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
IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham Jan. 26. 1686 7. A Plain DEFENCE OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION Fitted to the Meanest Capacity Being a Full CONFUTATION OF THE NET FOR THE Fishers of Men Published by two Gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome Wherein is evidently made appear that their departure from the Protestant Religion was without Cause or Reason Written for publick good by L. E. a Son of the Church of England as by Law Established Be not tossed too and fro with every Wind of Doctrine by the sleight of Men and cunning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive Eph. 4. 14. London Printed by S. L. and are to be sold by R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. To Mr. J. C. and Mr. J. M. C. The Authors of the Net for the Fishers of Men. Gentlemen I Hope that your design in publishing your little Treatise was a zealous desire to bring others of your Country-men into the same Church which you have made your selves Members of out of pure Love to their Souls which you I suppose think cannot be safe out of its Communion and I am the rather induced to believe it because you seem so confident of the strength of your Arguments that in the Epistle Dedicatory you reckon them unanswerable and in that to the Reader you express your Sence of them to be very high This I take to be an effect of your Zeal for I am sure it is not of your Knowledg and I would charitably perswade my self that you love the Truth too well to pretend a defence of what you know is Erroneous or endeavour to promote the Progress of delusions but out of a sincere Heart offer the Reasons which prevailed with you to a Change not seeing their weakness which is indeed so very notorious that I never thought to have seen them published though I have often known them vigorously pressed in private Discourses where heat and unwariness may let them pass without discovering that there is nothing of Force in them it being generally the Practice of the Romanists but especially the Jesuits to have a Set of Arguments for private unstudied Adversaries with which they catch too many who because they carry a specious Shew at first examine but little farther and without consulting others suffer themselves to be led Captive I have in the following Treatise according to your Desire in the Preface annexed my Answers to your Queries for which reason I have done it by way of Dialogue that so I might be the more brief and omit nothing of what you offered I don't doubt but I have shewn the weakness of every particular Argument but to save you and my self a great deal of Trouble if you reply I shall here take notice of several gross faults in your Arguing which if they be not remedied will create endless difficulties You never tell us what you mean by the word Church in some places you take it for the Congregation of the Faithful in others for a Council and in others for a particular Church In your Allegations out of Scripture you bring many Texts which indeed prove nothing to your purpose Thus in a question of the universal Church you bring a Text that speaks of a particular one or of every private Minister And in the question about Confirmation in defence of Oyl and Balm you cite places which mention only Imposition of Hands You suppose the Roman Church to be the only Church of Christ without any Proof which is plain begging the question and not arguing So in other places you beg the question And you take it for granted that Peter had the chief Charge over the Apostles committed to him that all oral Tradition is Apostolical that God hath commanded nothing concerning a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue and that because Reliques have been the Instruments by which Miracles were wrought therefore they must be Worshipped You mistake the Question and run on upon a Point not contested which is arguing to no purpose nothing but making a Puppet and knocking him down Thus when the Question is about Praying in an unknown Tongue you argue for the lawfullness of speaking with Tongues in the point of Free Will you plead for Free Will in Moral actions which we acknowledge when the question is about those Actions that are Spiritual again you argue against Faith without Works when the question is whether Faith alone justifies not whether Faith can be without Works for that we deny as well as you So in the point of Religious Vows you argue for the lawfullness of Vows in general when the Controversy is about those particular Vows which we Condemn You quote several Scriptures famous not only as to the particular references of which there are a Multitude so many that I am afraid you took them up upon Trust but also the very Texts Thus you make St. Paul call Marriage a Sacrament when he calls it only a Mystery so you have falsified Heb. 12 11. and several other places as I have proved in the Book it self I might add several Instances of these and other Particulars such as your taking the word Universal in three several Sences and yet applying all one way but these shall suffice and I am in hopes will let you see how wretchedly your Pretended Fathers have dealt with you by putting such Arguments upon you and founding your Faith upon such weak Grounds I desire you would not take it ill that I attribute this work to some of them and do so freely tax you with not seeing the Vanity of it for I suppose you are Gentlemen whose Education hath engrossed your time to other Matters and cannot therefore be reasonably supposed to have sufficient Experience in these Points to make you able to discern their Sophisms and unconcluding Arguments which they have shamm'd upon you for convincing Reasons If you are convinc'd by this answer I shall bless God for it if not I desire you would satisfy the World why you are not But don 't follow tht Methods of some late Writers who have wisely withdrawn from the main Business and only cavilled at a word or two as being Improper or something of that Nature when they could not answer the Reasons of their Adversaries nor defend their own I might easily have done so by you but as I have dealt seriously and plainly I expect the same and I pray God send us his Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth I am Gentlemen Your very humble Servant L. E. TO THE Reader Courteous Reader A Serious Enquiry and search after Truth is the Duty of every rational Creature and he that hath an unfeigned desire to find it and happiness in it will not neglect any lawful means to arrive at the knowledge of it seeing by it the Mind is enlightened our Faith regulated and fixed and our actions guided to that true felicity which Crowns the Soul with
