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
sayes thus It was not in vain the Apostles order'd that they shou'd be remember'd in the venerable and terribile mysteries for they knew this to be a relief and help to them for when all the people with open arms and the priests offer that dreadfull sacrifice full of veneration how shall we not pacific God praying for them he hath such an other Authority in his 41. Homily on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians and in his 7. Homily on his Epist to the Hebrews he sayes thus speaking of Christ we offer alwayes the same truely noe other but still the same therefore it is one sacrifice for this reason because he is offer'd in several places are they many Christs no not at all but one Christ in all places who is wholy and intirely here and there one boâ—â— in his 32. de Consubstantiali â—â— Sharply reprehend those who neglect to hear masse and in his 2â— Homily de baptismo he compare those who leave masse before thâ— last benediction to Judas who the Lords last supper departe before giving thanks More â—â— his Authorityes may be seen nâ— only in his liturgy but also iâ— several places manifestly proving the ancient practice of celebrating masses St. Augustin whâ— liv'd in the begining of the 5. century declares in his 9 book oâ— Confession c. 12. that there wâ— masse said for the soul of his own Mothâ— Monica her body being laid beside tâ— sepulchre In his 32 Ser de verb is Apostoli speaking of the dead he sayes the following words the prayers of the holy church the comfortable sacrifice and the alms which are offer'd for those spirits is not to be doubted that they are help'd by them for this hast been deliver'd by the Fathers which new the universal Church observes that those whodye in the communion of the body blood of Christy are remembr'd when the sacrifice is offer'd who doubts them to be favour'd for prayers are not in vain offer'd for them to God And in his Enchiridion c. 110. he also sayes that it is not to be deny'd that the soul of the dead are oâ—s'd when the holy sacrifice is offer'd for them In his 22. book of the city of God chap. 8. he relates that when Hesperious's couÌ„try house was troubl'd by malignant spirits thaâ— he desir'd one of his priests to go thither by the vertue of whose prayers the spirits might give over one of them went saith he and offer'd there the sacrifice of the body of Christ and afterwards the House was no more troul'd More of St. Augustins Authorityes may be seen in hiâ— 46. Epist in his book de cura promorcuis c. 18. in his book desancta virgin c. 45. in his first book de origine animae c. 9. 11 in his 84. treatise in JoaÌ„nem All which I omit to produce for breviti sake shall only insert that of venerable Bede who in his first book c 29 â—â—lates that St. Gregory had sent Priestly ornaments to St. Augustin the apostle of England and in his 4 book c â—2 he tells that when Jâ—ma was taken captive by the enemyes that he cou'd never bety'd by reason of several masses which his brother Tunna the monke said for his soul believing that he was kill'd in the battel and also in his 5 book c. 13. speaking of that terrible vision of Driethelme who after his death reviu'd and told wonderfull things concerning the pains of purgatory from which said venerable Bede Prayers alms fasts and celebrations of masses doe release many before the day of Judgment Now let us see the councils Authorityes It was decree'd in the 5 can of the council of Vasens atowne in France where 18 Bishops gather'd the year 442 that kyrie eleison shu'd be said in the masses throughout all the Churches of France as it was said long before in the East and in all Italy here are the councils very words quia tam in sede apostolica quam etiam per totas Orientis atque Italiae provincias dulcis et nimis salubris consuetudo in tromissa est ut kirieelcison cum grandi affectu accompuÌ„ctione dicatur placuit etiam ut in ominibus Ecclesiis nostris ista consuetudo sancta et ad matutinum et ad missas et ad vesperam deo propitiante intromittatur Likewise it was enacted in the 6 can of the same council that the following words holy holy holy shu'd be said iÌ„mornig masses iÌ„ the masses of lent and in those masses which were offer'd for the dead as it was accustom'd to be said in solemn Masses the words of the CouÌ„cil are these In omnibus missis sive matutinis sive quadragessimalibus sive in illisquae prodefunctorum commemorationibus siunt semper sanctus sauctus saÌ„ctus eo ordine quo ad missas publicas dici debeat quiatam dulcis et desiderabilis vox etiam die noctuque possit dici fastidium non potest generare et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen Domini Papae quicunque sedi apostolicae praefuerit in nostris Ecclesiis recitetur Which Authorieyes doe not only make out the ancient practice of celebreating Masses but also the Popes supremacy of which I shall treate in my answer to the 4 point In the mean time let us hear the Declarations of other old Councils concerning the present point We read in the 18 can of the council of Agato celebreated the year 506 that the seculars were then oblig'd to receive the CommunioÌ„ trice in the year viz at Christemas haster and Whitsuntide and in the 47 can of the same couÌ„cil t is expres'd that they were oblig'd to hear masse every sunday Which plainly makes out that in the primitive Church it was lawfull for the Priest to say masse tho' none else wou'd receive the Communion along with him to confirm which I shall produce the Authorityes of the two following Councils who sate above a thousand years agoe the fathers of the 12 council of Toleto can 5 sharply reprehend'd certain Priests for not receiving the Communion when they said Masses which is asign that they acknowledg'd the Masse to be lawfull tho' none wou'd communicate but onely the Priest And the council of Nant c 30 quoted by Ivo p 3 deer e 70 â— prohibit'd the Priests to say masse alone withoÌ„ut the assistance of one to answer them which Authority proves the ancient practise of celebrating privat masses Tho' Luther and his doctrine aleadges the contrary for the fathers of that Council only obliges the Priests to have clerks to answer them but mentions not a word of a second person to be requisite for receiving the communion along with the Priest for they knew too well that there was no divine or Ecclesiastical precept obliging the Priest not to say Masse if none else wou'd communicate along with him and moreover that there was no Precept commanding others to receive the Communion as often as the Priest wou'd celebrat Masse for that was left to the
