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
chalice his blood if they acknowledge him not to be the son of the maker of the world Tertullian who liv'd in the year 230 sayes thus in his book of the resurrection of the flesh the flesh is wash'd that the soul may be clean'd the flesh is anointed that the soul may be consecrated the flesh eateth of the body and blood of Christ that the soul may be â—urish'd Origâ—nâ—s who liv'd in the same age sayes thus hom 7th in Eum speakiÌ„g of the old law thâ—n the manna was meat in figure but now the flesh of God is meat inspecie as himself sayes my flesh is mâ—at in deed and in his 5th Hom in diversa loca Evangely speaking of the Centurian he sayes the follwing words whâ—n you receive the holy meat and uncorrupted banquet when you receive the bread and cup of â—ief you eat drinke the body blood of the Lord then the Lord inters into your house you therefore humbling yourself immitate this Centurian sayâ— o Lord I am not worthy that thou shoâ—â—est inter into â—y house St Cypriaâ— who liv'd in same Century in his 5th ser de Lapsis sayes thus Violence is infer'd to his body blood they offend now more the Lord wiâ—â— their hands mouâ—h than when thâ— deny'd the Lord and in his ser oâ— the Lords supper he also sayes the following words the doctrin of this Sacrament is streange â— the Evangelical schooles publiâ—h'd 〈◊〉 this doctrine it first appear'd to thâ— world by Christ the teacher thereof thâ— Christians should drinke blood who drinking is most strictly forbidden â—â— the Authority of the old law but â—â— Gospel commends to drinke it Befoâ—â— I shall proceed further I muâ—â— take notice of St. Cyprian's words positively affirming that this Doctrine of the real presence has been first taught by Christ and his Disciples and also that Christians are commanded to drinke blood which was prohibited by the old law for the old lawâ— did not prohibit to drinke blood in figure or in remembrance for the Jewes did drinke the blood of Christ figuratively in drinking the water which flow'd our of the Rocke therefore that which was prohibited by the old law was only to drinke true and real blood but St. Cyprian clearly affirms that the Gospel commaÌ„ds the Christians to drinke that which was prohibited by the old law therefore St. Cyprian affirâ— that the Christians are commanâ—ed by the Gospel to drinke tâ—â— and real blood and consequenâ— not in figure as my adversaâ— would faine perswade St. Hilaâ—us who liv'd in the 4th Centâ—ry in his 18th book of the Tâ—nity says thus If the word be tâ—â— incarnate we do truly receive the wâ—â— flesh of the flesh blood 's â—â—â— there is noe roome left for being doubt for by the Lord 's own confesâ— and by our faith it is truly flesh truly blood let us read what is wriâ—â— and let us understand what we râ—â— and then we will perform the dutâ— perfect faith for according to the tural truth of Christ in us what â—â— we learn unless we learn it fâ—om â— we learn it imprudently impiously fâ—r he said my flâ—â—h is meat in deed c. St. Cyril of Ierusalem who liv'd in the sâ—me Century Catech 4 sayâ—â— the following words This of St. Paul's Doctrine can sufficiently make ye most certain coâ—cerning the divine mysteries seeing Christ himself so affirms sayes of the bread this is mâ— body whâ— afterwards can presume to doubt the same also saying confirming this is my blood who I say can doubt say that it is not his blood St. Ambrose who also liv'd in the same Century in his book de Mysterys Initiandis c 9th sayes the following words Perhaps you may say I see the contrary how can you affirm to me that I can receive Christ's body this now we are to prove therefore wâ— use great examples that we may prove this not to be what nature form'd but what benediction consecrated the benediction to be of more power than the naturâ—s because even â—he very nature is converted by the benediction Moses threw a rod which he converted into a serpent aftâ—rwards he tooke the serpent's tail converted the same into a rod therefore you see the nature of the serpent of â—he rod to have been twiâ—e chang'd by a Prophetical benediction If human benediction be of such power that it can change nature what do we say to the divine consecration where the very words of the Lord our Saviour do worke for the SacrameÌ„â— which you receive is perfected by the words of Christ what if Elias's words were of such force that they cou'd draw fiâ—e out of heâ—ven will not Christs wâ—rds be able to change the nature of the elements Of all the workes in the world you have read because he said they were made he commanded they were created therefore Christ's words which cou'd make that which was not of nothing can they not change these things which are into that which they were not for it is not less to give things new beings than to change their natures but why doe wâ— use arguments but let us use his own examples prove the truth of this mysterie by the IncarnatioÌ„'s example did the course of nature take place when the Lord was born of Mary it is manifest that the Virgin conceiv'd contrary to the order of nature this body which we perform is of the Virgin Why do you iâ—quire here thâ— câ—uâ—se of 〈…〉 Châ—â—st's body when the Lord himself wâ—â—â—orâ— of the Virgin beyond the coâ—rsâ— of nature Surâ—ly the true flesh of Christ was crucifi'd buri'd truly thâ—n the sâ—crament iâ— of that same flesh Tho' what I have already produc'd of this eminent Doctor 's Authority might satisfie any impartial reader yet I will adde these other Authorityes of his confirming the same in his 4th book de Sacram c 5. he sayes thus The Lord Iesus Christ declar'd unto us that we receive his own body blood why shu'd we doubt of his Authority testimoney and in his 6th book c 1 he also sayes thus as our Lord Iesus Christ is the true son of God even so it is true flesh which we receive as himself said St. Gregory Nazâ—anzen who liv'd in the same age in his 2 Oration de Paschaâ—e sayes the followings words eate the body drinke the blood with-out confusion doubt be constant firm stedfast you need not be any thing troubl'd in mind for the adversary's discourse St Ephrem who liv'd in the year 365 in his book de Natura Dei minima Scrutanda c 5 sayes the following words why do you track-out unsearchable things If you search curiously these things new you will not be call'd faithfull but curious be faithfull innocent partake of the immaculate body of thy Lord with full faith being sure that you do eat the intire lambe the mysteries of Christ are everlasting fire do
