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
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
do the same but priÌ„cipally to the Gentiles as for Peter's being at Jerusalem several times it argues not that he remov'd his sea thither wheÌ„ he quitted Antioch as for example Mr. Boyle the Bishop of Down in IrelaÌ„d remov'd his sea from thence and sate in the three last Parlements in Dublin shall you therefore infer that it was to Dublin he remov'd his sea this consequence would not follow for he remov'd his sea to Clougher and so might Peter remove his from Autioch to Rome tho' he was present at these assemblies of the Apostles Elders at Jerusalem as for Peter's creation I say that he was created Bishop by Christ after hiâ— Resurrection even as Aron was instituted high Priest by God over the Israelites when he gave him in charge the whole Church as all the proofs which I have produc'd in my Answer to Mr JenniÌ„gs 4th point do plainly make-out if in case he had been made Bishop by the Apostles it would not prove that he was not their superior as appears in the case of our Saviour who was superior to S. John Baptist and the Iewes yet was Baptis'd by the one and circumcis'd by the others as in manifest Luke c. 2 â— Now to come to Whealys preposterous sort of calculation the reader will be pleas'd to take notice of the followiÌ„g discouâ—se whereby he may plainly see how S. Peter came to be Bishop of Antioch and Rome before the 19th year after our Saviour's Passion he stay'd about four years after in Judea he â—as at Jerusalâ—m beholding Christ's asecution according to that of the Acts c. 1. v. â— Paul gave him a visit the third year after his owne conversion Gala c. 1 v. 18. in the begining or the 5th year after our Saviour's Passion Peter went to Sâ—râ—â—a and fixâ—t his sea in Antioch where he remained seaven years but did not continue in the City all that time for he went now and then to the ajacent provinces and preach'd the Gospel there viz in Pontos Asia Capodocia c. about the end of the 7th year he return'd to Ierusalem being 11 years after our Saviour's Passion and was immediatly imprison'd by Herod Acts c. 12. v. 4. but was soone inlarg'd by an Angel as appears by the 7. 8. 9. v. of the same chap. the same year which was the second of the Impire of Claudius he came to Rome and fix't his sea there preach'd the Gospel to them for the space of seaven years after which time he was expell'd out of the City by Claudius and so were all the Jewes then in Italy Acts. c. 18. v. 2. after this expulsion which happen'd in the be giuing of the 19th year after our Lords Passion Peter went to Jerusalem when those of Antioch heard of his coming thither they sent Paul and Barnabas to him in order to decide a controversie risen amoÌ„g them about the circumcision which he did before the whole assembly as appears Acts. c. 15 v 10. he could not afterwards return to Rom e for the space of four years by which time Claudius the Improur dy'd so that the advers party 's foolish demoÌ„stratioÌ„ is grouÌ„dless appareÌ„tly false wherein he preteÌ„ds to prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome dureing the first 19. years after Christ's Passion because the scripture makes meÌ„tion of his being in Ierusalem four several times duriÌ„g that time as also his preaching the Gospel in Iudea Siria c. But if this had hinder'd Peter's being Bishop of Rome untill that 19th year Whealy may as well coÌ„clude that the Prince of Orange was not Crown'd in EnglaÌ„d from the year 1688. untill 1699. because that dureiÌ„g this time he was seen every year in IrelaÌ„d HollaÌ„d or Flanders as for his saying that the Second year of Nero's Impire is the 19th of the years assign'd of Peter's being Bishop of Rome it 's manifestly false for it is but the 1â—th year for as I have shew'd before Peter came first to Rome the secoÌ„d year of Claudius Impire who raign'd 13 years nine mounths 20 dayes so that eleaveÌ„ years of Clâ—uâ—iu's Impire with those 〈◊〉 and two years of Nero's do not make up fully 14 years before which time Paul never came to Rome as is evident Act c. 28. v. 14 but he write before then his Epist to the Romans in his Journey to Ierusalem and in the 16. c. he salutes many of the Romans and Jewes who were then Christians and converted by Peter before he was expell'd by Claudius where by it appears that Whealy is wholly a strenger not only to ancient Historyes but also to the very scripture by which he pre tends to prove his false Doctrine as for Paul's two years imprisonment in Rome under Nero and not makeing mention of Peter in his Epistles to the Golossians Timothy c. It proves not that Peter could not be then in Rome as for example it cannot be infer'd that Christ was not circumcis'd because S. Mathew makes noe mention of it that the star did not appear to the wise-men because Luke is silent in the matter that Christ was not born of a Virgin because Marke makes no mention of it so that it is to be admir'd how any maÌ„ of sence can offer to infer such an illegal consequeÌ„ce as if St. Paul had been oblig'd to specifie all Christians then in Rome or as if he had possitively affirm'd that not ChristiaÌ„ had beeÌ„ at Rome that time but only those that he names to explain these texts Colo c. 4. v. â—1 12. 2. Timoth. c. 4 v. 10. 