Church you mean those who in opposition to the Roman are termed the Reformed I answer that it doth not follow that they are either the true Church or not for they may be and are a part of it and thus in the name of all Protestants I affirm we are a part of the true Church Pa. If yours is the true Christian Church then it must have these following Marks Visibility Unity Universality Sanctity Pro. I told you before we are not the whole but a part of the true Church for we dare not as you do exclude all from Salvation who are not in all things of our Profession and therefore to find whether we be a part of it or no we are not to look for these Marks but for the Conformity of our Doctrines with the Word of God or if we should allow these for Marks of the true Church the way to know whether we be part of the true Church or no is to enquire whether we teach the same Doctrine which we are to prove by the Holy Scriptures according to that of St. Austin De Unit. Eccl. c. 16. Let them shew whether they have the Church only by the Canonical Books of the divine Scriptures But we deny these to be the Marks of the true Church Of Visibility a Mark of the Church PA. 2. The House of our Lord shall be prepared on the top of Mountains or it shall not Pro. It shall Isa. 2. 2. Pa. Why then do you deny that the Church shall be always visible Pro. Because that Text Isai. 2. 2. is no Promise of a Perpetual visibility but only of a time when it shall be so and so it was in the Primitive times but it doth not say it shall never cease to be so visible Where by visible I mean that the true Church shall be always in sight so as by its external Glory to be known to be the true Church and this that Text doth not promise for it will not follow that because the Church shall be so therefore it shall be always so and if it be not always so it can be no mark Pa. 3. A City seated on an Hill can be hid or not Pro. It cannot Pa. Then the Church cannot be invisible Mat. 5. 14. Pro. That doth not follow for in the Judgment of divers Fathers this place is not spoken of the Church but the Apostles or the good Works of Christians But if it be understood of the Church all that it proves is that it cannot be hid as long as it is seated upon an Hill but it doth not follow that it shall be always seated there Pa. 4. Christ either founded a Church on Earth that all Nations may be edified therein or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you say the Church may be invisible since all Nations cannot be edified in a Church unseen Isai. 2. 2. All Nations shall flow unto her Psal. 86. 9. All Nations whatsoever thou hast made shall come and adore before thee Pro. Because there is no Promise that the Church shall be evident to all Nations at all times but that there shall come a time when it shall be so but it doth not say it shall be so always but it shall be evident so as to edify all Nations in God's time Pa. 5. A Man for not hearing the Church is termed in Scripture an Heathen and a Publican or not Pro. He is Mat. 18. 18. He that will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen or Publican Pa. How then shall a Man be termed an Heathen or Publican for not hearing a Church that was not visible or yet extant in the World Pro. This Text is nothing to the purpose and that upon two accounts 1. Because the question is Whether the true Church be always visible to those who are not Members of it as Heathens Infidels c. Now this Text speaks only of those who are Members of it to these it is always visible but not to those 2. Because the question is whether the Universal Church be always visible but this Text speaks of a particular Congregation and therefore is not to the purpose seeing if it proves any Church always visible it proves every particular Congregation to be so but as it is plain that these Arguments do not prove that the Church is to be always visible so neither do you at all prove that if it were so it would be a Mark of the true Church seeing Pagan and Jewish Churches can plead Visibility and yet it doth not follow they are the true Church because they have it Of Unity as a Mark of the true Church PA. 6. A natural Unity and Connection of the parts among themselves and to the Head is necessary for the Conservation of the Body or it is not Pro. It is Pa. If it be Why is that natural Connection proper to a natural Body and not a Spiritual Connection proper to a Spiritual Body Pro. A Spiritual Connection is proper to a Spiritual Body but this is nothing to the Purpose as a proof that Unity is a Mark of the true Church for this Connection of the Spiritual Body must be an Union and Connection of each part in sound Doctrine now we must know what Doctrine is sound before we can know whether the Parts be united in it Pa. 7. Christ promised that there should be Unity in his Church John 10. 16. or he did not Pro. He did Pa. If he did why do you deny Unity Pro. We do not deny it we maintain it but we deny it to be a Mark of the Church which it cannot be seeing this Unity must be either in true Doctrine or in false it cannot be in false if it be in true we must first know which is true before we can know whether it be the Unity Christ promised Pa. 8. Unity is either requisite in Gods Church or not Pro. It is Pa. Why do you then deny the necessity of Unity Pro. We do not deny it to be necessary we maintain that without Unity in all points of Faith there can be no Church but it will not follow that because it is necessary it is a Mark whereby Heathens may know the Church seeing other pretended Churches have Unity as well as the Christian and nothing can be a Mark which is not proper to it alone Pa. 9. Christ when he Prayed his Prayer took effect or it did not Pro. It did Pa. If it did then Christs People are one Pro. They are so What then but it doth not thence follow that Unity is or can be a Mark to know the Church by Where pray remember I speak of such a Mark whereby those who are not of the Church may know her to be the true Church Of Universality as a Mark of the true Church PA. 10. To be Universal or Coexstent with Time and Place is a Mark of the true Church or it is not Pro. I could wish you would a little