the acts of the Apostles â— 5. v. 15. and c 19 v. 11. and St. Paul in his Epist to the Philippians â— 2. v. 10. commands us to honour the name of Jesus which is only asign or Image of our redemptioÌ„ as the name Iehoâ—a is of our creation which was in so great honour with the Jewes that the common people durst not utter it no nor the very Priests but only in the time of sacrifice and solemne benediction as Philâ— relates writing the life of Moses nay the very plate on which the name of God was written on the high Priest's forehead is calld the plate of sacred veneration Exodus c. 18. v 36. 38. and we read in the 22. c. v 26 of Ezekiel that God commanded the temple which was an Image of his heavenly house to be honour'd as a holy place and reprehended those Priest's who poluted it saving thus her Priests have violated my law and have prophaned mine holy thinks they have put no diference betwen the holy and prophenâ— Now let us see did those of the PrimitiÌ„ve Church ever use or worship Images Tertulian who liv'd in the 3 age in his 2 book de Pudici affirms that the Image of ChriÌ„st bearing a lambe on his sholders was graven on the chalices us'd in Churches St Gregory Nysen who liv'd in the 4th Century in his Oration of Theodorus sayes that the silent picture painted on the wall doth declare several things and that it is very profitable this same holy Father was wont to weep contemplating the Image of Abraham facrifizing his son Isaac as himself testifies in his ser preach'd in Constantinople S. Basil who liv'd in the same Century in his Epist to Julian the Emperour after numbering seyeral points of faith which himself believ'd brings in the Apostles Prophets and Martyers then concluds saying thus the characters of their Images I do honour and worship thiefly being this was deliver'd by the Apostles and not prohibited and why shu'd it not be shewed painted in all our Churches in hisser of Barlaam he also sayes the followiÌ„g words â—ye famous painters raise-up and extoll your arts in painting this saint's Image and likwise let Christ's Image be painted St. Hierome who liv'd in the year â—90 writing the life of Paula sayes that shee was wont to prostrate herself before the crucifix and ador'd it as if shee had beheld the Lord crucifi'd bâ—foâ—e her eyes S Crysostome in his ser quod veteris et novi Testamenti unus sit Legislator declar'd that himself lov'd a picture of melted wax full of piery and in his Liturgy he sayes that the Priest was wont to how down his head before the Image of Christ he makes also mention of Christ Image in his ser deferia quintâ— Caena Dâ—mini Paladius who liv'd in the same time in his 11th Epist relates that the Bishop of Jerusalem was wont yearly at the solemnitâ— of Easter to expose the crosse to be ador'd by the people he himself first adoring it St. Cyrill of Alexandria who liv'd in the 5 Century in his homily against Nestor sayes thus hail mother of God through whom the precious crosse is made famous and ador'd throughout the world Caelius Sedulius who also liv'd in the 5 Century in his 5th book sayes the following words neither is there any who dose not know that the Image of the crosse ought to bâ— worshipp'd S. Gregorie who liv'd in the same Century in his 7 book Epist 5 bids the Bishop Januarius to take the crucifix and the Jmage of the blessed virgin from the Jewes who did not give them the due veneration And in his 53 Epist which is to SecuÌ„dinus he sayes thus I do know that you long for our Saviour's Image that by contemplating it you might burn the more with the love of the Lord Eusebius writing the life of Constant the great relates that agreat many of Golden and Silver Images were put up in the Churches which he caus'd to be built in Palestine in his 7. book c. 14. he affirms himself to have seeÌ„ the Apostles Images which then were very old and in great veneration with the people Damas relates writing the life of St. Sylvester that the aforesaid Constantine commanded an Image of pure Gold to be made which he order'd to be put up in the Church wherein he was baptiz'd on the right hand of which he plac'd the Image of our Saviour and on the left hand the Image of St. John the Baptist he also order'd the Image of our Saviour of four Angels and of the twelve Apostles to be put up in the Church of St. John Latran in Rome in order to be venerated by the Christians Evodius in his 2. book writing of S. Stephen's miracles sayes that his Image was put up in the same Church wherein his reliques were pre serv'd and that agreat multitude-of people were vs'd to freqent that Church out of particular devotion who venerated both the Image his reliques The Disciples of S. Epiphanius plac'd his Image in the Church which they built in his honour and were wont to pray most fervently before the same Image as the Fathers of the 7th General Council do declare in the 6th Action St. Ambrose in his Oration of Theodosiu's death sayes that it was discreetly done of Helena to order the crosse where upon our Saviour was crucifi'd to be taken up our of the ground where the Jewes absconded it that it might be worshipp'd by the Christians and in his Epist de invention sanctorum Gervasy et Protasy he declares that he knew him who appear'd to himself to be S. Paul by his Image which he had before S Augustin in his first book de Consensu Evangelistarum affirms himself to have seen in several places Christ's Image painted betwen S. Peter and St. Paul's Images and in his 3th book of the Trinity c. 10. in his 2. de Doct. Christ c. 25. and also in his 3. book c. 9 he sayes that Images are very profitable in order to move the people to devotion Metaphrastes in the life of Constantine the great Euagrius in his 4tâ— book c. 26 and Damsâ—enus in his first book de Imaginibus do relate that a painter endeavoring to â—raw the Image of Christ whose splendour when he cou'd not behold our Saviour himself tooke a peece of white â—â—nen and saving it on his face imprinted there-on the Image of his divine countenance and after-wards sent it to King Abagarus who long'd to see our Saviour which Image after awhile out of of particular veneration was brought by Philip the General of Mauritiuâ—'s army unto the field and gain'd thereby a most glorious victory from the Persians as Theopaâ—es relates in his 17th book Marianus scotus in his Cronicles writing of the 39 year makes mention of an other Image painted after the same manner by our Saviour in a handkerchief offer'd to him by a devout woman call'd Veronica as he sweared carying the crosse to
the arke was a prepariÌ„g Mâ—lachi c. 3 v. 3 and he shall sit is a refiner and a puriâ—â—er of silver and â—e shall purifie the sons of Levi and â—urge them as gold and silver that they may offer unto the Lord an offeriÌ„g in righteousnesse Which text signifies the punishment of Purgatory as the following Fathers do testifies Origines hom 6. in Exod. S. Ambrose in his commentary on the 36. psal St Hierâ—me in the exposition of this text and St. Augustin in his 20th book of the city of God c. 25. we find in the 2 book of Machabees c. 12. v. â—3 that Judas Machabeus had sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand peeces of silver to be offer'd for the souls of his souldiâ—rs here are the very words of the scripture and making a â—athering he sent twelve thousand dracmes of fâ—â—ver to â—erusalem for sacrâ—fice to be offer'd for â—â—nne well and religiously thinking of the Resurection for unless he â—â—p'd that they that were slaiâ—e should raise againe it should seem superflous and vainâ—â—â— prayfor the dead and because he conâ—ider'd thaâ— they which had taken their sleep with Godliness had very Good grace lay'd up for them It is therefore a holy and healthfull cogitaâ—ion to pray for the dead that tâ—ey may â—e loose from sinnes perhaps you may Answer saying that this book is not the word of God or canonical and consequently that it's Authority is of no force but in case it wou'd not be canonical it self it ought to be sooner belier'd then either Calvin or Luthers â—nd consequently prefer'd before their Authorityes being Juâ—as was always esteem'd to have â—een a most faithfull servant to God Almighty and then has â—een a high Priest of the true Church Moreover ti 's false that this book is not Canonical for Tradition and the Authority of the holy Catholick Church which is all the testimony we can produce to prove that any book of the whole Bible is canonical or the true word of God expressly affirms that this book is Canonical and consâ—quently the word of God as may â—e seen in InnoceÌ„t the first 's letter to Exuperius in St Cyprian's first book c. 3. in his book de Exâ—orâ—atioâ— Martyry c. 11. in St. Gregorie Nazianzens Oration de Machabaeis in St Ambrose's 2. book de Jacob c 10. 