11. c. on which Whealy insists the reader may observe that Pauls intent was to give an account of his owne domestick family to those to whom then he write who knew them before which is a most usual thing for commonly when people write to their well-wishers they salute them in their acquaintences name if they goe from one place to an other they give them an account of their removeal so that from first to last Whealy cannot make out that Peter was not Bishop of Rome from the second year of Claudius reign till he was crucifi'd in the same City with his head down wards by Nero the Empâ—our's orders 25 year after which Whealy might easily understand with-out any manner of confusion or incongruity out of the following Fathers and ancient writers viz S. Ignatius in his Epist to the Romans Eusebius in his 2 book c. 25. Egesippus in his 3. book c. 2. Origenes in his 3. on Geneses St. Athanasius in his Apology de fuga sua S. Chrysostome in his 32 hom on S. Paul's Epist to the Romans Tertullian in his book de Praescrip Lactantius in his â— book Divinarum Institutionum c. 21. St. Ambrose in his Oration against Auxenâ—iâ—s St. Hierome de Viris Illustribus St. Augustin in his fiâ—st book de Consensu Evangelist c. 10. St Maximus in his 5. ser de Natali Apostolorum Sulpitius in his
2 book of History Orosius in his 7th Eutropius also in his 7th book writing the life of Nero. Isidorus writing the life of St. Peter S. Leo in his first ser de Natali Apostolorum several other Fathers do testifie the same by which it manifestly appears that the Papists do agâ—ee among themselves about the time that St. Peter came to be Bishop of Rome for of all the Catholick writers there are only two who do not agree in this point viz Marianus Scotus who sayes that St. Peter came first to Rome in the fourth year of Claudius's reign and Onâ—â—phrius Panonius who sayes that he first fix't his sea in Rome before he came to Antioch and remov'd again from Antioch to Rome Whealy 's last argument when there was a dispute among the Apostles which of them should be counted greatest Luke c. 22. v. 24. our Saviour tould them v. 25. 26. the King of the Gentiles exercise Lordship over them but sayes he ye shall not be so but he that is greatest among you let him be as the younger and he that is chief as him that doth serve so that it seems Christ himself deny'd them any such supremacy and if Christ was in the right the Church now in communion with the sea of Rome is much in the wrong to exercise a jurisdiction which Christ himself Prohibited This argument proves what Whealy would willingly deny for these words greatest chief do plaiÌ„ly shew that there was one chief among the Apostles whom Christ commanded to be as their minister not obeying serveing them as servants doe but ruling governing them in humility Charity according to that of the Acts c. 20. v. 24. also to that of St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinth c. 11. v. 22. 23. this is the same title that the Popes of Rome give themselves in their buls patents for every one of them stiles himself thus servaÌ„t to the servants of God truely if these words would mean what Whealy pretends to prove they would plainly make-out that it is not oÌ„ly the Church of Rome but also the present Church of England exercises such a jurisdiction as he pretends to be prohibited by Christ for the Church of EnglaÌ„d allows of primates Bishops and several other Ecclesiastical dignitaryes perhaps this is what he would faine prove in order to run them down and make them all Presbyterians who do not allow of such dignitaryes not withstanding that St. Paul in his Epist to Timothy c. 3 v. 1. recomends the office of a Bishop as for that which Whealy adds saying that there was no such thing as suprematy heard of till about the year of Christ 196. 't is but some of his invèntions as may be seen in my Answer to Mr. Jennings fourth poiÌ„t wherein I have shew'd that St. Denis the Apostles Disciple calls S Peter the Supream c. and indeed if Whealy will not give better reasons and grounds for what he promises to prove in his followiÌ„g Almanacks than he has given in what he pretends to prove in this years Almanack he will shew but his owne ignoraÌ„ce presumption as he has done in what he write this year FINIS INDEX MAsses were said in the first five ages after Christs birth p. 20. The communion was given under one kind to the laâ—ty in the first five ages p. 38 Common prayers were said in a language not vulgarly vnderstood by all the hearers in the first five ages p 55 The Pope of Romes supremacy was acknowledg'd in the first five ages p. 68. The reall presence was believ'd in the first five ages p. 98. The holy Eucharist was ador'd in the first five ages p 125. Transuâ—statiation was believ'd in the first five ages p. 133. Images has been venerated in the first five ages p. 142. Saints were pray'd too in the first five ages p. 164. Purgatory was believ'd in the first five ages p. 188. All these of the first five ages had not the word of God in their maternal language p. 224. The reformers Doctrines are but a heap of old heresies lawfully condemn'd in the first five ages p 243 An Answer to what Whealy alleages against St Peters Supremacy at the later end p. 1. Errata PAge 8. 1. 13. r. prayers p. 13. l. 13. r. peaceable p. 16 l. 11. r. espous'd p. 30 l. 13 r. 64. p. 39. l 12. r. Luke p. 66. l. 5. r. Queen p. 85. l. 8 r. sayes p. 86. l. 16. r. relieve p. 109 l. 8. r. Num. l. 17. r life p. 1â—0 l. 4. r. the p. 118. l. 10. 151. l. 9. 172. l. 5. 173. l. 20. 174. l. 6. 175. l. 1â— 79. l. 12. 190. l. 16. 191 l. 4. 209. l 7. r. does p. 148. l. 3 r. things p. 76. l 18. r. a before preiudice p. 78. l. 14. r. souldiers p. 220. l. â— r. were p. 232. l. 4. r catechesed p. 237. l. 13. r. ruine these with â—ome other oversights which â—appen'd in the correction the â—ourteus reader is most humbly â—esir'd charitably to mend with â—is penn
