true Prophet or he is not Pro. He is Pa. If he be how then can the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church Seeing he prophesied in St. Matt. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Pro. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church nor never shall that is they shall not prevail against the whole Church but against any particular Church as the Church of Rome they may and have prevailed But here as in the rest of your Queries you beg the question supposing the Church of Rome to be the only Church of Christ. Pa. 44. The Holy Ghost suggesteth all truth to the Church or it doth not Pro. It doth Pa. If it doth then it will suggest no Errors Pro. It will not But that doth not hinder but it may permit Satan to suggest Errors to a particular Church this you will allow and therefore to the Church of Rome which is but a particular Church Pa. 45. Christ was a wise Man or he was not Pro. He was Pa. Why then did he build his House upon the Sand and make it subject to the infernal Tempests Pro. He did not build his House upon the Sand nor did he make it subject that is he did not subject it to the infernal Tempests but he made it liable to them yet still he defeats their force and though he suffers them to overthrow some outer parts of it yet the House it self shall never be overthrown Pa. 46. A Congregation of People in dispising Christ are guilty of Apostasie or they are not Pro. If they were People that professed Christ before then they are guilty of Apostasie in despising him but not else if they never Professed Christ they are guilty of horrible Sin but not of Apostasie Pa. If they be how can you clear your selves of Apostasie in despising his Church seeing it is said in Scripture Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me c. Pro. We do not despise the Church it is you despise her by teaching so many things contrary to her Doctrine as we are ready to prove Pa. 47. Your Church is guilty of Heresie or she is not Pro. She is not Pa. If not how doth the Definition of Heresie agree with you in adhering to so many singular and private Opinions and Errors of Faith contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Catholick Church Pro. It doth not agree at all to us we teach no such private and singular Opinions the Doctrines we teach are the received Doctrines of the Catholick Church but it agrees very well to you whose Doctrines wherein we dissent from you are such private and singular Opinions and contrary to the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this we will at any time prove Pa. 48. Your Church is guilty of Schism or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. How then doth the Definition of Schism agree with you in dividing your selves from the Body of all Faithful Christians and in breaking Communion with the Antient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church Pro. It doth not agree to us we made no such Division we indeed divided our selves from the corrupt Roman Church but we never divided from the Ancient Apostolick Church but you did and this I am ready to make good See here again you beg the question and suppose the Roman Church the only Church of Christ which is the point in Controversie and you can never prove Pa. 49. That Church to which Apostasie Heresy and Schism agree is a false Church or she is not Pro. She is Pa. Then your Church is a false Church seeing they so aptly agree with her Pro. They do not agree with her but rather with you as I have proved Therefore she is no false Church Pa. 50. All that which the Ancient holy Catholick Roman Church holds as Articles of Faith is pious good and lawful Pro. All that the Ancient holy Catholick Church held is pious good and lawful and so is all that the Ancient holy Roman Church held for she held nothing but what the Catholick Church held but all that the present Roman Church holds is not pious good and lawful Pa. I prove it is out of holy Writ and by common Sense and Reason Pro. Both holy Writ and common Sense and Reason are against you but go on Of the Popes Supremacy PA. 51. The Foundation of the Church of God next after Christ was builded upon St. Peter or it was not Pro. It was no more builded on St. Peter than upon the other Apostles Pa. Why then doth the Scripture say Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Pro. Christ says not there that he will build his Church upon the Person of Peter but upon the Confession that he had before made vers 16. Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Foundation of the Christian Religion so St. Austin explains it Aug. trac 10. in 1 John What means this saith he vpon this Rock will I build my Church Upon that Faith upon that which is said Thou art the Christ seeing then Christ did not build his Church on Peter more than the other Apostles we with good reason deny his Supremacy Pa. 52. Christ did prefer Peter before the other Apostles or he did not Pro. He did not give Peter any Preference of Order or Power more than to the other Apostles Pa. If he did not why did he say to Peter only John 21. 