11. 12. in St. AugustiÌ„s 2. book against Gaudentâ—us Epistles c. 23 in his 2 book de Doc. Christ c. 8. in his 18. book of the City of God c. 36. and also in the 47 Chap. of the 3. Council of Carthage celebrated the year 397 whose very words are these Item placuit ut praeter scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numeri Deuteronomium Jesus nave Judicum Ruth Regâ—um libriquatuor Paralipâ—menon libri duo Job psalterium Davidicum Salomonis libri quinque libri duodecim Prophetarum Isaias Jeremia Ezechiel Daniel Tobias Judith Ester Esdrae libri duo Machabaâ—rum libri duo Novi autem Testamenti Evangeliorum libri quatuor Actuum Apostolorum liber vnus Pauli Apostoli Epistolae tredecim ejusdâ—m ad Hebraeos una Petri Apostoli duae JoaÌ„nis Apostoli tres Judae Apostoli una et Jacobi una Apocalipsis Joannis â—iber unus Whereby the reader may plainly see that my adversary can have no kind of tolerable reason to reject the books of Mâ—chabees more than any other book of the whole Bible Now let us heare those texts of the new Testament which speaks of Purgatory Mat. c 5. v. 2â— But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment whosoever shall say to his brother Racha shall be in daÌ„ger of CouÌ„cil but whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire Which text expressly declares the soul to be punish'd after leaviÌ„g this world for three several sinnes and that only for the last of them he shall suffer Eternal fire so that I mâ—y lawfully infer that there must be some other place wherin the souls are punish'd for the two other sinnes but that other place cannot be heaven as is evident neither is it hell as the text makes-out therefore it must be that place of teâ—poral Punishment which the holy Catholick Church commonly call's Purgatory Which may be confirm'd by the 2â— â—6 v. of the same Chap. where we read thus agree with your adversarâ— quickly whilâ—s you are in the way with him lest the adversary would deliver thee to the judge the judge deliver thee to the officer thou be cast in prâ—son verâ—ly I say unto thee thou shalâ— by nâ— means come ouâ— thence till thou hast payed the uttermost farthing Whereby the reader may see that the word of God confirms the premâ—sses by bidding us to make penance in this world lest we shu'd be sent to that prison out of which â—â— cannot go till we pay the last farthing that is to saâ— untill our souls will be purifi'd from all manner of â—innes as the following Fathers do expressly declare â—ertullian in his book de Anima c 17. S. Cyprian in his 4th book Epist 2 Origines hom 35 in Lucaâ— Eusebius Emiâ—senus homâ— de â—piphâ—ia St Ambrose expoundiÌ„g the 12. c of Luke St. Hierome on thee aforesaid text where he sayes the following words this is what St. Matthew declares you shall not go out of the prison till also the small sinâ— be punish'd Matt. c. 12 v. 32. and whosoever speakeâ—h a word against the son of maâ— iâ— shall be forgiven him but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neiâ—herâ—n the world to come Which words S Matthew wou'd â—ot have said If he haâ— not suppos'd that some siâ—â— will be foâ—given in the world to come We fiâ—d also the following words in St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians c 3 v. 15. â—f any manâ— wâ—râ—e shall be burnt he shall suffer cosse but hiâ—self shall be sav'd yet so as by fire By which words S. Paul clearly firms that some souls after leaving this world shall be purgâ—d and purifi'd by a temporal fire as the following Fathers do testifie St. Ambrose in his coâ—mentary on this text in his 20. ser on the â—18 psal Sâ— Hierome on the 4. Chap. of Amos St. Augustin on the 37. Psal S Gregorie in his 4. book of Dialogues c. 39. Now let us beare the holy Fathers very words S. Denis who has been St. Paul's Disciple in his book de Eccâ—es Hier c. 7. sayes thus Then the Venerable Bishops do draw near and perform the hoâ—y prayers over the dead beseechâ—ng the divine clemency to forgive the dead all the sinnes which he commitâ—d by his human weaknesse and to place hâ—â— in light and in the region of the living Terâ—ullian who liv'd in the year 230. in his book de Monogamia bids acâ—rtain womâ—n
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
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
peoples owne Devotion but in the time of the aforesaid solemnityes specifi'd by the council of Agatho all which may be confirm'd by St. Chrysostomes words who in his 3. Homily on Saint Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians complains that then the people were so undevout that tho' there was Masse daily celebrat'd yet none of them Communicated There are several other Authorityes that might be produc'd for the further proof of this point but to avoide tediousnesse J will conclude with the following passage 'T is not pertinent to the Essence of a Sacrifice the standers by or those for whom 't is offer'd to be partakers of it but Masse is a Sacrifice therefore 't is not pertinent to the essence of Masse the standers by or those for whom it 's offer'd to be partakers of it The major is evident out of the 6. 7. chap. of Leviticus where we read that the Priests of the old law were commanded to offer Sacrïfices that the standers by or any of those for whom they were offer'd did not take the least particle of them the minor also is evident out of the 9 thâ— canon of the Apostles and out of the 24 chap of the 3 Council of Cartage who sate in the year 397 and declar'd masse to be a lawfull sacrifice as for the consequence t is undenyable being the argument is in forme Chap. 2 Provâ—ng that the Communioâ— was admiÌ„nistred under one kind in thâ— Primitive Church The Authorityes which my adversary defies to be produc'd doe clearly make-out the ancient pratice of Receiving the Communion under one sole species in the Primitive Church therefore this doctrine was not first brought in by the present Chuch of Rome either in the 6 7 8 or 9 age the consequens is manifest as will appear hereafter As for the anticedent it may be prov'd by the example of Christ himselfâ— Luck c. 24 v 30. 