nâ—r â—alf the Nations by them converted and it was also in the same languages those of the primitive Câ—urch had their own publick lâ—turgies afâ—er the Apostles death as all the following Fathers doe openly declare St â—iprian who liv'd in the 3 Century expounding the Lords Prayer affiâ—ms that then the publick liturgie was in Latin and St. Augustâ—â—â— in his bookde Dono peâ—â—eâ— chap 13 in his â— book de Doctâ—in Châ—istiana chap. 13 and also expounding the 123. Psal and in his 173. Epistle declares that all the western Churches had their Masse in Latin and St. Hierome 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 affirms that all the â—â—stern Churches had their Masse in Greek and vs'd St. Basils Greek liturgie but then the Latin and Greek were not the vulgar languages of all Nations for before those times there were several other languages as is manifest by the acts of the Apostleâ— Chap 2. V. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. where we read the following words and they were all fill'd with the holy Ghost and began to speake with other tongues as the spirit gave them utterance â—nd there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews devout men out of every Nation under heaven Now when this was nois'd abroad the multâ—â—ude came togeather and were confounded because that every man heaâ—d them speake in his own language and they were all amaz'd and marvell'd saying one to an other behold are not all these who speak Galileans and how hear we every man in our tongue wherein we were born Whereby it plainly appears that neither the Apostles or the Fathers of the Primitive Church ever judg'd it to be expedient or necessary to translate the publick liturgie into the mother tongue of every Nation nor consequently that it was Requisite that it shuld be immediatly and expressly understood by every one of the hearers for they knew too well that the end for which the publick liturgie has been first instituted does not require this for the drift which the Church had in appoinâ—ing liturgies is that thereby a continual tribute or homage of prayers and thanksgivings might be publickly offer'd to God by the Priest also that the Christians by their personal assistance at this publick service might unanimously exercise exterior acts of Religion agreeiÌ„g With the whole Church represented by the Ecclesiastical meeting of every pious congregation moreover that every Christian by his presence at this service might consent to the publick Prayers and thanksgiving of the Church in order to be made partaker of the graces fruits and benefits which the Church commonly obtaines by its liturgies and publick oblation for when the Priest celebrats Masse or sayes any publck prayers belonging to it he offers them to God for the people present for the whole Church or for any other necessity of the people who are absent so that it matters not whether the people understands him or no because they have as much benefit by his prayers and oblation as if they had understood what he sayes for if they hear him not speaking aword they might be partakers of his prayers and intercession being God to whom they are offer'd hears and understands him for in Sacrifices Prayers and thanksgivings the Priest speaks not to the Congregation but to God according to that of St. Paul's first Epist to the Corinth c 14. v 2 which is Confirm'd by the following example when any man layes sick or in distress at home he sends to the Church to be pray'd for by the Priest and Congregation now shall we believe because he neither hears or understands the prayers offer'd for him that he obtains no benefit thereby no the Lord forbid for if so the Prayers of the Righteous wou'd avail nothing which is against that of St James c. 5. v. 15 16 and wâ—ich is more we wou'd never be the better for our Saviours intercession for us to his heavenly Father because we neither heare nor understand him or know when he interceds for us yet we Receive innumerable benefits by his intercession and also by the Priests intercession when he Celebrats Masse or sayes any other publick office or prayers institâ—ted by the Church for in this Common office he represents our Saviours place one earth and we are certain that the fervent Prayers of a Righteous man availeth much according to that of St. James c. â— v. 15. 16. whether we understand them or noâ— for their effects doe not depend of our intelligence but rather of the acceptation of God Almighty to whom they are offer'd But now â—o discover the folly of those who do uncharitably censure thâ— Church of Rome for having her Common Prayâ—rs in an unknown tongue let them know that there are many Millions of the said Church who doe understand it in Latin and those who doe not that they are so well instructed by the Câ—ergy that they know when to kneel when to stand when to Pray when to give thanks and when to do reverence and when not besides they have the most part of the Masse if not the whole in their English Italian French Dutch and Spanish prayer bookâ— which also was formerly in the Irish prayer books and would continue so still but that the pennaâ— lawes of that Kingdom in Qeen Elizabeth's raign prohibited any Irish Schooles which oblig'd them to use their Prayers in Latin and English exceptsome of the vulgar who were not able to alow their Children Schooling to learn either of them yet they have traditionaly from their Clergy and parents their prayers and other necessary instructions in Irish taught them by word of mouth and also that part of the Masse wherein they might have any doubt or scrouple So that it is not said in Latin by the Priest to the intent