account to impose the proof upon the lawfull possessors but among all methinks it seems very unfair for any that stiles himself of the church of England to deny this principle of lawfull possession since their own best writers do much insist upon it to make out their right against thoses secttaryes who like new swarms separated from the stock As the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers sosinians c. But to come to the present point let us see the arrogant challange of this proud Goliah which runs to this purpose Whosoever is deserious to find and embrace a church where the old incorrupted principles of christianity are taught such doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upward of 300 years after christ let him embrace the present church of England where the said principles are duely profess'd the old church of Rome and the present church of England being the same in principles whereas the doctrines which the presnt church of Rome has added over and above what the church of England maintains wherein the said churches do now differ were never maintain'd by the said ancient church of Rome but newly brought-in some eight or nine hundred years others seven the most of theÌ„ 600 years after christ In justification of which charge we alwayes have and still do bid defiance to any Roman catholick liviÌ„g to bring any sufficient sentence out of any old doctor or father or out of any old council or out of the holy scriptures or any one example of the primitive church whereby it may be clearly and plainly prov'd 1 That there was any privat masse in the whole world at that time for the space of six huÌ„dred years after christ 2 That the communion was administred unto the people under one kind 3 That the people then had their common prayes in a toÌ„gue which they understood not 4 That the bishop of Rome was then call'd the universal â—ishop or the head of the universal church 5 That then the people were taught to believe that christs body is really or substantially in the sacrament 6. That then the people did fall down and worship it with godly honour 7. That in the sacrament after the words of consecration there reman only the accidents shew without the substance of bread and wine 8. That whosoever had then said the sacrament is only but a figure a pledge a token or remembrance of christs body had therefore been judg'd for an here tick 9. That images were then sett up in churches to the intent that the people might worship them 10. That then the people did invocate saints or pray to them 11. That then the people believ'd that there is a third place which commonly the Papists call purgatory 12 That then the people were forbiddeÌ„ to read the word of god in their own tongue If these thiÌ„gs be as we alleage it follows that whosoever maiÌ„taiÌ„e the aforsaid abus'd principles are not of the aÌ„cieÌ„t church of Rome but only of the preseÌ„t corrupted church of Rome if our allegatioÌ„s be false we desire to be disprov'd Before I come to any particular answer to the several points of this extravagant challange which the mans ignorance or vanity makes him belive unanswerable I will only thus in general retort his own argument upon himself that J may form his discurse in the true and right method Whosoever desires to find and embtace a church wherein the old incorrupted principles of christiaÌ„ity are taught and such doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upwards of 300 years after christ let him embrace the present church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely profess'd the old and the present church of Rome being still the same in principles whereas the doctrines of those who now call themselues the church of England and wherein the said churehes do now differ were never maiÌ„tain'd by the aÌ„cieÌ„t church of Rome but rather impiously brought in by a series of hereticks who for those very doctrines were from time to time coÌ„demn'd by many general national and provincial councils and also by the most eminent fathers and doctors of the catholick church in those respective ages whose authorityes and very words I will hereafter produce in my answer to the several points heré controverted that every impartial reader may see how all the aspersions and calumnies rais'd by our pretended reformers against the church of Rome are but meer fictions without any toserable ground reason or authority In the mean time I think it is very plain that my retortion ought to take place before my adversaryes precaâ—ious sort of discourse and consequently that such a challange belogs properly to the church of Rome and not to any upstart sectary whatsoever for as J hinted before it is a principle in all well govern'd common-wealths that a peacable possessor ought not to be disturb'd untill by manifest proof he is convicted to be an unlawfull possessor but the church of Rome which undenyably was a peaceable possessor of thé true faith for the first 300 or as my adversary is willing to allows for six hundred years after christ was never convicted by any competent authority or proof that ever she fell from the true faith of Jesus christ therefore it necessarily follows that shee must be still suppos'd to retain the same true faith to this very day The major is manifest and a maxim in law and the minor J prove thus If the church of Rome could at any time be juridically condemn'd or declar'd to have fallen from the true faith it must have been either by some immediate revelation or commission from God as the written law was abrogated to make Place for the law of grace and as the high Priesthood was transfer'd from the house of Heli to an other family or by some other Church call'd and summon'd by the inspiration of the holy Ghost in some National or general Council as the Arians Macedonians Nestorians Pelagians Eutychians and many other Heresies were condemn'd in former times but neither of those can be alleag'd in the case propos'd the first is not so much as pretended nor can the later be alleag'd by any man in his wits for no National or General Council no nor any old Chronicles Registers Ecclesiastâ—al or prophane Histories makes tention that ever the Roman Church fell from the true faith so that if we except the inconsiderable dregs of coÌ„demn'd Heresies which lay hid in obscurâ— corners of the earth there waâ— no Church or society of ChristiaÌ„s extaÌ„t in the sixth seveÌ„th eighthâ— ninth c. Centuryes but were aâ—â— in communion with the Church oâ— Rome in their respective ages all the eminent Doctors Fatherâ— of those times seriously exposâ— her cause as the cause of Chrisâ— wherefore either the Church Rome kept the true faith inviolably all that while or Christ haâ— no true Church upon earth whicâ— is
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
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
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