the Martyres as they did for other people who dy'd because they knew that they did not want their payers but they wanted the Martyres â—rayers and in his 29. Ser of the Saints speaking of St Peter's Miracles he sayes thus If then the shadow of his body coul'd relieve how much more now the plenitude of his vertue If then a certain noise of him passing â—prevaic'd to these who beseech'd him â—â— much 〈◊〉 â—his 〈◊〉 graâ—s â—f the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he may see â—ore of St 〈◊〉 Aâ—thorities 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Vâ—rbis Aposâ—oli â—â— his 〈◊〉 Qâ—â—◠〈◊〉 his book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 4. and in â—◠〈◊〉 â—n the 19. â— of 〈…〉 〈…〉 proâ—◠〈…〉 with the Authâ—◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 General Coâ—cil of 〈…〉 Faâ—ers 〈◊〉 â—â—â—â— earnest◠〈◊〉 Flâ—â—ianus then 〈…〉 themselves as 〈◊〉 â—â— by the â—â— Action we â—â—reâ—d in the Bishopâ— of Euâ—â—ps 〈◊〉 to â—â—eo the Empâ—â—â—r 〈…〉 in the â—ater end of this Council that they declar'd themselves to acknowledge that holy Proâ—erius was register'd in the Cathologue of Marty res that they beg'd God Almighty to be favourable mercifull to themselves thro' his intercessioÌ„ all which Authorityes do evideÌ„tly make out that the Catholicks of the Primitive Church where accustom'd to invocate Saints Chap. 10 Proving that Purgatory was believ'd by those of the Primitive Church For the better intelligence of this point let the reader know that altho' the sinners crime is forgiveÌ„ yet the sinner under gose some temporal punishment as is manifest Numb c. 12. v 1. 2 10 14 where we read that when the sin of murmuring was forgiven to Mary by Moses intercession yet in punishment thereof she had the leprofie for the speace of seven dayes and was oblig'd to levâ— the whole camp during that time When the Israelites sinn'd against God and offer'd to rebel against Moses tho' their sinnes â—eâ—e forgiven thro' the Lord's infinite mercy and by the intercession of Moses yet in punishmeÌ„t of their crime several of them dy'd in the wilderness and never â—as admited to come to the land of promise Num â— 14 v. 19. 20 â—â— â— 24 3 7. also when David sinn'd against the Lord his crime was forgiven but in punishment thereof his son dy'd the â— book of Kings â— 12 v 13 14 18 finally we read in St Paul's first Epist to the Cormthians â— 11 v 30 that several of the Cormthians were mortifi'd by the Lord and also that some of them dy'd because they receiv'd unworthily the holy Sacrament but then their sins has been forgiven as is evident by the 32 v where St. Paul sayes the following words but when we are judg'd we 〈◊〉 chastized by the Lord that we shu'd not be condemn'd â—hereby the reader may plainly 〈◊〉 that God dose not 〈◊〉 the punishment as 〈…〉 forgiven the 〈…〉 â—emency and infinite mercy changes that eternal punishment into some temporal affliction 〈◊〉 if the sinner dose not undergo in this world he must suffeâ— for it after his dâ—ath before ever he shall enter into the KiÌ„gdom of â—eaven for nonâ— is receiv'd there untill he is even as clean fâ—om all manner of sin and fault as he was immediatly after his Baptism as witnesseth that of Iohn 〈◊〉 c 21. v 27 This presuppos'd I may lawfully inferr that therâ— must be some place of temporâ—l punishment â—â— order to purifie and cleanse nosâ—â—ouls who doe not perform 〈…〉 world and 〈…〉 sins to which â—ternal punishmeÌ„t is not due for it wou'd be a most uÌ„reasonable thig of us to believe that he who immediatly has been in the state of grace and dyes suddenly after speaking an idle word or committing some other smal offence shu'd be oblig'd to everlasting torments even as he who suddenly dyes without any kind of repentance after committing murder adultry or some other great crime therefore being he cannot inter the into heaven by reason of that small offence he must go to some other place untill he is purâ—â—i'd which I shall prove by the following argument what ever the old and new Testament the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church several Councils true and wonderfull revelations affirms ought to be believ'd by all Christians but the old and new Testament the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church several Councils true and wonderfull revelation affirms that which the Church of Rome calls Purgatory to be a place of temporal punishment wherin some souls are chastiz'd and purifi'd after leÌ„ving this world therefore Purgatory ought to be believ'd by all Christians the consequence is evident â—s we shall see hereafter and the major cannot be deny'd by any true Christian as for the minnor I will prove it after the same order wâ—ereiâ—â—â—'s fâ—â—â—'d therefore I â—ill begâ—n 〈◊〉 the Auâ—â—oâ—â—es of the old Testament We finâ— in the 6â— Psâ—â—â— which is the 〈◊〉 â—n the 〈◊〉 English 〈◊〉 3. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 â—18 〈◊〉 O sâ—â— c. 〈◊〉 â—8 â—t 〈…〉 his perpetualâ—y and â—o câ—asâ—en one in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is â—o punish hiâ— seveâ—ly 〈◊〉 this â—ite iâ— order 〈…〉 and so concluds wâ—â—â— the following words O Lord 〈◊〉 pâ—eas'd to 〈…〉 in this woâ—ld thâ—â— I 〈◊〉 â—ot wâ—nt thaâ— correctiÌ„g â—ire And it â—hall 〈◊〉 to pâ—sse that he that is leâ—t iâ— zâ—â—â— and â—e that remaineth in Jerâ—salem shaâ—l be call'd â—oâ—y when tâ—e Lord that haâ—e wash'd away the 〈◊〉 of the daâ—gâ—â—ers of zion shall have puâ—g'd the bloâ—d of Jerusalem from the â—idâ—t the â—o by the spirit of jugedment and by the spirit of burning Isaih c. 4. v 3. and 4. which text according to St. Augustin in his 20th book of the City of God c. 25. mâ—â—ns the releasment â—hich souls do get from the burning fire of Purgatory Micah c. 7. v. 7. 