that the people might not understand him or to the intent that the flock might be keept in darkness as some of the pretended Reformers doe falsly reporte but to the intent that the holy Catholick Church in her Liturgies might vse one generall Common language wherein all Nations doe indisputably agree which is more practis'd than any other langauge by the whole world so that if one travâ—ls thro' all Europe he shall alwayes find the same liturgie us'd in all Catholick Churches which conformity is a manifest sign of good Goverment which is in the Church of Rome Chap 4 Proving the Pope of Rome's Supremacy in the Premitive Church Christ's promise to St. Peter and the charge which he committed unto him after his resurrection requires some châ—ef and Universal Pastor in the Church whom all the rest ought to obey but it was alwayes beliv'd in the Primitive Church St. Peter and his successor the Pope of Rome to have been that chief and Universal Pastor therefore it was alwayes believ'd in the Primitive Church St. Peter and his successor the Pope of Rome to have been the chief and Universal Pastor whom all the rest ought to obey the minor and consequence are manifest as shall appear hereafter In 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
the â—hosple the charge of the whâ—le Church to have been committâ—d by the â—ord to Peter the Prince of all the Apostle And the General Council of Calcedon wherein 630 Fatherâ— were assembled call'd action 3 S. Peter the Rock and pillar of the Church All which proofs do sufficiently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd and acknowledg'd by those of the Primitive Church St. Peter to have been instituted a supream pastor but the same charge still remains being the office of a pastor is an ordinary and a perpetual office and as long as there are sheep to be feed so long there ought to be a pastor to feed them which because St. Peter did not perform in his own person those many hundred years there must needs be some other lawfull successor to execute the office in his place for we see by daily experience many strifes and contentions to happen amonghst the flock in matters of faith and discipline who then shall appease reconcile them you will say the Bishops but how often doth differences of this sort araise and happen amonghst the Bishops themselfs perhaps you will answer that they ought to appeal to Primates and Patriarches but what if they be also at variance as Flavianus and Dioscorus Cyrill and Nestor were peradventure you may say that they ought to goe to temporal princes and civil Magistrates but t is not their part to ingage themselves in Ecclesiastical affairs and their factions may be more dangerous then any of the former to whom then shall the people appeal it will be said to a general Council but who shall summon who shall order or who shall direct and guide that assembly what if they decline from the true faith of Iesus Christ as the Council of Ariminium the second Council of Ephesiâ—â— ' and several other Schismatical Councils did who then shall Iudge their case who shall deside their dissentions unless some certain head be appointed by the divine providence of the holy Ghost whose decrees are infallible whose censures ought to be obey'd and in respect of whom St. Peter may be still said to performâ— his duty and feed the sheep intrusted to his charge as the premisses do plainly make-out Now let us see if those of the Primitive Church did belive and acknowledge the Popes of Rome successiuely from age to age since Peter's death to have been that Supream head of the Universal Church as St Peter was in hâ—s own time St. Irenous who liv'd in the year 180 in his 3 book Chap 3 sayes the following words The fouâ—ders of the Church deliver'd the Episcopaâ—y of over-seeing the Church to Linus and Anacletus succeeded Linus Clemens Anacletus Evaristus Clemens c. numbring all the rest of the Popes of Rome who govern'd the Church from St. Peter's time to that very instant St. Basil who liv'd in the 4 Century in his 52 Epist which is to St. Athanasius sayes thus It is convenient that we shu'd write to the Bishop of Rome that he might take notice of what is done here and produce his sentence and use his Authority in the case choese some sound men who can câ—rrect those stoburn and crosse people that are here with us and cancel what has been done by force ud violâ—nce in Ariminium St. Athauasius in his Ep written in the name of all the Bisâ—ops in Egypt to Marke Pope of Rome sayes the following words To the holy and Venerable Marke Pope of the Vniversal Church ruler of the holy Apostoâ—ical sea we desire by the Authority of your holy sea which is the Mother and hâ—ad of all Churches that we may know by the present legates what ought to be done for the recovery and correction of the faith full Orthodox foâ— being supported by your Authority and sâ—râ—nthn'd by your Prayers we can escape safe from the enemyes of God's Church and ours and be able to root-out those committed unto us such an other convincing Authority may be seen in St Athanasius's Epist to Felix and also in St Cyprian's Epistles to Cornelius Lucius and Stephen Popes of Rome St Hierome in his Epistle to Pope Damas sayes thus altho' your grandeâ—â— terrisies me yet yâ—â—r mildness invicts me I do crave from the Priest the victim of Salvation from the Pastor succoâ—r to a sheep I speake to the succâ—ssor of the fisher and disciple of the cross following none buâ— Christ I do joyne with your holynesse in communion that is to say with the chaier of Peter for I know the Church to have been built upon that Rocke whosover shall