35 where we read the following words It came to passe as he sate at meâ—t with them he tooke bread bless'd iâ— bâ—ake gave to them And they told whaâ— things were done in the way how he waâ— knowâ—n by them in breakiÌ„g of bread But there is no mention made of the cup no not in the whole Chapter St. Hierome in Paula's epitaph St. Augustin in his 3 book dâ— consensu Evangelistarum c 23 venerable Bede Thèophilactus and several others in the commentary of this chapter doâ— plainly affirmâ— that our saviouâ— gave then the blessed sacremenâ— to those two disciples moreoveâ— we read in the acts of the Apostles c 2 v 42 that the beliverâ— Continued stedfastly in the Apostleâ— Doctrine and fellowship in breakinâ— of bread and in prayers but wâ— see no kind of mention made oâ— the cup but rather a confirmation of the contrary as is manifest bâ— the 46 verse of the same Chapter wherefore I may lawfully iÌ„feâ— that our Saviour Jesus Christ did not oblige all the belivers to Communicate in both species otherwise certainly himself wou'd not be the first transgressor of his own law neither wou'd he promise everlasting life to those who wou'd receive the communion under the forme of bread as he did John c. 6 v 51 saying thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever where by we see plainly that everlasting life is promis'd to us for eating worthily that heavenly bread Now let us see did those of the primitive Church ever practice to give the communion in one sole species to prove which will produce the Authoritye and examples of those Fatherâ— who then liv'd Tertulian whâ— Liv'd thâ— year 230 in is boâ—â— of Oration c. 14 and in his book ad Uxorem c. 5. gives â—â— understand that it was then custom to carry the Eucharâ— home for private Communiâ—â— St. Ambrose who liv'd in the Century relates in his Oration â—â— Obitu Satyri that then the peopâ—â— were wont to keep the Eucharâ— about them and that his oâ—â— brother Satyras once in a shiâ—â—â—rak was miraculously Saâ—â— from being drown'd by the vâ—tue of the blessed Eucharâ— which was ty'd about his neâ—â— St. Basil who liv'd in the same Century expressly affirms in his Epist to Caesaria Patricia that it was a common practice to bring the Eucharist home to their houses and to receive it when they pleas'd which is a manifest sign that then the people did not alwayes receive the Communion in both species for those who tooke it under the forme of wine receiv'd it in the Church from the Priests or Deacons as St. Cyprian relates in his ser De lapsis and those who pleas'd to bring it home under the forme of bread for privat Communion were not hinder'd until by reason of several abuses which happen'd the Father of the Council of Caesaragust who sate the year 382 Can 3 prohibit'd it St. Denis who liv'd in the 2 〈…〉 in his book de Eceles 〈…〉 Chap affirâ—s that it was 〈…〉 custom to give the Communion to the children under the 〈◊〉 of wine and St. Cyprian who liv'd the year 250 in his sermon Delapsis makes mention of acertain child who receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine and also of three more who receiv'd it under one sole species St. Denis of Alexandria who has been St. Cyprians contemprory in his Epists to Tobias tells of a certain Priest who gave a particle of the consecrat'd host to aboy in order to bring it to serapion who waâ— desparate ill in his dying bead Paulinus who has been very familiar with St. Ambrose and present at his deah relates writing his life that he receiv'd the Communion only under the form of bread and St. Basil did the same as also we read in his Life which neither of them wou'd offer to do if they had believ'd it to be either agaiÌ„st the doctrine of the Church or the institution of Christ Sozomenus in his 8 book c 5 Nicepherus in his 13 Book c 7 writes of a certain womaÌ„ who was infected by the Macedonian heresie but thinking to conceal her wickedness and pretending before the people to be a Catholick she receiv'd the blessed Sacrement under the form of bread from the haÌ„d of St. Chrisostome which afterwards she gave privately to her maid thinking to eat in its sted other bread which shee brought from home but it seems that God Almighty was pleas'd to discover her prophane intention for that bread which she thought to eat was sudeÌ„dly turn'd into a stone before all the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ The Manichees who abhorr'd wine believing it to be the Devils gall never Communicated by only under the forme of bread as St. Leos 4 Ser in â—ent expressly testifies but Epiphanius St. Augustin several others who writt of the Manichean errors never mention'd that they err'd in Receiving the Communion in one sole species But I acknowledge that the Bishops of Italy about the year 444. did much Recommend the
mean time let us hear our Saviour's Promise to St. Peter Matt Chap 16. v 18 and I say also untâ— yoâ— that thou art Peter and upon this 〈◊〉 I will â—uild my Church and the Gates of Hâ—lâ— shall not prevail against it By which words our Saviour promis'd the Supream Goverment of the whole Church on Earth to St Peter as all the following Fathers and Doctorâ— do openly Declare Origines Homily 5 in Exoâ—um Tertullian in his book de Praescrip St Cyprian in his Epist to Quintus St Athanasius in his Epist to Felix St. Basil in his book against Eunomius St. Hilarius St. Hierome expounding the aforsaid text St. Chrysostome Hom 55. in Matt St. Cyrill of Alexandria in his 2 book c 1 in Ioann St Ambrose ser 47 and in his book de Isaac c. 3 St. Leo ser 11. of our Saviours Passion and in his 2 ser of St. Peter and St. Paul St Augustin in Psal Contra partem Donati and in his 2 book against Gaudentius Epistles c 23. which promise was effectually fullfil'd after Christ's Resurrection as all the aforsaid Fathers doe Testifie and it manifestly appears by our Saviour's own words Iohn c. 21 v. 15 16. 17 where we read that Christ Commanded St. Peter thrice consequently to feed the flock saying thus feed my Lambs feed my Lambs feed my Sheep which words doe plainly make-out that it was our Saviour's intention to appoint Peter the Supream head and chief pastor over all Christians under himself on earth which is further Confirm'd â—y the following Testimonies S. Denis the Areopagite cited by S Damascen ora 2. de dormitione Deiparae affirms that he and Timothy were both present at the blessed Vâ—rgin Marâ—'s death to be hold that body which gave tâ—e begining of life and that there was also present both fames and Peter the Supream and most anâ—â—ent top of Divines S Irenaeus who liv'd in the 2 Age in his 3 book c 3 says that all Churches round abouâ— ought to resort the Roman Chuâ—ch by reason of her more powâ—rfull Principality Tertullia who liv'd in the yeâ—â— 2â—â— in his booâ— call'â— Scorpiaâ—u◠〈◊〉 speaking to a heretick sayes thus so alâ—ho ' you thâ—â—k heaven to be still 〈◊〉 â—p remember tâ—e Lord to have lefâ— her it's â—eres with Pâ—ter and by Peter to the Church Origines who liv'd about the same time Hoâ— 5 in Exod sayes thus Obâ—â—rve what thâ— Loâ—d said to â—hat gâ—eat fâ—â—ndation of the Church and most solid â—ocâ— upon whom Christ built his Church And oâ— tâ—e 6 Chap. of S. Paul's Epist to the Rome he also sayes the folâ—owing whords when the câ—iâ—f charâ—â— of fâ—â—diÌ„g Christ s sheep was given to S. Peter and the Church foundâ—d upon him there was requâ—r'd of him tâ—e Confessâ—on of no vertue but of Charity S. Cyprian who also liv'd in the same Century Epist to Iulian sayes thus we hold Peter to â—e the hâ—â—d root of the Church Epist 5 he sayes the following words Peter upon whom the Church haâ—â— been buiâ—â— spoâ—e for all asweâ—iÌ„g in the Church's name sayâ—g â—â—nd to whom shall we go and in hiâ— 71. Epist he also saâ—es thus Peter whom thâ— Lorâ— first choes'd and upon whom he built his Church St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 3â—0 sayes ' heresie 51 that Christ choâ—s'd Peter first in order to maâ—â— him the Captaine of his Disciplâ—s and heresie 5â— â—e calls St. Peter the â—riâ— of the Apostles St. Ambrose who also liv'd about that same time in his Commentary on St. Paul's Epist to the Gala c. 1 speaking of St. Paul sayes thus Iâ— was â—it that he long'd for to see Peter who was the chiefest of the Apostleâ— to whom our Saviour intrusted the care of all the Churches and also in his Commentary on St Paul's 2. Epist