8. and 9 â— will look unto the Lord. I will wait for the God of my salvation my God will heare me rejoice not against me O! mine enemy when I fall I shall arise when I sit in darknesse the Lord shall be light onto me I will beare the indignatioÌ„ of the Lord because I have sinn'd against him untill he plead my case and execute judgement for me he will bring me forth to the light and I shall behold his righteousnesse Which words as St. Hierome affirms in his commentary on the last c. of I saiah means the releasment of those souls who do suffer in Purgatory fire Zechariah c. 9. v 11. you also by the blood of they covenant have brought forth your prisoners out of the pâ—t wherein there is no water Sâ— Peteâ— speakïg of those Prisoneâ—s in his 〈◊〉 Ep. c. 3. v. 18. 19 20 sayes thus for christ also hath once suffer'd for sins the just for the unjust that he might briÌ„g us to God beiâ—g put to death in the flesh but quickened by the spirit by which also he went and preach'd unto the spirits in prison which sometimes were disobedâ—ent when once the long suffering of God waited in the dayes of Noah while
Peâ—er â—nd therefore it was he pray'd that his faiâ—h should not faiâ—e Luke c. â—2 v. â—â— Whealy expresly contrâ—dicts himself in this matter for in his very last point he slaâ—ly denyes that our Saviour comâ—itted any particular charge to Peter more than to any other of the â—pâ—stles for want of the word only and here he owns that our Saviours words were particularly apply'd to Peter more than to any other of the Apostle which is a manifest contradiction for things signify'd by words must of necessity be apply'd to him to whom the words are apply'd as Philosophers commonly teach as for Whealy's explication saying that it was particularly apply'd to Peter because he was in danger of sweariÌ„g cursing c. t is nonsence at lest if he pretends to be a Christian for our Saviour spoake these words of John c. 21. to Peter after he deny'd him after his resurrection so that there was no daÌ„ger of Peter's cursing swearing and denying Christ the second time if our Saviour was not to suffer again after his resurection which would be an abominable Doctrine to thinke of that his first Passion sufferings was not suficient to redeem all mankiÌ„d If it was in order to give Peter some consolation our Saviour spoake to him also pray'd to his heavenly Father that his faith should not faile according to that of Luke c. 22 v. 31. aâ— Whealy alleages why did he exclude St. Thomas who by noe perswasion would believe our Saviours resurrection untill he saw the wounds in his hands and put his finger into the same and trust his hand into his side John c. 20. v. 25 for really Peters error was of less coÌ„se queÌ„ce than that of Thomas for he only deny'd that he knew Christ personally and that out of human fear for which act he immediatly repented and wept betterly as appears Mat c. 26. v. 75. but we find nothing of Thomas's repentance tho' he would not believe one of the chiefest Misteryes of faith nor do we find in Scripture that our Saviour spoake so favourably to him or pray'd his heavenly Father that his faith should not faile so that there must needs be some other thiÌ„g uÌ„derstood by the said texts which Whealy ought not to deny since he cannot shew scripture Authority or reason but impiously strives to misinterpret the plain words of our Saviour to favour his owne wicked design I see he passes over slightly one of the convincing argumeÌ„ts that he fouÌ„d in that manuel of coÌ„troversie which he pretends to confute and denyes the major minor and consequence with-out giving any manner of reason only alleaging that thâ— râ—st of the Apostles are nam'd before Peter in several places of Scripture but because he could not poiÌ„t any of those places he was forc'd to leave the whâ—le argument in it's vigor and run to an other of his owne as commoÌ„ly all sectaryes do when they find themselves at a stand saying that if Christ had invested Peter with any such dominion either Peter or â—ome of the Evangelists would upon some occasion or other mention'd it but Peter is no where in scripture said to be invested therefore Peter had no such dominion as they preteÌ„d he had the major passes yet it may be absolutly deny'd for all the actions of Christ are not individually mention'd in scripture as evidently appears by the following words of John C. â—1 v. 25 there are also many other things which Jesus did which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the bookes that should be written So that it appears that if the scripturâ—s were silent in this matter as they are not that it would not follow that no such thing hath been as I have shew'd by several other examples before now the minor also is false as evidently appears by what I have produc'd onâ—â—f St. Mathew c. 16. S. John c. â—â— the consequence cannot be true for out of false premisses there cannot follow but a false consequence As for that frivolus argument wherewith the adversary falsly accuses the Catholicks alleaging that they conclude Peter to have been bishop of Rome because he remov'd his sea from Antioch let the reader be pleas'd to observe that consequence to be only some of his calumnies and not that consequence which the Catholicks do infer but this which follows Peter remov'd his sea from Antioch to Rome therefore Peter was bishop of Rome so that the other is but some of his ill infer'd consequences As for these two reasons which he alleages first saying that it would be more reasonable to conclude that in case Peter had been Bishop of Antioch and would from thence remove that it was to Ierusalem he remov'd because his following calculation proves S. Peter to have been often there secondly because he was Apostle of the circumcision I retort his