eat the â—amb out of this house is prophane St Crysostome in his first Epist to Pope Innocentius beseeches him to declare the proceedings of the Eastern Bishops void and of no effect and to punish with Ecclesiastical Censure the promoters of the discorde and in his 2 book de Sacerdotio Châ—p â—â— he syes the fallowing words speaking of Christ why did he sâ—ed his own blood certainly it was to purchase those sheep whose care he committed both to Peter and to Peter's succesors Theodoretus in his Epist to Pope Leo sayes thus I do expect the sentence of your Aposlolical sea and I humbly beseech and Pray your holynesse that your just and upright judgment may aâ—de me appealing to you and command mâ— to come before you in his Epist to Renatus he also sayes thus I beseech you to perswade the most holy Archbishop Leo to use his Apostolical Authority and command me to appear at your Council for that holy sea has the Goverment of all Churches thro' the whole world St Augustin in his 262 Epist which is to Pope Caeleâ—stinus sayes the following words I congratulate your merits that our Lord estabâ—ish'd you in that sea without any opposion of the people secondly I do inform your holynesse of what is committed near us here that not only by praying for us but also by advising and assisting us you may relâ—ef us I beseech you thro' the blood of Christ and remembrance of the Apostle Peters who admonish'd the chifest of the Christian people not to sufer these things to be done All which Authorityes do plainly make-out that the holy Fathers and Doctors of the primitive Church firmly believ'd and acknowledg'd the Popes of Rome to have been successively from age to age the Supteam head of the Universal Church on earth Which may be further confirm'd by the coÌ„tinual practice and consent of several Nations who in the primitive Church appeal'd to the Popes of Rome acknowledging each of them in his own time to have been Christ's Vicar-generall on earth As for exemple to whose high tribunal did Flavianus the Patriarch of Constantinople appeal from the â— Ephesian Councilâ— but to that of Leo Pope â— Rome as Liberatus in his breviate c 12. writes whose assistance diâ— Athanasius Bishop of Alexandrâ— depos'd by the Aerians imploreâ— but the assistance of Marke Feliâ— and Iulius Popes of Rome â— St. Athanasiu's own Epistles â— the
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
golden censer there was given unto him much incense that he shou'd offer it with the prayers of all Saints upon the golden Altar which was before the throne the smoake of the incense which came with the prayers of the Saints ascended up before God out of the Angels hands we read in the 2. book of the Maccabees c. 15. that Judas Machabeus had seen Onias the high Priest and Jeremiah the Prophet after their death interceding to God for the people of Israel and that this book is Canonical I will prove in my answer to the next point we read also in the 15 c. v. â— of Jeremiah that the Lord spoke unto him saying thus Tho' Moses and Samuel stood before me yet my minde cou'd not be towords this people cast them out of my sight and let thâ—â— go forth which words our Lorâ— wou'd not have said If Moses â— Samuel tho' dead were not woâ—â— to interced for the Jewes whiâ—â— may be confirm'd out of Exodâ— c. 32 v. 13. where we read thâ—â— Moses himself beg'd of the Lorâ— to shew his mercy to the peoplâ— for the sake of Abraham Isaac aâ—â— Israel his own servants for as Theodoret q. 67. on Exod sayeâ— Moses thinking himself so â—â— insufficient to pacifie the Lordâ— he sets down not only his oâ—â— promise but also the aforsaiâ— Patriarchs merits that the rebâ— the Lord might be more williâ—â— to have commisseration upon thâ— people and pardon them whicâ— then he did as is manifest by the 14 v. of the same chap. Moses also endeavour'd an other time to pacifie the Lord's fury thro' the aforsaid Patriarchs merits assistance as is evident out of Deut. c. 9. v. 27 wherre he sayes thus remember they servaÌ„ts Abraham Isaac and Jacob looke not unto the stoubbornness of this people nor to their wickedness nor to their sinne Was it not for the sake of Abraham tho' dead his son Isaac obtain'd several requests favours from the Lord Genesis c. 26. v. 3. 4 5. 24. wou'd not the Lord divide Salomon's Kindom give it to his servants If it had not been for the sake of David as may be seen ïn the 3 book of Kings c. 11. v. 11. 12. was it not for the sake of David Aby as obtain'd that his son Asa reign'd in Jerusalem as may be seen in the same book c. 15. v. 4. was it not also for the sake of David tho' dead the Lord sav'd the city of Jerusalem from being destroy'd by the Assyrians as is evident out of the 4th book of Kingâ— c. 19. v. 32 3â— â— 20. v. 6. when Salomon beg'd any great request from the Lord was not he wont to set down the merits of David that thereby he might the sooner obtain his request as may be seen in the 131. Psalm v. 1. 