to the Corin c 12 he says Andrew firâ—t fâ—llowâ—â—â—ur Saviour yet Andrew Receiv'd not the sâ—premacy but Peter Optatus who liv'd in the year 365. sayes thus in â—is 2. book against Perminian there is oâ—e chaiâ—â— and you darâ— not deny to â—now that the chaiâ—â— was first bestowed vnto Peter in the City of Rome where Peter the head fâ—ll the Apostles continued S. Basil who also liv'd in the â—ame age in his ser de Iudicio dei calls Peter that blessed one who was prefer'd before the rest of the Apostles â—usebius Emissenus who also liv d about the same time in his ser de nativi St. Joan speaking of Christ says that he first comâ—itted his Lambs afterwards his sheep to Peter becâ—uâ—e he made him not only pastor but pâ—stor of pastors and Ecumenius who like wise then liv'd sayes the following words in his commentary on the 1. Cap. of the acts Not Iames but Peter rais'd up as being both morâ— fervent and also the president of the Disciples S. Cyrill of Ierusalem â—ho liv'd in the same Century Catech 2 sayes thus Peter the Prince and most excellent of all the Apostles St Hierome who liv'd in the year â—90 in his first book against the Pelagians c 14 calls Peter the Prince of the Apostles upon whom the Lord's Church has been built and also in his first book against Jovinian Cap. 14 he sayes That one of the twelve was choesen to be the head of the rest that the occâ—sion of sâ—hisme might be prevented St. Chrysostom who liv'd in the same time in his 2 Hom de paenit in Psal 50 calls St Peter the pillar of the Church the foundation of the faâ—th and the head of the Apostolical quâ—re and in his last Hom on Ioâ—n he sayes that the charge of the brothers that is to say of the Apostles of the whole whâ—â—ld was câ—mmited to Peter and also in his 55 hom on Matt he sayes that the pastor and heâ—d of the Chuâ—ch was oncâ— a poor fisherman Theodoretus who liv'd in the year 430. sayes thus in his Epist to Leo. Paul that preacher of the truth and trumpet of the holy Ghost run'd to great Peter that he might bring his Sentence to those who indeavor d to establish the legals in Antioch S Augustin who liv'd in the same age in his 24 Ser de Temp â— casâ—'s Peter the governer of the Church And in his 68. Epist he calls him the head of the Apostles the gate keeper of heaâ—en c. in his last Treatise in Ioan he sayes thus whom Peter by reason of the Supremacy of his Apostle-ship c. S. Leo who liv'd in the year 440 in his 3 ser de Aslump sua ad Ponâ—iâ— sayes the following words out of the wholâ— world one Peter â—is choâ—sen who is prefer'd before all people and before the Apostles and before all the fathers of the Church and altho' among the people of God theâ— be many Priests and many pastors yeâ— Peter particularly governs them all and Christ governs them principaly S Gregory in his 4. â—ook 32. E. pist which is to Mauritius the Emperor sayes that it was maâ—ifesâ— to all that knew
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
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
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
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
the other not Now letus héare the holy Fathers Authorityes and the practice of the Primitive Church St Ireâ—aeusâ— who liv'd in the 2 Century in his 5th book against hereses sayes thus and as Eve was seduc'd that the might avoid God even so maâ—y was advis'd to obey God that she might become Eves advocate Origines who liv'd in the 3 Century in his first homily on Ezech sayes thus come Angel and receive the converted from the former error from the devilish Doctrine call the rest of your compaâ—ions that ye may together instâ—uct in the faith all those who formerly has â—een deceiv'd more of Origen's Authorityes may be seen hom 3. in Diversa Loca Novi Tâ—estamenti hom 16. in â—osue and hom 26 in Nume Cornelius who liv'd in the same century in his first Epist sayes thus we are Praying God our Lord Jesus Christ that by the intercessions of his own holy Apostles he may purge out the blemishes of your sinnes St. Cyprian who also liv'd in the 3. Century in his book de Disiplina et Habitu Virginum speaking to the Virgins sayes thus peform spiritually come prosperously and be mindfull of us Eusebius Caes who liv'd the year 326. in his 13. book de Evang. Praep. c. 7. sayes we â—ouldiers of true pieâ—y do daily practise these thing honouring the friend s of God praying to them by whose intercession to God we do freely acknowledge to be much favour'd S. Athansius wâ—o liv'd in the same Century in his ser in Evangelium speaking of the blessed Virgin Mary sayes the following words incline they hearing to our prayers and do not forget they people we cry to thee be mindfull of us most holy Virgin who also after your delivery contâ—nu'd a Virgin Lady Mistress and Queen and Mother of God intercede for us St Hilarius who liv'd the year 355. in psal â— 9 sayes that the nature of God dose not want the intercession of Angels God being ignorant of nothiÌ„g that we do but our own weakness wants it he has such another Authority speaking of the Apostles and Prophets intercession expounding the 124. Psalm St. Basil who liv'd in the same age in his Oration of the 40. Martyâ—es sayes thus whosoever is oppress'â— with trouble let him sly for refuge tâ— these martyres that he may be ridd oâ— his troubles and whosoever rejoyces let him Pray to them â—hat he â—ay continue in his prosperityes And in his 205. Epist which is to Julian after specifying several points of faith which himself beliv'd he sayes the following words and I do embrace the holy Apostles Prophets and invocate them in my supplication to God that by their intercession he might be mercyfull to me S. Cyrill of Jerusalem who liv'd about the same time Catech. 5. sayes thus when we offer this sacrifice we also make mention of those who dâ—'d before us first of the Patriarchs Prophets Apostles and Martyres that God may receive our prayer by their intercession S. Ephraem who also liv'd in the same Century in his ser de Laudibus Martyrum sayes the following words we beseech ye most holy Martyres who for the sake of the Lord readily and willingly suffer'd torments for which ye are all now most faâ—â—liar with God that ye may be pleas'd to intercede to the Lord for us poor sinners that the grace of Christ might light upon us St. Gregorie Nazianzen who liv'd the year 370 in his Oration speaking to S. Athanasius after his death sayes thus and look upon us favorably from alove and govern this holy people nuâ—ish and feed us in peace direct and take us up in the battel and place us with your self and with those who are in the same condâ—tion with you he implores also St. Cyprian St. Basil's assistance in his Orà tions of them after their death St. Ambrose who liv'd the same time sayes the following words the Angeâ—s who are employ'd to asist us ought to be pray'd to and the Marâ—yres they can intercedâ— for our sins who with their proper blood wash'd a way if they had any sins let â—s not be asham'd to apply them a intercessors of our weakness More of this holy Doctors Authority may be seen in his 2. book de Virg. in his 10 book in Lucam expounding the 21. â— and in his Preparation before mass where he begs the assistance and intercession of the Apostles Martyres CoÌ„fessors S. Gregorie Nysen who liv'd the year 380 in his Oration of St. Theodâ—r Mâ—râ—yer sayes thus we stand iâ—â—â—ed oâ— great favours intâ—rcâ—de aâ—d pâ—ay eaâ—nâ—stly to