first reason thus It were more reasonable to conclude that all shoe-makers would apply themselves in makeing of shooes thaÌ„ to impeach themselves in matters of divinity contraversye therefore it were more reasoÌ„able to coÌ„clude that Whealy who is a shoe-maker would apply himself in makeing of shooes thaÌ„ to impeach himself in matters of divinity and controversie this consequence does not happen as is manifest by what Whealy publishes in his Almanack so that it appears that that which is more reasonable to conclude does not alwayes happeÌ„ for if it thou'd indeed we would never wrong our neighbours or commit any sinne against our creator redeemer for it would be more reasonable to conclude that we ought to obey his commaÌ„dmeÌ„ts than to be come rebells against him yet we see by daily experieÌ„ce that this happens noâ— that which is more reasonable to conclude As to that removing of Peter let Whealy know that it was convenient that the chiefest sea of Christianity shoud be fixd and florish in that City of Rome which formerly was the chiefest City head of Idolatry it 's the General opinioÌ„ of â—everal holy Fathers that Peter was commanded by a special revelation to fix his sea there but if in case he had fixâ—d it in Jerusalem his successours the Bishops of Jerusalem would in haeâ—i St Peter's suprâ—macy have the same jurisdiction that now those of Rome have as to the adversary's second reasoÌ„ I say thaâ— there was no such compact between Peter Paul viz that oâ—â— should only preach to the Jewes the oâ—ner to the Gentiles otherwise Peter would not have declar'd in the assembly that the Apostle◠〈◊〉 is had at Jerusalem that God 〈…〉 among them that the GeÌ„tiles by his mouth should hâ—are the word of God belâ—eve Acts c. 15. v. 7. neither would Paul preach to the Jeâ—â—s when he came to Rome Acts c. 28. v. 2. 3 c. So that the agreement between them was that Peter shoud preach where ever he pleas'd but principally to the Jewes and that also Paul wou'd
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
and I prove the first part of the Anticedent by our Saviour's own words Iohn c 6 v 51 where he sayes thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world But then the Iewes wanting true faith said one to an other how can this man give uâ— his flesh to eate v 52. certainly then our Saviour who came to this world to instruct and leade us out of all darknesse to the true light hearing the Iewes murmuring so and doubting of what he said to be true wou'd explain the aforesaid words if he had any mystical meaning but he was so far from so doing that he confirm'd and repeated them again over and overâ— as is manifest by the 53 54 c. v where we read the following words then Iesus said unto them verily verily I say unto ye except ye eate the flesh of the son of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in ye whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I 〈◊〉 him as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your Fathers did eate â—anna and are dead he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever So that every faithfull sincere Christian may plainly understand that if our Saviour then had not meant that he was to give his own true flesh and blood to be really eaten and dranke that he wou'd not so proceed in confirming what he said in the begining and also that he wou'd not suffer his own disciples to part with-out declaring his mind to them as he did often before when he spoâ—e in parables neither wou'd he declare at his last supper that he gave to his discples his own body and blood saying thus Take eate this his my bâ—dy and he tooke the cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying drinke ye all of it for his is my blood of the new testâ—meâ—t which shall be shâ—d for many for the remission of sinnes Matt c 26 v 26 27 28 I leave it to all faithfull Christians seriously to be consider'd whether Christ gave only figuratively his own body and blood for the remission of our sinnes or his reall body and blood If he gave them really for our Salvation he also gave them really tâ— his disciples as his own wordâ— do manifestly affirme to deny which is of no less consequence than to charge Christ with untruth or at lest that he had not words significant to explain his intention which is rash and impious to judge of his infinite power therefore all Christians are oblig'd not to mistrust of the truth of Christ's words or doubt of their literal sence in the aforesaid text for being we acknowledge that Christ is omnipotent and consequently that it is in his Power to make of the bread and wine his own flesh and blood by his divine benediction we ought not to doubt of what he said to be true and if in case he had not exprest so plainly his mind unto us concerning this mysterie we ought to believe it firmly by St Paul's testimonye â—ae Corinth c 11 v 23 24 c. saying thus for I have receiv'd of the Lord that which also I deliver'd uâ—to ye that â—he Lord Jesus the same night in which he wâ—â— betrayed â—ooke bread and when he had given thankes he brake and said take eate this is my body which shall be â—â—liver'd for ye thiâ— do ye in remembranâ—e of mâ— afteâ— the â—ame maÌ„ner also he tooke the câ—p when he had supped saying this cup is the new testament in my blood this doe ye as often as ye drinke it in remembraâ—ce of me for as often as ye eate thâ—s brâ—ad and drinke this cup ye do shew the Lords death till be come whosoever shall â—at this bread â—â— drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the â—oâ—d By which words St Paul openly declares that Christ gave his own body blood to his disciples at his last supper and also he affirms himself to have been taught this doctrine by the Lord and that he deliever'd the same to the Corinthians that there by he might perswade them not to doubt of what he said to be true but to firmly believe the reall presence beâ—ng it was the Lords doctrine delieuer'd unto him in order to teach it to the Christians Now let us heare the Authorityes of the holy Fathers Doctors of the Primitive Church wherewith I shall prove the second Part of the antecedent St. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple in his Epist to those of Smyrna ciâ—ed by Theodoret in his â— Dialogue sayes thus they â—â—mit not the Eucharists and oâ—lations because they confess not the Euchâ—râ—st to be the flesâ— of our Saviour who suffer'd for ouâ— sinneâ— Let the reader take â—otice of those heretickes against whose principles St Ignatius speaks in the aforsaid text for they rejected the Eucharist lest they would be forc'd to confess that Christ had true flesh but if the Eucharist had not then been believ'd to be Christ's â—rue flesh those heretiks could have no kind of reason to re-ject it for they did noâ— deny the figure or Image of Chrisâ— but what they deny'd was thaâ— Christ had true flesh The like argumenâ— may be form'd against the Jewes admiration hearing the word of Christ Iohn c 6 v. 51 c. for if then the jewes would believe that Christ was to give his flesh only in figure and remembrance they would have no reasoÌ„ to murmur or to mistrust the truth of Christ's words so that it manifestly appears that the Jewes suppos'd that Christ meant his true flesh and also that those heretiks of the prmitive Church believ'd and acknowledge that it was then some of the Catholickâ— Doctrine to believe that Christ's true flesh was really present in the holy Eucharist St. â—â—ustin Martyr who liv'd in the year 150 in his 2 Apology to Antoninus sayes thus we do not receive this as common bread or as common drinke but as the son of God Iesus Christ ouâ— Saviour inâ—â—rnate had flesh and blood for our salvation so are we taught that thâ— Eucharist is the flesh blood of the same Iesus incarnate St Irenaeus who liv'd in the same Century speaking of the hereticks of the Synagogue who deny'd Christ to have been the son of God sayes the following words in his 4th book c 34 how can they be assured the bread in which thankes are given to be the body of our Lord the
Godly honour Tho' the aforesaid argument might be a sufficient answer to this point yet I will produce the following Authorityes to confirm the same St Denis the Areeopagite who liv'd in the Apostles time in his book de Eccles. Hier. c. 3 makes mention of the IncenciÌ„g of the altar of the Priest washing his hands of â—â—â— elevation of the blessed Host â— the adoration thereof Origines whâ— liv'd in the 3. CeÌ„tury in his 3. Hoâ— in Exod. sayes thus I design to â—â—monish ye with the examples of â—â—â— own religion ye know who are accâ—â—â—m'd to be present at the diviâ— mysteries when ye receive the Lorâ— body how with all caution â—â— veneration ye take heed least â— smal particle of it should fall down leâ—â— any thing of the consecrated gift shâ—â— slip out for ye belive your selves â—â—â— guilty and ye rightly believe if â— thing of it wou'd fall by your negligâ—â—ce St Ambrose who liv'd in thâ— 4th Century in his 3. book of thâ— Holy Ghost c. 12. expounding thâ— of the 98. Psal where we aâ— bid to worship the footstool of his feeâ— sayes thus therefore by the footstool the earth is understood and by the earth the flesh of Christ which also eveÌ„ at this day we adore in mysteries and which the Apostles ador'd in the Lord Jesus S. Chrysostome who also liv'd in the 4 Century in his â— hom on S Pau'ls Epist to the Ephesians sayes thus we speake of the body and of him who differs nothing from it how many are made partakers of that body how many tastes of his blood remember that it is the body blood of him who refides above the heavens who is humbly ador'd by the Angels He also sayes the following words hom 24th on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians the wisemen regarded thîs body laâ—ing â—n the â—angeâ— the iâ—pioâ—â—â—aâ—â—arouâ— men having leâ—t thâ—i◠〈◊〉 tâ—ey home made along voyâ— when they aâ—riv'd wiâ—h grâ—at â—â— trembâ—ing they worâ—hipp d â— let us therefore the Citizens of heâ—â— immitate the barbarous people do not see him in the mâ—ngeâ— but onâ— aâ—tâ—â— not a woman keepiâ—g him â—â— the Priest holding him let us theâ—fore weaken our selves anâ— be grâ—â— afraid let us shew a great deal nâ— reveâ—ece than these barbarous peopleâ— for open the gates of heaven and lâ—â— and then you will see that whiâ—â— said to be true for that which iâ— tâ—â— most precious and most to be ador'â— aâ—l thinks I do â—hâ—w you the same â—â— on earth even as in a Kiâ—gs palâ—â— that which is most magnificeÌ„â— of thiÌ„gs not the â—alls no◠〈…〉 â—t the Kingâ— â—t that yâ—◠〈…〉 do nâ—t hâ—w yoâ— thâ— Aâ—gâ—lâ— Arâ—â—geâ—s oâ— he heaves bâ—t tâ—â—ir masâ—er â—â— have percâ—â—v'd hâ—w â—ou 〈◊〉 on the â—â—â—h that which is most excellent â—est to be regarded of aâ—l things neiâ—her do â—ou only see hiâ— but aâ—so yoâ—â—â—â—h him you eaâ— him after you â—at him you return home clean puâ—ifie your soul prepare your mind against the receiving of these mysteriesâ—â—or if a King's son wiâ—h a neat preâ—ious â—â—own had been giveâ— to you â—o â—e carri'd you wou'd slight all the thiÌ„gs â—â— the world but now receiving not â—he son of a worldly King but the only â—egottn son of Goâ— c. St Augustin who liv'd in the begining of the 5th Century expounding the 9â— Psal sayes that the earth is thâ— Lords footstool according to thâ— of Isaiah c 66 v. 1. saying thuâ— the heaven is my throne the earâ— is my footstool and he inquires hoâ— is it lawfull to adore the earth with-out impiety and then hâ— sayes the following words being troubl'd