10. which is in the Protestant bible the 132. Psalm Now let the reader consider what a great happiness it is to have a faithfull friend and Patron in great honour and request with God almighty thro' whoâ—e merits and intercission one may obtain several benefits which otherwise wou'd not be granted as the premisses do evidently make-out for as God almighty was graciously pleas'd thro' the bountifullnesse of his infinite mercy to grant for the merits and intercession of these Patriarches who then were but in Limbo Patrum so many benefits and requests to those whom they protected in this world why also now in the law of grace wou'd not the same God most mercyfully grant us any lawfull request for the intercession and great merits of his holy Mother beloved Apostles faithfull Martyres and true Confessors who are in great honour and request residing with himself in â—eaven Especially being this dose not derogate to the honour of Christ as I will prove by the following passage If it be unlawfull to invocate Angel Saints either it is because they kâ—nown not what we say or because it wou'd derogate to the honour of Christ who is said to be the mediator betwen God man according to that of John in his first Epist c. 2. v. 1. not for the first as I have already shew'd and shall confirm it by the following examples We read in the 4th book of Kings c. 5. v. 26 that Eliâ—ha knew tho' abâ—eÌ„t Gehazie's Simonie and in the c 6th v. 12. that Elisha also knew what was said in the King of Syria's private Chamber in the 15th c. v. 10. of Luke that the Angels of God doth rejoyce at the conversion of a sinner which is the greatest secret that one can have yet it can be known to the Angels and also to the Saints in heaven either by a distinct revelation from the clear vision of God's essence or by the visioÌ„ of themselves as S. Gregorie in his 2. book of Dialogues c. 3. affirms saying thus what is it that there they know not where they know him who knowes all Neither dose it derogate to the honour of Christ for the Church of Rome certainly believes Christ to be the chief Mediator betwen God and man as St Paul affirms in his Epist to Timothy c. 2. v. 5. therefore she dose not allow to invocate Angels or Saints in order to obtain any request immediatly and directly from themsleves for she acknowledges that to be a folly consequently not to be in their power So that she only allows to beg of them to join their prayers intercessioÌ„ with those of the faithfull that thereby they might the sooner easier obtain from God their requests thro' the meriâ—â— and inâ—eâ—cession of Jesus Christ which is manifest out of St. Leo's 2 Oration de Jejunio and also by the publick Orations of the Church wherein she implores the intercession of Angels and Saints for she wou'd have them to be efficacious thro' the assistance and merits of Christ it is therefore they alwayes end with the following words Per Domiâ—um nostrum Jesum Christum Filiâ—m â—â—um qui tâ—cum vivit et regnaâ— in unitate spiritus sainti Deus per osnnia saecula saeâ—ulorum A men whereby the reader may plainly perceâ—ve that the invocations of Saints dose not derogate to the honour of Christ otherwise St Paul might be accus'd for beseeching the Romans Colossians Hebreâ—s Theslalonians to assist himself in his prayers and also to pray for him to God as is eâ—ident by St Paul's own Epistles to the Romans c 15 v. 30. to the Hebrews c. 13. v. 18. 19. to the Colossians c. 4. v. 3. in his first and sâ—cond to the Thessalonians c. 5 v. 25. c 3. v. 1 so that the Adversary must either Confess the invocation of Saints not to derâ—gate Christ's honour or else to condemn St Paul's Doctrine for I dâ—fie him ever to make-out that the intercession of those who live in this world is acceptable to God nâ—t the intercession of â—hose who are coÌ„firm'd in grace glory or that one is prejudice to Christ
wou'd translate it into several other languages and the Apostles who had the gift of all tongues Acts c. 2. wou'd not only write the new Testament in Greek Hebrew â—atin as they have done but also in other languages in which they preach'd the gospel through out the universal world accordiÌ„g â—o that of St. Paul to the Romans â— 10 v. 18. neither wou'd S. Paul write in Greeck but in Latin to the Romans whose vâ—lgar language was not the Greeck but the Latin tongue and St. Peter and St. James wou'd not write in Greeck their Epistles to the Jewes buâ— in the languages of those countryes wherein they were dispers'd which then have been the Iewes maternal languages and not the Greeck neither finally wou'd St. Iohn write his first Epist in Greeck to the Parthians whose maternal Language was not the Greeck but another distinct Language whereby it plainly appears that neither the Apostles or the Primitive Church ever believ'd that it was necessary for all nations to have the word of God in their own tongue Now let us see who are those that are oblig'd to expound read and interpret the word of God to thew which I will produce the followinâ— Authorityes St. Basil in his 25 Qvestion sayes that it is the superiors obligatioâ— that is to say the pastors to know and â—earn those things whiâ—h afterwards they ought to teach others but of others not 〈◊〉 know more then behoueth them and S. Augustin in his first book de moribus Ecclefie c. 1. puts the Question inquiring what man if judgment doth not understand that the exposiition of the scripture is to be ask'd of them who by their profession are Doctors of the Church which may be further confirm'd by the Eunâ—ch's example Acts c. 8. v. 30. 