16 17 18 feed my Lambs feed my Sheep Pro. He did not say it to Peter only St. Austin tells us Aug. de ago Christ. c. 30. when it is said unto Peter Feed my Sheep it is said unto all and St. Amb. Lib. de Sacerd. which Sheep and Flock St. Peter did not receive alone but we all received them with him Seeing then here was no Prerogative given to Peter but what the rest of the Apostles and all Pastors received we have good reason to deny his Supremacy Pa. 53. The Apostles were of equal Authority or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why have you Primates Archbishops Bishops and no equal Authority as they had Pro. The Question is impertinent all Archbishops are of equal Authority in their own Provinces All Bishops are of equal Authority in their respective Dioceses So that we have an equal Authority But as Bishops were under the Apostles and Presbyters under them so we have the same degrees but for the Office of an Apostle that is no longer in the Church Pa. 54. To whom the chief Charge of feeding Christs Sheep was given he was chief of the Apostles or he was not Pro. He was Pa. Why then do you deny Peter's Supremacy to whom the chief charge was committed Pro. The chief Charge was not committed to him therefore we deny his Supremacy And although I acknowledged that if the chief Charge had been given to any he had been Chief yet seeing it was given to none as I proved
but it is not therefore true that it is false for visibility I have proved not to be a mark of the true Church Pa. 20. Your Church either did appear before Luther and Calvin or it did not Pro. It did Pa. If she did in what Kingdom or Nation was your Doctrine Preached or by whom Pro. Our Doctrine was Preached by Christ and his Apostles and by the ancient Fathers in all Nations where-ever the Gospel came and this we are ready to prove Pa. 21. Martin Luther and John Calvin were the first Founders of your Church or they were not Pro. They were not Pa. If not produce any that ever professed ' the same Articles with you before them Pro. We do produce Christ and his Apostles with the general Consent of the Fathers for the first five Hundred Years after Christ and even when the Church was hid in Babylon and fled into the Wilderness from the Tyranny of Antichrist there were Multiiudes who professed the same as we do Pa. 22. Luther and Calvin either separated themselves from the World or they did not if they did then they departed from the visible Christià n Religion Pro. I never heard before that to depart from the World which is the Duty of every good Christian was to depart from the Christian Religion it was always accounted a Cleaving to it but I suppose you mean they departed from the Church or they did not and then I answer they did not they departed not from the Christian Church nay not from the Roman Church but only from the errors of it for we still profess a Communion with all the Orthodox living in the Communion of that Church nay at that time the Church was visible in the Waldenses c. from whom they separated not so that they departed not from the visible Church though if they had they had done no more than what the People of God are commanded to do in obedience to that Call Rev. 18. 4. Come out of Babylon my People Pa. If they did not who joyned with them or to whom did they adhere Pro. All who obeyed that Call of God whose Eyes God opened to see and whose Hearts he encouraged to leave those Corruptions they lived under all these joined with them and for the other question To whom did they adhere I answer they adhered to Christ and his Apostles and the triumphant Church in Heaven to the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and to all those who had shaken off the Corruptions of Rome Who were at that time in Bohemia Germany Piedmont France England c. many Thousands they adhered likewise to the Eastern Churches who never acknowledged the Pope nor were polluted with the Corruptions of Rome Lastly they adhered to all who lived in the Communion of Rome and were not tainted with the Corruptions of it Pa. 23. Your Church either hath Unity or it hath not Pro. It hath Pa. Why then are there so many Sects and Schisms among you Pro. There are none who differ in essential Points In which Unity of Doctrine consists as for those Sects who do differ in essentials they are none of our Church but the Spawn of Yours as we can prove Pa. 24. All your Reformers did either agree in matters of Faith or they did not Pro. They did All those who we own to be of our Church did Pa. Why did they so much differ in essential Points Pro. They did not differ in any Essential Points Pa. 25. Luther and Calvin were either true Reformers or they were not If not then you follow false Reformers Pro. They were true Reformers But if they were not you can bring no Argument against us for we follow them no fâ—â—â—ther than they followed Christ. Pa. If they were why did they differ in the most essential Point of the Holy Sacrament Pro. They do not differ in an essential Point their difference there is not Essential they both agree that Christ is Present but for the manner of his Presence it is no essential Point Pa. But they differ in the Government of the Church Pro. They do not differ in any essential Matter in that Point even according to your own Principles Pa. 26. All your Reformations either do agree or they do not Pro. All our Reformations do agree in essential Points as for