in mind I do turn myself Christ because I do seeke him I find how the earth is ador'd with-out impiety the footstool of his feet is ador'd for he receiv'd earth from the earth because the flesh is of the earth he receiv'd flesh from the flesh of Mary because he walk'd here in that flesh gave us the same flesh to eate for our safety none eats of that flesh if he adores it not before t is found-out after what 〈…〉 â—â—otstool of â—â— Lord may 〈…〉 not only â—â—t we doe not 〈…〉 it but â—â— we siâ—n in not a â—oriâ—g it More â— S. Augustin's Authorâ—â—yes may â— seen to the same purpose in â—s 118. Epist c. 3. and in his 120 â—pist c. â—7 which I omit to produâ—â— least I shu'd be too troubleâ—â—â—e to the reader Chap. 7 Proving that TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—â— was believ'd by those of the Primiâ—â—ve Church I shall only here enlarge those â—â—â—ts of scripture produc'd in my â—nswer to the 5th point with the â—â—llowing Authorityes of the â—â—ly Fathers and Doctors of the â—rimitive Church Tertullian who liv'd in the begining of the 3. Cenâ—ury in his 4. book agaiâ— Mâ—â—cian c. 4â— saâ—es 〈◊〉 â—â— bâ—ead taken and distributed â—â— his â—â—sciples he maâ—e hâ—s owâ— body St. 〈◊〉 martyr and S Iâ—eneus who boâ—â— liv'd before â—ertulliaÌ„ do affâ—â— the same as the reader may see â—â— their Authorityes produc'd â—â— my answer to the 5. point S â—â—prian who liv'd the year 25â—â— his sermon of the Lord's supâ—â—â—ayes thus the â—read which ouâ— gave to his Disciples being changâ— not in shâ—pe but in natûre bâ— the â—â—nipotency of the word was made â—leâ—â— S Cyrill of Jerusalem who liv'd in the 4. Century speaking â—â— Christ in his 4. Catech. sayes thâ—â— followig words he did once in Caâ—â— of Galelee only by his will turn water â—nto wine which is near blood aâ—d â—hall he not be wâ—rthy to be believ'd â—o uâ— that he tuâ—n'd wine into blood â—â—erefore let us receive the body and â—â—ood of Christ with all assurance for â—nder the shape of bread the body is given to you and under the shape of â—ine the blood is given therefore let us not consider it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lord 's own words for altho' your sense wou'd not represent this to you nevertheless let faith confirm you you ought not to judge these things by the taste therefoâ—e knowing this with all certainly holding the bread which is seen â—y us not to be bread altho' the taste perceives it to be bread but to be the body of Christ the wine which is seeâ—â—â— altho' it may seem to the pallâ—â— be wine notwithstandiÌ„g it is not â—â— but the blood of Christ Let the â—â—der be Pleas'd to take notice â—â— plainly St Cyprian affirms by â—â— former words that the substaâ—â—â— of the bread wine is dissolâ—â— at the intrance of Christ's bâ—â— and blood and also how St. Cyâ—â— bids us not to judge of this myâ—â—â—rie according to the apprehensioâ— of our senses but to firmly believe the true and real presence of Christ's body and blood undeâ— the shape of bread and wine that is to say under the accidents which the bread and wine had before cheir
substance was chang'd St. Gregorie Nysen who liv'd the year 380. in his Oration term'd Cateehetica c. 370. sayes thus I do also now rightly believe the sanctifi'd bread to be chang'd into the body of Christ and these things he bestows transelementing the thiÌ„gs that are seen into it by the vertue of his blessings which words do plainly make-out that St. Gregorie positively believ'd the Transubstantiation otherwise he wou'd not have said these words St Ambrose who siv'd about the same time in his 4th book of sacraments c. 4th sayes thus perhaps you may say my bread is ordinary but the bread is bread before the words of consecration but when consecration comes it is the flesh of Christ a nother convincing Authority of St. Ambrose may be seeÌ„ in my answer to the 5th point St Gaudentius who also liv'd in the 4th age in his 2. Treatis on Exod. sayes the following words the Cream and Lord of natures who brought forth the bread out of the earth and again of the bread because he can do it promis'd it made his proper body and who of the water made wine made of the wine his own blood S. Chrysostome who liv'd in the year 398. in his 83. hom on S. Matt. speaking of this mysterie sayes thus these are not the works of human power which the Lord perform'd in that supper the same also offers now the sacrifice he performs we enjoy the office of ministers truly t is he who sanctifies and chaâ—ges these things And in his Homily of the Eucharist in â—â—â—aenys he also sayes the following words do you see the bread do you see the wine do they go like other meat to the privy the Lord forbid you ought not to imagin so for eveÌ„ as after wax is apply'd to the fire nothing of the substance remains even so consider here the mysteries the substance of the body to be consum'd that is to say that the breads substaÌ„ce is annichilated when Christ's body inters under those accidents which formerly the bread had before it was annulâ—d St. Augustin in his â—8 ser de verbis Apostoliâ— sayes thus I told ye that the bread which is offer'd is call'd bread before the words of Christ but as soone as Christ's words are pronounc'd then t is not call'd bread but it is call'd the body And in the book of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ we read the following words t is not to be believ'd that the â—ubstance of the bread or wine remains but that the bread is cheang'd into Christ's body and the wine into his blood c St. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Epist to Calosyrius and Eusebius Emissenus Ser. de corpore Domini do affirm the same All which Authorityes do evidently make out the thing signifi'd by the word Transubstantiation that is to say the real change of the substance of bread and wine aâ— the intrance of Christ's flesh blood to have been alwayes believ'd and maintain'd by the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church so that it plainly appears that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not broughtin by the Church of Rome either in the 6th 7th 8th or 9th age or by the Council of Latran in the year 1215 as some of the preteÌ„nded reformers do falsly aleadge It is not worth my while to answer here the Adversary's 8th point for it is sufficiently answer'd by what I have produc'd in my answers to the three last points for t is manifest that all those who contradicted in the Primitive Church the aforsaid Doctrine that they were esteem'd and beliv'd by the holy Catholicke Churh to have been notorious heretickes as I will shew in the later end of this worke Chap. 8. Proving the use and veneration of Images in the Primitive Church If it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worship Images but t is lawfull to worship other creatures therefore t is lawfull to worship Images the major is manifest for the saâ—e honour which the scripture forbids to be given to the one forbids it to be given to the other as I will shew hereafter therefore if it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worshâ—p Images whose making and puting up in Churches is commanded by the holy scripture as evidently appears by the following texts Exodus c 25 v. 18. 19. 22 where we read that God commanded two Câ—erubins to be made of goâ—d which were to be set up on both sides of the Arke before which the people were to pray and promis'd that there he wou'd meet with Moses we read also Numb c. 21 v. 8 and 9 that the Lord commanded Moses to make a fiery serpent and to set it up on a pole and that it shu'd come to passe that if any one would be bitten by a serpent that he wou'd recover when he wou'd looke upon the serpent of brasse more examples may be seen in the 3 book of Kings c. 6. v. 35. c. 7. v. 25. 29. and 36. c. 10. v. 19. in the 2. book of Chronicles c 3. v. 10 and 14. where we read that Salomon caus'd at several times Images to be made but we can never find out that ever he was reprehended for so doing Now let us see is it lawfull to worship other creatures that thereby the minor may be prov'd Lot seeing the Angels bowâ—â— himself with his face to wards the ground Gen. c. 19. v. 1. Baâ—aam did the same seeing the Angel of the Lord Numb c 22 v. 31. and also Joshua as may be seen Joshua c. 5. v. 14. Saul seeing the soul of Samuel stoop'd with his face towards the grouÌ„d and â—bowed himself as may be seen in the first book of Kings c. 28 v. 14. and in the 3. book of Kings c 18 v 7. we read that Abadiah fell on his face and worshipp'd Elyah The sons of the Prophets seeing Elisha they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him as may be seen in the 4th book of Kings c. 2. v. 15. we also read in the 2. c. v. 46. of Daniel that the King Nebuchad-nezzar fell upon his face and worshipp'd Daniel and commanded that they shu'd offer an oblation and sweetodours unto him Chirist approv'd of the making and exalting of the brazen serpent and owens it to have been the type and figure of himself exalted on the crosse â—ohn c. 3 v 14. S. Iohn the Baptist worshipp'd the very latehet of our Saviours shooe the latchet of whose shooes saith he I am not worthy to unloose John c. 1. v. 27. for which fact St Augustin on that place concluds him to have been full of the holy Ghost the Patriarch Jacob ador'd the top of Joâ—eph's rod a signe or Image of his regal power as we read in S Pauls Epist to the Hebrews c. 1 v 2â— the Primitive Christians venerated the very shadow and garments of S Peter and Paul and receiv'd thereby speciall benefit as may be seen in
to prevent which now their very tinkers coblers butchers tailers and all sort of curious and ignorâ—nt mechaâ—icks do take the liberty of interpreting and expounding the whole Bible to their own ruine and destruction 2. Petri c. 3. v. 16. for how can such ignorant people understand or expound either â—o themselves or to others the prophesie of Ezekiel of Daniel the Revelaâ—ions of St. Iohn where aâ— S. Hâ—erome affirms every sentence is a misttery which of them can expound the Canticles or what Salomon meaÌ„t by those similitudes of Gods Church or the following texts I am the Lord they God visiting the iniquit of â—he Fathers upon the children unto the 3. 4. Generation Exod. c. 20. v. 5. which seems to be contradicted by that of Fzekiel c. 18. v. 20 saying thus the soul that sinneth it shall die the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father we are expressly commanded by the 20 c. v. â—2 of Exodus to honour our Fathers and mothers But it is said in the 14. Chap. of Luke v. 26 that he 〈◊〉 heats not his Father and mother cannot be the disciple of Christ Moreover Deuteronomie c. 6. v. 13. it is written that thou shall fear the Lord thy Gâ—d serve him and â—wâ—ar by his Name Which seems to be conâ—radâ—cted by that of St. Mat. c. 5. v. 34. where we read thus I sa untâ— yoâ— swear not at all these and several other texts which â—ight seem to the unlearned to contradict each others and also the misterâ—es of the holy scripture do exceeâ— the poor ignorant people's understanding and weake capacity nay the very Disciples of Christ cu'd not understand the prop esiâ—s of the old Testament untill their understanding were open'd whereby they came to their true knowledge as evidently appears Luke c 24. v. 27. and 45 where we read the following words and begining at Moses and all the prophets he expâ—uâ—ded unto them that things concerning himself then he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures For want of which