the â—niversal Kiâ—◠〈◊〉 Lord for the Counâ—ey for we 〈…〉 â—e exâ—â—ct dangers the wicked Sâ—ithioâ—s are â—t far oâ— dâ—clariâ—g war against â—s 〈◊〉 for us as a Souâ—dier as a marâ—yer â—se the liberty of 〈◊〉 for your fellow â—rvant altho' you haâ—e â—eâ—s the world 〈◊〉 you knâ—w thâ— disposition interest â—â—d 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 nâ—ture beg 〈◊〉 that these â—ublick assemblyes â—ay not give over 〈◊〉 the â—urious wiâ—â—ed and â—orbâ—rous 〈◊〉 woâ—'d â—aise agaiÌ„st us and assâ—â—ls our Churchâ—â— and Altars but if it be requisite â—â— have more assistance and prayers gather your consorts the Martyres and pray along with them for the prayers oâ— many righteous doth wash away the 〈◊〉 of many admonish Peter move Paul and John thâ—t beloved Disciple thaâ— they may take care of those Churches for whose sake they endur'd chains suffer'd dangers and death S. Hierome who liv'd the year 390 in his OratioÌ„ on Paula sayes thus â—earwel O Paula and help with your prayers thy worshipper in his old age foâ— you who is present will more easily obtain what you demand S. Chrisostome who also liv'd the same time in his 45. homily speaking of St. Meletuis sayes thus therefore let us all together men and women both young and old pray to holy Miletius c. In his ser speaking of the blessed Lady he sayes the followiÌ„g words â—t us recurr to the most holy Virgin Mary Mother of God that by her interâ—â—ssion â—e may obtain our request we beseech â—â—ee to intercede for us daily to our Lord Jesus Christ thy own son that â—y thee thro' his grace and benignity â—e may be pardon'd in his 66. hom to the people of Antioch he sayes thus he who gose in his purple â—d royal crown laying by his pride â—raws near the Saints sepulchres humbly beseeching them to intercede for him â— God c. More of St. Chrysostoms Authorityes may be seen in his 5th hom in Matt. in his ser de Juventio and Maximio and in his first hom on St. Paul's first Epist â—o the Thessalonians where he Numbers several benefitâ— graÌ„ted by the Saints intercession thro' their merits S. Augustin who liv'd the year 4â—0 in his 7 book against the Donaâ—â—sts 〈◊〉 speaking of St. Cyprian sayes the â—ollowing words we beseech him to aâ—â—â—â—â— us with his prayers c. in his 84. Treatise in John he sayes that it was therefore they did not pray
purging fire or eternal punishment in his book de Cura pro Mortuis e. 1. he sayes the â—ollowing words we read in the Machabees that sacrifice has been offer'd for the dead but altho' it wou'd never be read in the old Testament yet the Authority of the whoâ—e Church which is manifest in this custom is not weaks where in the priests prayers which are offer'd to God at his Altar the commemoration for the dead has also it's one place and in the 4 c of the same book he sayes thus supplications for the souls of the dead ought not to be omttted which are to be made for all those who dy'd in the Châ—istiaâ— and Catholick society tho' their names be nâ—t specifi'd the Church receives it vnder a Generalâ—â—mmemoration that it might be offer'd by the holy publick mother for them even as for those who has not parents oy children relation or friends to remember them and in the 18. c. â—speaking of the sacrifices prayers and alms which are offer'd for the dead he sayes the folloâ—ing words they do not avaiâ— to all those for whom they are offer'd but only to those who deserv'd it when they liv'd but because we can not discern who are those it must needs be offer'd for all Christians in his 9th book of Confession c. 13. he earnestly beseeches others to pray for the soul of his mother Monica and in his book of heresie c. 53. he calls Aerius a heretick for not allowing sacrifice to be offer'd for the dead more of his Authority may be seen in my answer to the first point Now let us heare the Councilâ— decrees It was enacted in the 29 Chap. of the 3. Council of Carthage the year 397. that the holy sacrament shu'd not be receiv'd by any but by those who wou'd be fasting and in case that there wou'd be any office to be perform'd in the afternoon for the dead that it shu'd be only perform'd in prayers without offering the holy sacrifice It was also decreed in the 47. â—hap of the 4. Council of Carthage celebrated the year 398 that in prayers and oblations there shu'd be a commemoration made of those who accidentally would dye in their Journey or by sea Jf they executed attentively the law of penance Likewise it was enacted in the 34 chap of the first Council of Bracara now call'd Braga a City in Portugal the year 412. not to pray for the souls of those who wou'd kill themselves and in the 39 chap. of the same Council the clergy where commanded to divide the ablations which wou'd be offer'd amongh themselves that equaly they might be oblig'd to pray for the dead It was also decreed in the Council of Cavaillon a town in France the year 4â—0 that they shu'd pray in their solemn Masses for the souls of the dead c. 16. which may be seen de Consee Dist 1. Can. Visum est and the same was practis'd before in France as is evident by the 6. Canon of the Council of Vasens produc'd in my answer to the first point But that I may not be too tedious in proving the minor I shall conclude with the following revelations St. Gregorie relates in his 4th book of Dialogues â— 40 that the soul of Paschasius appear'd to the holy Bishop St Germaâ—â—â—s and â—ould him that God was pleas'd to release himself ouâ— of Purgatory by his prayers he also relates c. 55 that the soul of a certain monke appear'd to himself and â—ould him that it â—as releas'd by the vertue of thirty masâ—es which he order'd to be said for him St. Gregorie the bishop of Tours in his book de Gloria Confesâ—orum c 5. affirms that the soul of Vitulina appear'd to St Martin and â—ould him that it suffer'd the punishment of Purgatory by reason of a smal siâ—ne which she commited ted in this life Venerable Bede in his 5. book of the Historie of EnglaÌ„d c 13 relates that terrible vision of Driethelme who after his death reviv'd and tould wonderfull things concerning hell Purgatory and Paradise Petrus Damianus in his â—pist to Desiderius relates that the soul of Severinus the Bishop of Coliein appear'd to a certain Priest and tould that he sufferd in purgatory because when he was a live he did not use to say his canonical hours in distinct times but said all in the morning that he might spend the whole day attending temporal affairs also St. Bernard writing the life of St. Malachias relates that his Sisters soul appear'd to St. Malachias and tould him that it suffer'd the pains of Purgatory and Gulâ—â—â—â—us Abbas wâ—iâ—iÌ„g the life of St. Bernard in his first book c. 10 sayes that one of St. Bernards monks â—ho dy'd appear'd to St Bernard and tould him that he was relâ—ast out of purgatory by his prayers It is also to be seen in the life of St Anselmus that he was for a â—â—ole twelve-mouÌ„th offering sacrifices for the releasment of a certain friends soul who was punish'd in Purgatory but was releast thro' the merits of God and by his continual prayers several other revelations might be produc'd which for brevity sake â— omit to inseâ—â— here for I suppose what I have already produc d to have evidently made out the verity of my minor and also to have fully satisfi'd the reader Chap 11 Proving that all those of the Primitive Church had not the word of God in their Mother toâ—gue and that the reading thereof is not