31 35 for when Philip ask'd him did he understand what he â—as reading out of Isaiah he answer'd saying how â—an I understand it except some man should guide me wherefore he desir'd Philip to sit with him in order to expound it to him which Philip willingly perform'd knowing that it was his obligation whereby it appears that the Eunâ—ch tho' a man of great Authority with Qeen Candace yet did not presume to interpret the scripture himself but ask'd thê meaning thereof from one of those who were appointed by God in order to instruct and teach others according to that of St. Paul to the Ephesians c. 4. v. 11 12 14 saying tâ—us and he gave some Apostles and some prophets and some Evangelists some pastors and teachers for the peâ—fectiâ—g oâ— the Saints for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the boâ—â— oâ— Christ tâ—at we hence forth may be no more children toss'd to and frâ— and carri'd about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cuning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive to prevent which danger St. Paul himselâ—â—â— his Epist to the Hebrewâ—â— 13 v. 17 expresly commands us to obey the pastors and to submit our selves to their judgments â—hom God imploy'd to rule us and watch over our souls for â—hich they must give an account for the want of which submission and due obedience to the lawfull Pastors and Doctors of the true Church ti 's aâ—â—â—st lamentable prospect to behold the miserable condition wherein those of Ireland England Scotland Holland c are ever since they unfortunatly by the aposâ—acy of Luther and Calvin in the 16 age have deserted their true and lawfull mother the Chuâ—â—at â—Rome which is as St. Augustâ—â— affirms in his first book of Symbol to the Cateched c. 6 the holy Church the only Church the true Church the Catholick Church that fights against all hereitcâ—s yet cannot be convine'd all hereâ—ies deserts heâ— even as usless twigs that are cut from the vine but she still remains in her root in her vine and in her charity which character the pretended reformers cannot give to any of their own new Conventicles who are alwayes in a continual confusion never agreeing among themselves for every different sect of them supports the tenets of it's own doctrine by some misinterpreted text of scripture even as those hereticks of the Primitive Church which is so inculeated in their brains that each of them is ready to sacrifice his life for the defence of his own particular Doctrine the Lutherans condemning the Calvinists the modern Prebyterians condemning the reform'd Church of England the Anaâ—aptists and Quakers despising all others in repect of their own purity some of them admiting all the books of scripture to be canonical others affirming part of it to be apocriphall some adding to their Bibles that which they suppose the Apostles either neglected or forgot others diminishing and taking away what in their opinion were first put-in over-plus which now a dayes they fiÌ„d disagreable to their own principles by reason of which alteration several of their Bibles do differ in many places which is to be admir'd for how durst they be so presumpâ—ious as â—e alter or corrupt it being he is curs'd who adds to or diminisheth the word of God Revelation c. 22. v. 18. 19. for since we are all certain that the first Bible which the holy Catholick Church receiv'd from the Apostles and us'd it for the space of 14. hundred and odâ— years after Christs birth was written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost what kind of any tolerable pretence can they have now after so many ages to alter and corrupt it whereas very often the alteriÌ„g of one letter changes the sense of a whole sentence much more wheÌ„ they alter words â—ay whole sentence as if what God ordain'd in the beginig had now need to be corrected by their wisdom to such presumptious people might be we apply'd the following words of Christ Matt. c 7. v. 6. give not that which is holy unto the dogs neither caâ—â—ye â—our pearlâ—s before swine lâ—st they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you So that it appears if those corrupters cou'd câ—oake â—y any pretention their ungodly design that they wou'd not leave one text in the whoâ—e scripture which they find disagreable to their own principles but what they woud a teror corrupt if in case any zelous Christian shu'd offer to diswade their followers from perusing it after that corruption they wou'd imprudently answer as they do now that if they shud be hinder'd from reading the word of God in their own tongue that they wou'd be keâ—pt in ignoraâ—ce and darkness as the Papists are so that as the serpent deceiv'd Eve perswading her to eat of the forbidden fruit that she might come to the knowledge of good and evil Gen. c. 3 even so the divel by his subâ—ility and ambussâ— deludes the poor ignorant people perswading them to read expound and interpret their corrupted Bibles and not to be beholding to the Church or pastrors who might deceive them in teaching that which wou'd be contrary to the word of God
use of the Chalice that the Manichees might be discover'd who lurking amoÌ„ghst the Catholicks alwayes Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of bread but never the Chalice whosoever then during that Heresie wou'd not at the publicke Communion of Easter Receive the Chalice was suspected to be a Manichean whereby the reader may plainly see that the Church has reason to forbid at one time what it permits at an other Christ having left unto it a dispensing power to alter all matters of indifferency in the discipline thereof as the time place and circumstances wou'd require which St Augustin in his 118 Epistle openly declares and it may be confirm'd by St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11 v. 34. but the Manichean heresie being smothered the Receiving of the â—ommunion under one kind was afterwards CommoÌ„ly practis'd in the Church as Hugo de sancto Victore who liv'd about the year 1130 relates in his book Now before I shall proceed further in my Answer let the reader observe those four points which Commonly have been in practice in the Primitive Church viz. that then the people wou'd bring the Eucharist home to their houses under the forme of bread for private Communion Secondly that the Communion was sent and given to the sick under the same forme