understanding in the law of God the pretended reformers and also the ancient hereâ—â—â—ks of the Primitive Church deserted their true Mother the holy Catholick Church by misinterpreâ—ing the word of God as for example the Aerians denâ—ing tâ—e 2. person of the Blâ—ssed Tâ—inâ—tâ— to be God and alleâ—ging for their ground that of St. John c. 17. v. â—â— saying thus holy Father keep through thine own Name thoâ—e whoâ—â—â—ou hast given me that they may be one as we are the Eunomians asserting the holy Ghost not to be God and producing for their Authority that of Christ Matt. c. 11. v 27. where he sayes thus all things are deliver'd unto me by my Father neiher knoweth any man the Father save the son ' and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him the Eutychians affirming the divine nature in Christ to have been converted into his human nature and alleaging for their ground that of St John c. 1. v 14. where we read the following words the word was made â—lesh and dowleth among us The Berengarians Wicklefians Husites Lutherans and Caluinists err'd so grossly in so many texts of scripture by reason of the great liberty they tooke in interpreting and expounding it to the advantage of their own design that their errors iâ— they were all related woud require a whole book to themselves so that it plainly appears that the reading and interpreting of the serâ—pture is not profitable to all people specially to those who do not â—ecur for the interpretation thereof to the holy Catholick Church which has a promise of the infallible asistance of the holy Ghost to the consumation of the world Matt c. 2â— v. 2â— so that the Church of Rome had great reason to hunder the ignorant sort of people who might easily be deceiv'd â—rom perusing it with-out having license from their respective Bishops especially in those countryes where heresie abounds and where Bibles are corrupted fearing lest that instead of acquiring more knowledge thereby they might peradventure fall into greater ignorance or some heresie as the aforsaid sectaries have done in so prohibiting she imitateâ— the example of fond parents who keeps all sort dangerous weapons from the hands of their children forbids them all kind of dieaâ— which might occasion or creat any ill distemper Chap. 12 Proving that the pretended reformers Doctrines are but a heap of several old heresies lawfully condemn'd by the Primitive Church Having sufficiently made-out by the same Authorityes which my adversaâ—y in his Challenge defies to be produc'd that the old and present Church of Rome is still the same in priÌ„ciples ti 's now fit that I shu'd let my adversary know what principles himself the rest of the new reformers do embrace I will only produce the following point 1 The Aerians demolish'd and threwdown the Altars where upon the holy sacrifice were wont to be offer'd as the following Fathers do relate St. Athanasius in his Epist de fuga sua Theodoretus in his 4th book of History c. 19. 2â— and Ruffinus in his 11. book c. â— Martin Luther who apostated from the Church of Rome the year 1517. and John Calvin who did the same the year 1538. caus'd alâ—o the Altars of those Churches which ere under their jurisdictions to be throwdown demoâ—ish'd as may be seen in Luther's booâ— de Formula Missa pro Ecclesia Wittâ—mbergenâ—i in Calvin's 4th book of Institutions c. 18. 2 The Aâ—rians rejected all traditions which were not written in the word of God as St. Augustin in his first book against Maximiâ—us c. 2. last testifies which heresie the Nestorians â—utychians held afther-wards as appears by the first Action of the 2 General Council of Nice the Nâ—itorians errors were condemn'd by the General Council of Ephese the year 4â—1 as may be seen Tomo 3 Coâ—ciliorum Luther in his commentary on St. Pauls â—pist to the Galaâ—â—ans c 2. and Calvin in his 4. book of Institutions â— 8. held also the same heresie 3 The Aerians and Eunomians deny'd that Images ought to be venerated as the Fatherâ— of the 2 Council of Nice do relate in the 6. Action John Calvin in his first book Chap. 11. and in his â— 4 book c. 9. and now all the reformers do teach the same 4 The Aerians held that there is no difference between Bishops and Priests but that they are of equal dignity and jurisdiction As St. Epiphanius heresie 75. St Augustin heresie â—3 do write Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. de Ordinis Sacramento and adversus falso nominatum ordinem Episcoporum and Calvin in his 4. book of Instutions c. 3 held likewise the same hereâ—ie which now the presbyterians and several others doe embrace 5 The Aerians did not judge it lawfull to pray for the dead or to offer any sacrifice or alms for their releasment and did not believe that there was any place
the year 390 tomo secundo Conciliorum and so were the Pelagians errors by the following Councils viz by the Milevian Council the year 416 by the Aâ—ican Council the year 4â—8 as â—y be seen tomo 〈◊〉 Conciliorum â—and also b◠〈◊〉 â—ral Council of 〈◊〉 which â—â—e the year 43◠〈◊〉 Conciâ—orum Luther assertione articuli 32 â—alvin in his 2 book of Insâ—â—uâ—ons c. 18 and in his 3 book c 4 â—eld likewise that all sins are morâ—l 15 Simon Magus and Menander â—eld that Christs true flesh is not â—â—lly present in the holy Euâ—harist as St. Ignatius declares â—â— his Epist to those of Smyrna â—f which Theodoretus makes â—ention in his 3. dialogue other â—â—reticks of the Primitive Church held the same as Sâ— Cyrill writes in his Epist to Calosirius Tho' Luther never expreâ—slâ— affirm'd this point of the old he reâ—â—e yet all his Disciples do endeavouâ— to defend it and so diâ— Calvin in his book de Caena Domini where he reprehends Luther for not holding it and alsâ— in his 4 book c. 17. 