profitable or generaâ—ly allowed to all people There were severall nations in the first five centuryes who did not generally understand either the Syriack Hebrew Greeck or Latin Toâ—gue therefore there were several nations in the first five centuryes who had not the word of God in their own tongue the antecedent is evident Acts Cap 2. as may be seen in my answer to the adversary's 3. point And â— prove the consequence thus the word of God was neither written or translated into any other language in the first five Câ—nturyes but only in the aforesaid as all ancient writters do unanimously affirm therefore there were several natâ—ons in the first five Centuryes who had not the word of God in their own tongue who conseqently cou'd not reaâ— the Scripture nav those who cou'd understand some of these languages had no General accesse to the reading thereof for in those times there were but few examplâ—s â—â— of it which were only in Manu-script for the art of Printing was not then found-out nor in a long tâ—me after researv'd by the Church as St Denis the Areâ—pagite declares in his book de Eccles. Hier. saying that the â—acred mysteries were keâ—pt secred from the commonality whereby it appears that it was then needlesse to prohibit them to read the scrpture whereas they were otherwise â—â—nder'd by the aforsaid impediments It also appears that the reading thereof in the Mother tongue is not necessary for all nations for if it were certainly those of the Primitive Church
of temporal punishments after this life as St Augustin heresie 33 and St. Epiphanius heresie â—5 do relate the Cerinthians held the same as St. Epiphanius writes heresie â—8 the Cerinthians errors were comdemn'd by the General Council of Ephese the year 431. as may be seen tomo 3. Conciliorum as for the Aâ—rians errors they have been condemn'd by all the following Councils viz by the Council of Alexandria the year 3 5. tomo 1. Conciliorum by the Councils of Rome which sate the year â—37 and the year 369. by the first General Council of Nice the year 325. the first General Council of Constantinople the year 381. and by the Council of A reminium which sate the year 359. all which Councils are to be seen tomo 2. Conciliorum their errors were also condemn'd by the General Council of Ephese the year 431 tom 3. Conciliorumâ— by the Council of Calcedon that sate the year 451 tom 4. Counciliorum and by the Fathers of the 2. Council of Constantinople the year 536. which may be seen tomo 5. Conciliorum Luther in his Epist to the Valdinians Calvin in his book of Institutions c. 5. taught also this last point of the Aerian heresie about Purgatory which now all their followers do firmly believe 6 The Novatians believ'd that confirmation was no sacrament as Theodoretus in his 3 book de Haere Fab. writes the Donatists believ'd the same as Optatus in his 2 book against Perminian relates Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. dâ— Confirmatione and Calvin in his 4th book of Institutions c. 19 did embrace teach the same heresie 7 The Novatians held that the Church had no power to forgive sins committed after Baptism consequently they did not allow auricular confession or that the Church cu'd grant Indulgence as all the following Fathers do write St Cyprian in his 57. Epist to Pope Cornelius St. Epiphanius heresie 59 St Augustin heresie 38 and Theodoretus in his 3 book de haereticis fabulis the Novations errors have been condemn'd by the Council of Carthage the year 252. by the Council of Rome the year 253. by the Council of Italy the same year by the Council of Arles the year 452. as may be seen â—omo 1. and 4. Conciliorum Luther in his book of the Capitivity of Babylon Cap. de extrema unctione Calvin in his 4. book of Institutions c. 19 held also this point of the Novatian heresie 8 The Donatists gave out that the Catholick Church fell from the true faith of Jesus Christ and that themselves were renewing it again in Africk as Optatus in his 1. 2. 6. book against the Donatists and St. Augustin heresie 69. and in his book de vnitate Ecclesiae c. 12. do relate Luther in his discourse tomo 2. cap. de partibus and Calvin in his 4th book c. 2. likewise gave-out that the holy Catholick Church fell visibly from the true faith and that themselves were reviving it again 〈◊〉 therefore they their followers are call'd reformers 9 The Donatists held that the holy Eucharist ought not to be ador'd they brake-down the Altars and gave the blessed sacrament to their dogs as Optatus in his 2. 6 book against Perminian and St. Augustin in his 2. book against Petilian c. 51. 60. in his 3 â—â— book c. 40. and also in his 163 Epist do relate Luther in his book de Eucharistia ad Waldenses and Calvin de vitand is superstiâ—ionibus held likewise that the holy Eucharist ought not to be ador'd 10 The Donaâ—ists deny'd the Pope of Romes sâ—premacy â—s Opatus and St. Augustin do declare in the aforsaid books Luther in his book de potestate Papae and assertione articuli 25. and Calvin in his 4th book of Institutions c. 6. deny'd the same 11 The Donatists reprov'd the life and vows of monks and religious people as also Optatus St. Augustin write in the aforesaid books Vigilantius and Petilianus reprov'd the same as St. Hierome in his book against Vigilantius and St. Augustin in his 3. book c 40 against Petilianus do affirmâ— but the Donatists errors were declar'd to be false erronious Doctrines by the Council of Rome the year 313. by the Councils which sate in Africk in the time of Jâ—nocentius the first being the begining of the 5. Century and by several other Councils Martiâ— Luther writing of the monastical vows held also this last point of the Donatists hereâ—e that he might have some kind of pretence to dispence with himself in his three religious â—ows merrie Cathrine the Nun whom he deluded out of her monastery our Saviour Iesus Christ most strictly commands us to be ware of the doctrine of such false Prophets and he tells us that we shall know them by their fruits here are his very words Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheâ—ps clothing but in wardly they are ruvening wolves ye shall know them by their â—ruits do men â—ather grapes of thorns or â—igs of thistles even so every good tree bringâ—th forth good fruit but a bad â—ree bâ—â—ngeth forâ—h evil fruit Matt c. 7. v. 15. 16. 17. 12 The Eustachians endeavor'd to demolish and extirpate the Ecclesiastical convents as socrates in his 2 book c. â—3 and sozomenus in his 3. book c. 13 do relate the Eustachians errors have been condemn'd by the Fathers of the Council of Gangris which saâ—e the year 324. Luther anâ— Calvins Disciples did embrace this Eustachian error for they threw-down all the convents and monastarves of those Countryes and Provinces wherein they made any conquest 13 All the following hereâ—icks rejected matrimony denâ—'d it to be a Sacrament as these Fathers do write of their heresie Simon Magus as St Augustin in his book â—e hereâ—ibus c 1. Nicolaites as â—t Epiphanius heresie 25 Titiaâ—us as St. Irenaeus in his first book â—â— 31 Adâ—miani as St. Augustin â—eresie 31 the Manicheans as St. Augustin heresie 46 the â—ustaâ—hians as socrates in his 2. book â— 33. Marcian as St Hierome in â—is first book against Jovinianus and the Prisillanists as St Leos â—â— Epist dâ—clares the Prisillanists errors were condemn'd by all the following Councils viz by the Council of Caesaragust the year â—8â— by the Council of Toleto the year 400 the Council â—f Burdeaux the â—ear 385. and by the Council of Spaine in the year 447 which CouÌ„cils are to be seen â—omo 2 â— Conciâ—â—orum Luther in his book de captivitate cap de matrimoniâ— Calvin in his 4 book of Institutions c 19. held also that matrimony is no sacrament 14 Iovinianus held that there are no venial sins but that all sins are mortal as St. Hierome relates in his 2 book c 15 16. against Jovinianus and also St. Augustin heresie 28 the Pelagians were of the same opinion as St. Hierome writes in his 2 book against them Jovinianus's errors were condemn'd by the Fathers of the Council of Milan which â—ate