explain what you mean by those Terms if you mean as Bellarmine and the Catechism ad Parochos that to be called Universal is a Mark of the True Church or if you intend that to be existent every where be a Mark of it I answer it is not Pa. Why then does the Scripture say Matth. 28. 20. Go ye teach all Nations c. And behold I am with you even to the Consummation of the World. And again Ephes. 4. 12. He gave some Apostles c. to the Consummation of the Saints Pro. The Scripture says so because under the Gospel the Church was not limited to the Nation of the Jews but all Nations might be Members of it and there should be a Church to the end of the World but it doth not therefore say this Church should be in all Nations at all times much less doth it say that its being so is a Mark that it is the True Church Besides that Text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 12 13. is spoken of the perfection of the Saints in Holiness not of the consummating their Number tho' if it were it says nothing of the Name Universal or the Churches existing every where being a Mark to know it by Pa. 11. The Church of God is either Universal or coexistent with all time or not Pro. It is John 14 15 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever Luke 1. 33. He shall Reign in the House of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end Pa. If it be why do you deny Universality Pro. Before you took Universality in one Sense now in another That the Church shall abide for ever and this Universality we do not deny but we deny it to be a Mark of the true Church and that for this Reason because it cannot be known what Church shall endure for ever till the end of all things matter of Future Duration being impossible to be known till the time is finished for how can you know before-hand what will endure for ever the true Church will endure for ever but you must first know which of all the Pretenders to it is the true before you can know which shall endure for ever This therefore cannot be a Mark of the true Church For the Marks of a thing are always present but this Duration is not present but to come and therefore cannot be a Mark. Pa. 12. Christ's Church is Universal or co-existent with all places or it is not Pro. You seem here to mean that Christ's Church is dispersed over all the World in all places and if so I say it is not Pa. How then can it be true that their sound went over all the Earth or kow can all Nations be taught Pro. All Nations shall be taught but there is no necessity that they should be so at all times or that the Church should be always dispersed in all Nations So that this can be no Mark because a Mark must be always evident but it was not evident in the beginning of Christianity nor is not now in many places Pa. 13. The Church of Christ is either Universal or Catholick or it is not Pro. What mean you by its being Universal or Catholick If you mean as we do in the Creed that it comprehends all the true Professors of the Gospel I say it is Pa. Why then do you renounce Universality Pro. We do not renounce it we only say it is no Mark for seeing the Catholick Church is that Church which comprehends all true Christians we must first know who are true Christians before we can know what Church comprehends them Of Sanctity as a Mark of the true Church Pa. 14. The Church of Christ is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Dectrine or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Why then do you deny Sanctity in the Church Pro. We do not deny it we affirm it that is Holiness and Purity of Doctrine to be the mark of the true Church and we desire it may be tryed whether we are not of the true Church by that Rule Pa. 15. The Church of Christ is either Sanctified or She is not Pro. The Church of the Elect is Sanctified but the Church of visible Professors is not yet the Doctrine of it is indeed Holy as to the Foundation in which respect we do not deny Sanctity in the Church Pa. 16. The Church of Christ is manifested to be Holy by the Grace of Miracles or she is not Pro. The Grace of Miracles is a new Grace which I understand not and I believe neither do you but for the gift of Miracles I say that is not a Mark of the Sanctity of the Church Pa. Why then did Christ say Joh. 14. 12. c. He that believes in me the Works that I do he shall do and greater Pro. Christ said so because he gave the Holy Spirit to his Followers and a power of working Miracles as long as it was necessary but it doth not follow that it is so always much less doth it follow that they are a Mark to know the Holiness of the Church by seeing Antichrist is to do miracles and the Holy Fathers tell us Hereticks did many yet their miracles will not prove the Sanctity of their Church Pa. 17. Christ either granted true Believers the Grace of Casting out Devils or he did not Pro. Christ did not grant that Power to all true Believers Pa. Why then do you belye the Scriptures Mar. 16 17. Pro. We do not belye them that Text is not spoken of all at all times that do believe and this you must grant or else affirm that none are saved but them who work Miracles which is absurd and false That Power was given in the Beginning of the Church because it was necessary but you cannot prove it so now However we do not deny that God can work miracles by the Hands of his Faithful Servants when he pleases but we do deny that they either are or can be a mark to find the true Church or its Holiness by and you cannot prove that God ever intended or promised that they should be so The true way to find the Church is to examine the Holyness and Purity of its Doctrine and on this we rest our Cause that ours is Pure and Holy and therefore we are of the true Church Pa. 18. Your Church hath these abovementioned Marks or she hath not and if not she is false Pro. That doth not follow for they are not the marks of the true Church as I have proved Holiness indeed is a mark of the true Church that is Holiness of Doctrine and that we affirm we have which is a sufficient Answer to the rest of your Queries however let us hear them Pa. 19. Your Church hath been apparent or visible ever since Christ or it hath not and if not she is false Pro. Our Church hath been always visible to its Members though as a distinct Congregation not to those who were not Members of her
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
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