16 Simon Magus held that faitâ— alone is suâ—â—icient for salvation and consequently that good woâ—kes are needless in order to savation as St. Irenaeus in his firâ— book c. 20. and Theodoretâ— de heretic is fabulis do write Eunomius held the same erroâ— as St. Augustin in his book dâ— â—eresibus declares c. 54 Luther in his book de libertate â—hristiana and Calvin in his 3. â—ook of Institutions c. 19. held â—o the same error that thereby â—ey might provoke others to be â—ven to all kind of vices as themâ—lves were 17. The Eunomians held that â—e reliques of Saints ought not â— be veâ—erated as Magnes in â—s 4 book against Theostines â—firms and Vigilantius held the â—e error as St. Hierome writes â— his book against Vigilantâ—us â—ut the Eunomians errors have â—een condemn'd by the â— Counâ—il of Rome the year 369. by the â—eneral Council of Constantinoâ—e the year 381 tomo secundo by the Council of Calcedon which sate the year 451 tomo 4. CouÌ„ciliorum also by the Council of Constantinople the year 553. tomo 5 Conciliorum Luther in his 〈◊〉 de cruce and in his book de missa abroganda held the same and so did Calvin admonitione de reliquiis 18 Vigilancius affirm'd that it is unlawfull to invocate Saints as St. Hierome writes in his book against Vigilantius's errors Luther in his book de Eucharistia ad Waldenses and Calvin in his 3 book of Institutions c. 20. believ'd and held the same error 19 The Massalians rejected the fast commanded by the Church as St. Epiphaniâ—s heresie 8. and Theodoretus in his 4. book c. 11. do relate the Aerians did the same as St. Augustin declares in his book of heresie c. 33. and so did the Eustachians as St. Epiphanius heresie 75. and Socrates in his 2. book c. 33. do write Calvin in his 4th book of Institutions c. 12 rejected the same which error both his and Luthers Disciples do willingly embrace that théy might indulge their own bodies whilest they are in this world 20 Thë Massaliaâ—s held that holy order is no sacrament as St. Damascenus relates in his â—irst book of haeresie the Massaâ—ians errors were condemn'd by â—he Fathers of the Council of Syda who sate the year 383. as may be seen Tomo 2. Conciliorum and by a nother Council in the Orient the year 417 Tomo 3. Conciliorum Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. de ordine held also that holy order is no Sacrament which error his Disciples do now firmly believe 21 Helvidius raught that the Blesled Virgin Mary bore children to Joseph who were brothers to Iesus Christ as St. Hierome relates in his book against Helvidius's errors which were condemn'd in the Council of Milan the year 390. as may be seen Tomo 2. Conciliorum Calvin ad Caput 1. Lucae affirm'd the same error which several of his followers do now certainly believe 22 Eusebius in his 3. book of history c. 25. and St. Hierome in his book de viris illustribus do make mention of certain hereticks who deny'd the Epist of St. James oâ— Juda the 2. Epist of St Peter also the 2. 3. of St. John to be canonical Luther in his prologue on these Epist rejects St James and Juda's Epistles and he doubts of the rest to be canonical 23 The Marcionites deny'd the revelations of St. John to be canonical as Tertullian relates in his 3. 4. book against Marcion the Theodotians deny'd the same as St. Epiphanius wriâ—es hereâ—ie 51. 54. the aforesaid Martionâ—tes did also deny St. Pauls â—pist â—o the Hebrews to be canonical as St. Hierome declares in his preface on St. Pauls Epist to Tiâ—us and so did Arius as Theodâ—retus relates in his preface on St. Pauls Epist to the Hâ—brews Luther in his preface on the old Testament affirms the â—evelation not to be canonical and in his prologâ—e on that to the Hebrews he sayes likewise that it is not canonical 24 The Marcionites Basilidians held that all the old TestameÌ„t was apocryphal as St. Irenaeus relates in his book c. 20. 22. 29. the Manicheans held the same as St Epiphanius affirms heresie 66. but the Maniâ—heans errors were condeâ—n'd by the General Ephesian Council the year 431. Toâ—o â— Concilioruâ— and also by the Council of Rome the year 444. which is to be 〈◊〉 in the saâ—e Tomâ— as for thâ— Mâ—â—â—iâ—ni-teâ—â—â—â—ors they 〈◊〉 bâ—â—n câ—demn'd by the Geâ—â—ral Coâ—nâ—il oâ— Calâ—â—â—oâ— the 〈…〉 51. â—oâ—o 4. Conciliorum and by the 〈◊〉 Council of Constanâ—inâ—â—le the year 553. where also the 〈◊〉 errors were condemn'd as may be seen Tomo 5. Conciliorum Luâ—â—â—r and Calvins Disciples are something milder than the aforesaid hereticks for they do no◠〈…〉 thaâ— all the old Tâ—stament is apocriphal yet théy deny several books of it to be canonical and chiefly those books which â—vidently do falsifie their own principles If I had not suppos'd that the premisses might sufficiently demonstrate what Doctrines my adversary and the reformers do maintain I wou'd produce several other points of â—old heresies which also they maintain but lest I shu'd be too troublesome to thè reader I will only conclude with the following passage Whosoever maintains or hath for his principles the aforesaid points is lawfully accus'd for maintaining old heresies false and erronious Doctrines confuted by the holy Fathers and lawfully condemn'd by several CouÌ„cils of the Primitive Church but thâ— pretended reformers do maintain and have for their principles the aforesaid points therefore the pretented reformers are lawfully accus'd for maintaining old heresies false and erronious Doctrines confuted by the holy Fathers and lawfully condemn'd by several Councils of the primitive Church the minor is manifest as for the major ti 's prov'd by what I have already produc'd for certaiÌ„ly all those holy Fathers and Doctors wou'd not make it their business to reprehend and confutâ— the chief promoters of
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—