others who call themselves Reformers but are not we have nothing to say to them Pa. If they do produce any two that agree in all Points Pro. All of them agree in all necessary Points and I challenge you to produce any differences in such Points among us the difference we have about lesser questions are greater among you than us Pa. 27. Your Church either is Universal or it is not Pro. I have proved that Universality is no mark of the true Church and therefore the question is impertinent we do not say we are the Catholick Church but a part of it and this we are ready to prove but it is not necessary to shew any of our Preachers in Japonia c. For the same question might be put to the Christian Church in the ancient times before many Nations were converted and to your Church it self at the first discovery of America shew one of your Preachers in those Countries Pa. 28. Your Church hath either converted Nations or she hath not Pro. She hath Pa. If she hath shew one Nation that she hath ever converted Pro. All Nations converted by the Apostles and Primitive Christians or by the true Church in any Age were converted by that Church of which we are a part New-England and many other Parts of the West-Indies with several Places in the East have in particular been Converted by the Protestants Pa. 29. Your Church either hath been Universal or it hath not If not She is not the true Church Pro. I told you before we are only a part of the true Church and for the question Whether it be Universal or not it hath been as Universal as the true Church hath been but I would willingly know what you mean by Universal for if you mean in all places we deny it to be a Mark of the true Church as I proved before Pa. What time hath your Church been coexistent before Luther and Calvin Pro. I told you just now our Church was existent in the Apostles and Primitive times and ever since though not so visible as then If you mean any thing else by the term Coexistent when you explain it I will give you a farther Answer which is a clear Answer to the next Query 30. In whatever Place the Apostles and Primitive and Orthodox Christians were there was our Church and this we are ready to prove Pa. 31. Your Church hath Sanctity or it hath not Pro. It hath Pa. If she hath shew one of yours that ever was Canoniz'd Pro. That is an impertinent question How comes Canonization to be a note of the Churches Sanctity and where did ever God command it So that it cannot be
an Evidence of the Churches Sanctity but is indeed a meer invention of Men but our Sanctity we will prove by the Word of God because we teach the same Doctrine which that contains Pa. 32. Luther and Calvin and the rest of your Reformers confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles or they did not Pro. What if they did not Pa. If they did not they were not true Apostles Pro. The Doctrine they Preached was not theirs but that which Christ and his Apostles taught and confirm'd by Miracles so that it needed no more Confirmation except we had received it upon their Authority which we did not We acknowledge they were not Apostles as the twelve were and therefore no need of their working Miracles Pa. 33. The Signs which Christ said in Scripture followed your pretended Reformers or they did not Pro. All the Signs which Christ said should always accompany the true Preachers of the Gospel did follow them Pa. If they did shew one Man they dispossessed or one sick that they restored to Health for if these Signs did not follow them they are not true Believers Pro. That doth not follow for Christ never made that a Sign of True Believers nay you must confess that many never worked any of these Miracles who are yet true Believers If indeed they had Preached any new Doctrine you might call for Miracles but seeing they Preached none new but the Doctrine that was taught by Christ his Apostles and the Ancient Fathers there is no need to confirm that by Miracles seeing all the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought were for that end However we can shew many certain instances of Mens being dispossessed by the Prayers of the Faithful in our Church and many among us who have had their Health restored them in answer to their own and the Churches Prayers but for all that we have better grounds for our Faith which we rest upon Pa. 34. Your Reformers were either famous for their virtuous Lives or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why did they break their Vows made to God and teach Men so to do Pro. The Vows which they broke were unlawful Vows and your own Canons expresly say that an unlawful Vow ought to be broken C. 22. qu. 4. c. in malis by breaking then their Vow of single Life that is by repenting of it and not observing it they did no more than what they were in duty bound to do and therefore were holy Men for all that Pa. 35. The Catholick Roman Church and no other stands firm and infallible against all the Tempests of Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pro. The Roman Church is not firm nor infallible but as to the visible part of it is fallen both by Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pa. 36. The Romans had once the true Church or they had not Pro. The question is Ambiguous if you mean by it that the Roman Church was the true Church as the Mother of all other I deny it if you mean that the Roman Church was a true Church and had the true Faith I answer that she had the true Faith. Pa. If the Romans had the true Faith they retain the same still infallibly or do not Pro. They do not Pa. 37. If they do not then they must have their fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism Pro. She hath fallen by them all Pa. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church fell by Apostasie or it did not Pro. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Church fell not at all Nay the Ancient Roman Church fell not but the present Roman Church is fallen Pa. If she is fallen by Apostasie what prudent man will say that she ever renounced the sweet Name of Jesus which she ever hath in so great Veneration Pro. She may have fallen by Apostasie and yet not have renounced the Name of Jesus so that her having it in so great Veneration is no Argument that she is not fallen by Apostasie Pa. 38. The Roman Church fell by Heresie or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did by what General Council was she ever Condemn'd which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Or by what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd Pro. If nothing be an Heresy but what a General Council condemns then those Heresies which sprang up in the first three hundred years were wrongfully esteemed such in those times seeing there was then no General Council If a Doctrine may be Heretical which was never Condemned by a general Council then the Dostrines of the Church of Rome may be Heretical though never Condemned by a General Council so that question doth not vindicate her from being guilty of Heresie Pa. But which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Pro. All the Ancient Fathers disclaim those Doctrines which the Roman Church now holds but they could not write purposely against her because she did not then profess those Doctrines But if it be a good Argument the Church of Rome fell not into Heresy because no Father wrote purposely against her then the same Argument will vindicate us seeing no Father hath writ against us but if no Father had writ against the Church of Rome she might be Heretical for all that so that this question and the former are both impertinent Pa. But by what Authority was she reproved Pro. By the Authority of the Scriptures by the Authority of the Testimony of the Antient Church and the Authority of right Reason Pa. 39. The Ancient Roman Church fell by Schism and by dividing herself from some other Church or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did whose company did she leave from what Body did she go forth Where was the true Church she forsook Pro. She forsook the Primitive Church the Eastern Church and all those Christians who always maintained their Freedom from the Roman Yoke Pa. 40. The true Holy Apostolick Catholick Church is fallible and can err or it cannot Pro. Remember by the Church I mean the Faithful throughout the World and of these I say they all cannot err in any point of Faith. Pa. Why do you then falsly condemn her Pro. We do not condemn her we are part of her but for the Roman Church we condemn her Pa. 41. The Church of God is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faith or she is not Pro. All Definitions made by the whole Church of Christ are infallibly true Pa. If she be why do you deny infallibility Pro. The Infallibility we deny is that of a Pope or Council and this we deny because they are not the whole Church and therefore though the Church of Christ be infallible yet they are not Pa. 42. Christ being the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost the Soul of the Church guiding and directing the Church in all Truth she can err or she cannot Pro. She cannot Pa. Then she is not fallible Pro. The Church of Christ is not fallible but the Roman Church is 43. Christ is either a
were blameless that is they were so Holy that no Person could find fault with them He had spoken of their Holiness with reference to God before and he speaks now of their Reputation among Men but this is nothing to the keeping the Commandments perfectly with such a Perfection as we deny Of the Seven Sacraments PA. 110. Christ for the Sanctification of Mankind either instituted seven visible Signs of invisible Graces or he did not Pro. He did not Pa. If he did not answer me to these following Prepositions viz. Baptism is either a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is Pa. 111. Then we are agreed in that Point but Confirmation is either a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not Why hath it the Visible Sign viz. Oyl and Balm Pro. It hath no such Sign of Christs Institution which is requisite in a Sacrament but only of your own Invention Pa. See Act. 19. 5 6. And when Paul had imposed his Hands upon them the Holy Ghost came upon them And Acts 8. 