Thirdly that infants children Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine only Fourthly that the Primitive Christians Receiv'd publickly in the Churches the Communion either under one or both species as they pleas'd untill the Fathers of the Council of Constance about the year 1414. order'd the layties to Receive in one sole species not decreeing that the ReceiviÌ„g thereof in both species was unlawfull or ever prohibited before by the Churâ—h but for several other weighty reasons of which I shall produce only two First that thereby they might supresse and smother the Heresie of certain Germans Bohemiâ—ns who then obstinatly deny'd thâ— integrety of the Sacrement to be contain'd in one sole species Secondly that for the future they might preveÌ„t several abuses prophanations which formerly happen'd when the Chalice was given to the laity who thro their weak zeal and cold Devotion permitted very offteÌ„ drops of the holy blood to be spilt as St. Chrys ostome in his first Epistleto Innocentius Eneas Silviusin his dialogue de utraque specie relateâ— which is against the subâ—ime Reverenâ—e due to this most excellâ—t Sacrament Wherefore it evidently appears that neither the Gâ—â—câ—aÌ„ or Latâ—nes ever believ'd that all which is written in the Gospel touching the Communion under two species is to be so universaly understood that it â—on prehends all Christians but that they alwayes suppos'd and believ'd from the very begining of Christianity that one sole speâ—â—es was sâ—fficient for a true lawfull Communion so that the Council of Constance did but follow the tradition and Doctrine of all precedent ages when it defin'd that the Communion under one sole species was as good and as sufficient as under both species and that those who wou'd Receive it under one kind wou'd neither contradict the institution of Christ or deprive themselves of the fruit of this holy Sacrament for whether we eat or whether we drink or whether we do both togeather we alwayes apply the same Death of Jesus Christ alwayes Receive the same substance of the blessed Sacrament and the same effecâ— of grace for the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are whoely and â—ntirly contain'd in everâ— drop of the blessed blood anâ— in every particle of the blesseâ— Host 〈◊〉 as well as he is coÌ„taiÌ„d the whole cup or in the whole Host or in both therefore let no bodie foolishly belive that more benefit is Receiv'd by taking the Communion in two species than in taking it in one alone for being that every drop of the blessed blood and every particle of the divided Host is a maine Ocean of spiritual Blessings many of them by the same moral action Receiv'd affords no more grace then one alone being that one alone contains the whole fountaine intirly therefore it appears that it was never our Saviours intention to oblige all Christians to Receive the Sacrament in both species for if this had been his intention he wou'd certainly institute iâ— in a materia more common to all nations as he did in the institution of the Sacrament of baptism knowing the wine to be so scarce in several parts of the world that the poor inhabitants tâ—ereof couâ—d but very seldom or perhaps never Receive the Communion for the want of wine therefore our Saviours intention was when he said Drinke â—e all of this â—o oblige the Discâ—ples who only then were present and also their successors wâ—o are the Priests that daâ—â—y offer this most holy Sacrifice under both species and when he said to his Disciples John c 6. v. 63. that the flesh profitteth nothing his meaning was that it profitteth nothing â—o believe his bodie to be only human flesh excluding the divine nature as the Jews beliv'd who deny'd Châ—ist to be the son of God Câ—ap 3 proviâ—g â—hat tâ—e Coâ—mâ—n Prayers were 〈…〉 genâ—â—ally undeâ—stood by all â—hose of the Prâ—mitive Chuâ—ch The holy scripture encouragâ—s us to pâ—ay tho' we â—â—deâ—stand â—oâ— what is said theâ—efâ—re â—â—is lawfull and expedient for us â—o prâ—y tho' we understâ—nd no◠〈…〉 is saâ—â— the anâ—â—cedent is manifest by Sâ— Paulâ— fiâ—st Epist to â—â—e Corâ—nthiâ—ns chap. â—4 v. â— wheâ—â—â—e sayes thu◠〈…〉 â—peaâ—eth â—n 〈◊〉 unknown tongâ—â— â—â—eakâ—â—h not 〈◊〉 men but unto God for no man understandeth him Nay some times the speaker did not understand what himself said for the gift of languages and the gift of interpreting languages are two distinct gifts as is evident by the 11. v. and did not alwayes meet togeather as may be seen by the 13. v. of the aforsaid chapter for there the Apostle exhorts him who speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret which is a sign that ordinarilâ— he cou'd not as is manifest by the 14. v where he sayes thus â—â— I pray in an unknown 〈…〉 spirit pâ—ayâ—eth but 〈◊〉 understâ—nâ—â—â—g is unfruitfull where 〈…〉 see that St. Paul 〈…〉 unâ—erstanding to be unfruitfull and not our prayers when we pray in an unknown tongue moreover you see that St Paul gives to understand that it is lawfull and not prohibited to pray in an unknown tongue Now let us prove the consequenâ—e what the Apostles did and practis'd is lawfull and expedient for us to practice but the Apostles publick liturgies have been in languages which were not Generally understood by all the nations they Converted therefore t is lawfull and expedient for our liturgies to be in a language not generally understood by all nations 〈◊〉 use them the major is evident and I shall prove the Minor â—he Apostles publick liturgies were all in Hebrew Greecâ— Syriack or Latine as is manifest by all Ancient writters which were not generally known languages to all