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—
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
to pray and give offerings for the soul of her deâ—â—ased husband Origenes who liv'd in the year 220. hoâ— 6 on Exod. speaking of the soul's progresse when it comes to Purgatory sayes the following words and when it is arâ—â—slâ—d there 〈…〉 willbriÌ„g many good worâ—s aâ—d alâ—â—tle iniquity that 〈◊〉 is purg'd and disolv'd even as lead is by â—â—re St. Athanasius who liv'd in the 4 age in his 34. Question to Antâ—â—chus speaking of the Prayerâ— and oblaâ—ions offer'd for the dead sayes thus If they wouâ—d â—ot receive some benefit by this certainly there wou'd be â—â—no commemorat on made in grief â—orrâ—â— and â—nerals we know the â—oâ—ls â— sinners to receive somâ— bâ—â—efit by the â—â— bloody sacriâ—iâ—e by the graâ—ific â—iâ—â— offer'd for them â—s our Lord who hâ—â— the dominion of both the quâ—ck aâ—â— the dead â—rdeâ—'d and commanded Sâ— Cyrill of Ierusaâ—em who liv'd iâ— the same age Catech. Myst â— sayes the following worâ—is we â—â— pray fâ—r all â—hose who dy'd amongâ—â— us believing the oblâ—tion of the holy terrible sacrifice to be a gâ—eat help to those souls for whom it is offer'd St. Ephrem who liv d the â—ame time in his laâ—t will earnestly be â—eches the people to be alwayes mindfull of himâ—elf in their Prayers St. Baâ—il who also theÌ„ liv'd instituted an Oration in his Liturgie in order to â—e said for the dead and on the 9. â—â—p of Isaiah he sayes thus there â—â— if we wâ—â—l discover the sinne by â—infession we shall drâ—â— even aâ— the â—â—y which is eaâ—eâ— and it is â—â—t that â—urrasory fire soâ—uld make anâ— eâ—d of 〈◊〉 â—dose not treaten peâ—pâ—tuaâ— death â—â—d exile but it grants purginâ— a corâ—ng to that of the Apostle buâ— hâ—mâ—elf shall be sav'd yeâ— so as bâ— fâ—re Gregorie NaZâ—anzâ—n who livâ—d the year â—70 in his Funeral Oraâ—tion of Caesâ—rius most humbly beseecheâ— the Câ—ristians to pray for the souâ—s of the dead and himself prayes for the soul of Caeâ—arius in the same Oration St. â—pâ—phanius who as been conâ—emporary to St Gregorie in thâ— end of his â—ork against Heresis â— numbers the prayers for the dead amongst thâ— doctrine of the holy Catholicâ— Church and Heresie 75. he callâ— Aerius an heretick for denying it to be â—awfull to pray for the deâ— ad St. Ambrose who also liv'd about the same time in his 2 booâ— Epist 8. which is to Faustus concerning his sisters death sayeâ— thus therefore I do judge that she iâ— not as much to be moan'd as she iâ— to be oblig'd bâ— prayers neither is sâ—â— to he griev'd by your tears but rathâ— hâ—r soul is to be recommended to Gâ—â— by â—blations in his Oratiâ—s of The odosius ValeÌ„tinianus Satyrus death he prays most fervently â—o their souls promisses to offer sacrifices for them And expoundâ— the 3 Chap. of St. Paul's Epist â— â—orinthians he sayes the folloâ—ing words but whâ—n â—aul sayes â—so as by fâ—re indeed â—e decâ—ares it he shall be sav'd but he will sufâ—r the punishmeâ—t of fire that he may â—purg'd bâ—â—ire and maâ—e sound and musâ— not be tortur'd perpetually by â—nal fire aâ— the traitouâ—s â—re he has â—ch a nother passage in his 20th â—â— in psal â—â—8 St. Gregorie Nysâ—n who liv'd the year 380 in is Oration of the dead sayes â—us wherefore that both the digniâ—â— of human nature and free will miâ—ht left and that the evil might cease â—ivine wâ—sdom invented this means â—t either in this pesent life one must â— purg'd by prayers and exercise of â—rtue or after his death to be cleaâ—s'd the forâ—ace of purging fire he cannot be capâ—ble to enjoye Câ—d unleâ—â— Puâ—gatory fire will take away the spiâ—â— dispeâ—s'd on the soul St Hieromâ— who liv'd in the year 390. in hiâ—â—pist to Pammachus concerning â— the death of Paulina sayes thus other husbaâ—ds dospread violets roseâ— lilyes and flowers â—pon the toâ—bs 〈◊〉 their wifes but our Poâ—machus â—â— uses the balâ—om of almsâ— knowing 〈◊〉 to be written that as water quenchetâ— fire even so alms quencheth the sinnâ—s and expounding the 4. chap. of Amos he also sayes thus according to thaâ— whiâ—h we read in St Paul heâ— shall be sav'd yet so as by fire therefore he â—ho is sav'd by fâ—re is hurry'd away as if â—â— were a fire-brand out of the buâ—niâ—g slame St Chrisostoâ—e who liv'd in the year 398 hom 41 on St â—uls first Epist to the Corinthiâ—s speaking of the dead sayes â—e following words lâ—t us assâ—st â—um not with tears but with prayers â—â— supplicaâ—ions alms and oblations â— these things has not been rashly vâ—nted neither is it in vain that we â—â—ember those wâ—ody'd in the diviâ—â— Mysteries and that we pray for â—â—m beseâ—ehing the expos'd lambe â—ho takes away the sinnes of the world â—at thence forth they might have some â—â—solation therefore let us help â—â—m and let us perâ—orm their commeâ—nation for if â—obs sacrâ—fice made saâ—sfaction for his â—ons what do you â—â—ubt if thoâ—e who dyâ— haâ— some â—â—solation we effeâ—ing sacrifice for â—â—m More of St. Chrisâ—stom 's Authority may be seen in my answer to the first point and in his â— hom in Ioann 2â— in act a Aposâ— St Augustin who liv'd in thâ— year 426. in his 21. book of thâ— Câ—ty of God c. 27 sayes that theâ—â— are some Saints who aâ—ter theiâ— death gose straight to heaven anâ— afterwards can help othâ—rs anâ— that there are others of such a bad life who after their death are noâ— sav'd neither can they help others and finally that there are others who after their death cannot goâ— straight to heaven by the vertue of their own proper merits but that they can be reliev'd by the merits and good works of their friends and in the 16th chap of the same book speaking of the infants who immediatly dye after â—â—eir Baptism he sayes thus It is â—â—t only that Eternal punishment is â—â— prepar'd for them but neither shall â—â—ey suffer Purgatory torments and â—â— tâ—e 24 Chap. he puts a question â—quiriÌ„g why dose not the Churâ—h pray for those who dye withâ—ut repentance answers sayiÌ„g â—hus Ti 's because they are computed be of the divels party but the â—hurch faithfull's prayers are heard â—â— the behalâ— of others who did not â—have themselves so ill in this life â—ither did they deserve to go directly â—heaven In his bookâ— of Homil yes â—om 16. he sayes that those who â—â—s sinnes deserving temporal â—unishments shall go thro' purâ—â—tory fire according to that of â—â—ul he shall be sav'd as by fire And expounding the 37. psalm he sayes thus that â—ire is slighted because ti 's said he shall be sav'd ti 's sure but altho' he shall be sav'd by fire yet that fire is more grievous than any thing that a man can suffer in this life In his 2. book de Genesi c. 20 speaking of him who makes not good use of his life he sayes thus after this life he shall either suffer the