before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles
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
from the Spirit of God and that portion of the Spirit which she for that end had in Ordination is only a power given by the Spirit and therefore no security from Error seeing all Hereticks have so much of the Spirit Pa. Either they had their Mission from God or they had not Pro. They had Pa. If they had why did not they confirm their Doctrine by Miracles Pro. Because Christ and his Apostles had done it before and seeing they preached no new Doctrine there was no need of them Pa. 122. Luther and Calvins Doctrine either was manifested to be true by Miracles or it was not Pro. It was not by any Miracles wrought by them but by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles it was Pa. If they did no Miracles then seeing you cannot alledge any Text of sacred Writ to vindicate their Tenets you must of necessity have recourse to the private Spirit Pro. Are not you ashamed of such an Argument when you know we produce Texts plain Texts of Scripture for every one of our Doctrines and we found them upon nothing else and for the private Spirit it is a thing we know not neither do you know what you mean by it we renounce any such thing but the Assistance of the Spirit of God we own and pray for Pa. 123. The Apostles either had the private Spirit or they had not Pro. What you mean by the private Spirit is best known to your self But that Assistance of the holy Spirit which we hope for and God hath promised they had Pa. If they had why then did they call a Council Acts 19. Pro. I appeal to your self whether that is an Argument that they had not even a greater viz. An infallible Assistance of the Spirit attending every one in particular which if they had you cannot deny them the Assistance we plead for Pa. 24. Your private Spirit either is of God or it is not Pro. The Assistance of the holy Spirit promised anâ— given to every private Man who seeks it with Humility and Prayers is of God. Pa. Why then are there so many disagreeing Sects among you Pro. There are no disagreeing Sects among us in matters of Faith in which alone the Assistance of the Holy Spirit is given Pa. 125. A Man endowed with your private Spirit either can interpret Scripture or he cannot Pro. A Man endowed with the Spirit of God which in the only assisting Spirit can interpret Scripture aright Pa. If they can what need have you of Preachers Pro. To instruct the ignorant to convince the erroneous to stir up the negligent to excite the slothful to comfort the Broken-hearted and Administer the holy Sacraments Pa. But after all no Man will believe any thing but what his Spirit suggests unto him Pro. No Man ought to believe any thing but what the Spirit of God suggests unto him either by the Scriptures the Law of Nature or internal Convictions for which he makes use of Ministers as the Means FINIS POSTSCRIPT I Desire the Gentlemen against whom I write would deal so fairly with me as to let me and the World know what Scandals and Calumnies they aim at in their Caution to their Adversaries and who they are who they say could never learn to speak or write Truth and what those sores are which they threaten to rip up a few words will explain their meaning which is there a little dark Qu. 1. 41 5. Qu. 5. 41. 46. 111. Qu. 37 40 46 47 50 c. Qu. 54. 55. 64. 89. Qu. 66. 93. 95. 96. 97. 102. 103. 104. 117. 84. Qu. 11. You take Universal for being in all Places Qu. 12. You take it for being existent at all times c. Qu. 13. You take it for being called Universal Acts 16. Seek and ye shall find Epist. Ded.