14 15 16. St. Peter and St. John did impose their Hands upon them and they received the Holy Ghost Pro. These Texts speak not a word of Oyl or Balm practised by the Apostles but of the laying on of Hands Your Confirmation therefore is no Sacrament seeing there is no Warrant of Christ for the outward Sign nor any Divine Promise to annex an invisible Grace to it Pa. 112. The Eucharist either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Then the Controversy in this Point is ended But to go on 113. Penance either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why hath it the visible Sign viz. The Penitent's Confession and the Priest's Absolution of an invisible Grace which is the remission of Sins Pro. There are no such Signs instituted by Christ for Confession to a Priest is no where commanded as I shew'd before and Absolution is only a part of Discipline and therefore can be no part of a Sacrament besides here is no outward and visible Sign which must be in a Sacrament for the words of Absolution are the form of the Sacrament according to the Council of Trent now the outward Sign is never the form of a Sacrament The matter of this pretended Sacrament being as I shewed no where commanded by Christ it can be no Sacrament Pa. 115. Extream Unction either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. Why then hath it the visible Sign the Priests Prayer â—nd the anointing with Oyl of an invisible Grace James 13 14 15 Pro. It hath no Sign of an invisible Grace St. James â—n that place speaks of it as a means to heal the Sick but â—hat is no invisible Grace therefore it is no Sacrament Whether that rite be still to be retained is another question and not to our purpose Pa. 116. Holy Order either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. Why then hath it the visible Sign the words of the Bishop and the things given to him that is ordained of an invisible Grace according to that 1 Tim. 4. 14. neglect not the grace that is in thee by Prophecy with imposition of hands of the Priesthood Pro. It hath no such visible Sign instituted by Christ which we challenge you to prove therefore 't is no Sacrament and neither is there any Grace given by it though Gifts are indeed bestowed So that you have falsifyed that Text of St. Paul which is not neglect not the Grace that is in thee but neglect not the Gift 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 now there is a great difference between a Gift and a Grace Pa. 117. Matrimony either is a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why hath it a visible Sign the mutual consent of both parties an invisible Grace and Supernatural Conjunction made by Almighty God Matt. 19. 6. Eph. 5. 31 32. Pro. The mutual consent is no visible Sign but an invisible Action neither is there any Supernatural Grace given by it for none of those Texts you cite mentions any such thing that of Eph. 5. you have fassified St. Paul says not it is a Sacrament but a Mystery 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pa. 118. A visible Sign of an invisible Grace Divinely instituted by Christ either is the true Definition of a Sacrament or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. Then you deny the Definition which your selves attribute to a Sacrament Pro. You are Mistaken for that is only a part of the Definition we say that a Sacrament must be not only an outward and visible Sign of an inward and Spritual Grace Ordained by Christ but it must also be a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us of it now seeing your pretended Sacraments have neither outward Signs instituted by Christ nor invisible Graces annexed to them and conveyed by them we reject them and assert they are no Sacraments Pa. 119. Baptism and the Lords Supper is either more evidently said in Scripture than any of the other five to be Sacraments or they are not Pro. The word Sacrament is no where used in Scripture and therefore Baptism is no where called a Sacrament nor the Lords Supper But in Scripture we find the outward and visible Sign of Baptism ordained by Christ and the invisible Grace annexed to it and conveyed by it and so of the Lords Supper but we find no such thing of the other five now seeing nothing can be a Sacrament but what hath such a Sign with a Grace annexed and Baptism and the Lords Supper have them we say they are Sacraments and when you shew us the same in Scripture of the rest we will receive them for such It is therefore impertinent to ask us where Baptism is called a Sacrament for we don't contend about a word but the question is whether Confirmation Pennance Extream Unction Orders and Marriage be Ordinances of the same Nature with Baptism and the Eucharist this we deny and we are sure you cannot prove APPENDIX Pa. 120. YOur Church either hath her succession from the Waldenses c. or she hath not Pro. If you mean her Succession of Pastors She hath not Pa. If not then you must have no Succession unless it be from the Roman Church Pro. That part of our Church which in opposition to Rome is termed the Reformed had its Immediate Succession from the Church in communion with Rome Pa. 121. Luther and Calvin either had their Mission from the Roman Church or they had not Pro. They had Pa. If they had the Roman Church either had the Spirit of God when they gave them that Mission or she had not Pro. She had the Spirit of God as much as was necessary for that power of giving them their Mission Pa. If they had how could she fall into Errors and why did they depart from the Spirit of God Pro. They did not depart