wou'd translate it into several other languages and the Apostles who had the gift of all tongues Acts c. 2. wou'd not only write the new Testament in Greek Hebrew â—atin as they have done but also in other languages in which they preach'd the gospel through out the universal world accordiÌ„g â—o that of St. Paul to the Romans â— 10 v. 18. neither wou'd S. Paul write in Greeck but in Latin to the Romans whose vâ—lgar language was not the Greeck but the Latin tongue and St. Peter and St. James wou'd not write in Greeck their Epistles to the Jewes buâ— in the languages of those countryes wherein they were dispers'd which then have been the Iewes maternal languages and not the Greeck neither finally wou'd St. Iohn write his first Epist in Greeck to the Parthians whose maternal Language was not the Greeck but another distinct Language whereby it plainly appears that neither the Apostles or the Primitive Church ever believ'd that it was necessary for all nations to have the word of God in their own tongue Now let us see who are those that are oblig'd to expound read and interpret the word of God to thew which I will produce the followinâ— Authorityes St. Basil in his 25 Qvestion sayes that it is the superiors obligatioâ— that is to say the pastors to know and â—earn those things whiâ—h afterwards they ought to teach others but of others not 〈◊〉 know more then behoueth them and S. Augustin in his first book de moribus Ecclefie c. 1. puts the Question inquiring what man if judgment doth not understand that the exposiition of the scripture is to be ask'd of them who by their profession are Doctors of the Church which may be further confirm'd by the Eunâ—ch's example Acts c. 8. v. 30. 31 35 for when Philip ask'd him did he understand what he â—as reading out of Isaiah he answer'd saying how â—an I understand it except some man should guide me wherefore he desir'd Philip to sit with him in order to expound it to him which Philip willingly perform'd knowing that it was his obligation whereby it appears that the Eunâ—ch tho' a man of great Authority with Qeen Candace yet did not presume to interpret the scripture himself but ask'd thê meaning thereof from one of those who were appointed by God in order to instruct and teach others according to that of St. Paul to the Ephesians c. 4. v. 11 12 14 saying tâ—us and he gave some Apostles and some prophets and some Evangelists some pastors and teachers for the peâ—fectiâ—g oâ— the Saints for the worke of the ministery for the edifying of the boâ—â— oâ— Christ tâ—at we hence forth may be no more children toss'd to and frâ— and carri'd about with every wind of Doctrine by the slight of men and cuning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive to prevent which danger St. Paul himselâ—â—â— his Epist to the Hebrewâ—â— 13 v. 17 expresly commands us to obey the pastors and to submit our selves to their judgments â—hom God imploy'd to rule us and watch over our souls for â—hich they must give an account for the want of which submission and due obedience to the lawfull Pastors and Doctors of the true Church ti 's aâ—â—â—st lamentable prospect to behold the miserable condition wherein those of Ireland England Scotland Holland c are ever since they unfortunatly by the aposâ—acy of Luther and Calvin in the 16 age have deserted their true and lawfull mother the Chuâ—â—at â—Rome which is as St. Augustâ—â— affirms in his first book of Symbol to the Cateched c. 6 the holy Church the only Church the true Church the Catholick Church that fights against all hereitcâ—s yet cannot be convine'd all hereâ—ies deserts heâ— even as usless twigs that are cut from the vine but she still remains in her root in her vine and in her charity which character the pretended reformers cannot give to any of their own new Conventicles who are alwayes in a continual confusion never agreeing among themselves for every different sect of them supports the tenets of it's own doctrine by some misinterpreted text of scripture even as those hereticks of the Primitive Church which is so inculeated in their brains that each of them is ready to sacrifice his life for the defence of his own particular Doctrine the Lutherans condemning the Calvinists the modern Prebyterians condemning the reform'd Church of England the Anaâ—aptists and Quakers despising all others in repect of their own purity some of them admiting all the books of scripture to be canonical others affirming part of it to be apocriphall some adding to their Bibles that which they suppose the Apostles either neglected or forgot others diminishing and taking away what in their opinion were first put-in over-plus which now a dayes they fiÌ„d disagreable to their own principles by reason of which alteration several of their Bibles do differ in many places which is to be admir'd for how durst they be so presumpâ—ious as â—e alter or corrupt it being he is curs'd who adds to or diminisheth the word of God Revelation c. 22. v. 18. 19. for since we are all certain that the first Bible which the holy Catholick Church receiv'd from the Apostles and us'd it for the space of 14. hundred and odâ— years after Christs birth was written by the inspiration of the holy Ghost what kind of any tolerable pretence can they have now after so many ages to alter and corrupt it whereas very often the alteriÌ„g of one letter changes the sense of a whole sentence much more wheÌ„ they alter words â—ay whole sentence as if what God ordain'd in the beginig had now need to be corrected by their wisdom to such presumptious people might be we apply'd the following words of Christ Matt. c 7. v. 6. give not that which is holy unto the dogs neither caâ—â—ye â—our pearlâ—s before swine lâ—st they trample them under their feet and turn again and rent you So that it appears if those corrupters cou'd câ—oake â—y any pretention their ungodly design that they wou'd not leave one text in the whoâ—e scripture which they find disagreable to their own principles but what they woud a teror corrupt if in case any zelous Christian shu'd offer to diswade their followers from perusing it after that corruption they wou'd imprudently answer as they do now that if they shud be hinder'd from reading the word of God in their own tongue that they wou'd be keâ—pt in ignoraâ—ce and darkness as the Papists are so that as the serpent deceiv'd Eve perswading her to eat of the forbidden fruit that she might come to the knowledge of good and evil Gen. c. 3 even so the divel by his subâ—ility and ambussâ— deludes the poor ignorant people perswading them to read expound and interpret their corrupted Bibles and not to be beholding to the Church or pastrors who might deceive them in teaching that which wou'd be contrary to the word of God
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
the said points if they had not understood and firmly believ'd that they taught false and erronious Doctrines neither wou'd all the aforesaid Councils of the Primitive Church which my adversary in his challenge acknowledges to have then retain'd the true faith of Jesus Christ condemn their Doctrines if they were not also Hethrodox contrary to the true faith which they and their forefathers receiv'd from Jesus Christ his Disciples therfore whosoever desires to find embrace a Church wherein the old incorrupted principles of Christianity are â—aught and such Doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient pâ—râ— Church even of Roâ—e for up-wards of 500 years after Christ let him embrace the present Church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely professâ—d the old and the present Church of Rome being still the same in priÌ„ciples whereas the Doctrines of those who now call themselves reformers the Church of EnglaÌ„d PresbyteriaÌ„s Quakers c. wherein the said convinâ—icles do now diâ—â—er from the preseÌ„t Church of Rome 〈◊〉 never maintain'd by the ancient Church of Rome but 〈◊〉 â—â—piously brought in by a serâ—es of Hereticks who for these very Doctrines were from time to 〈◊〉 condemn'd by many 〈◊〉 national Provincial Councils â— also by the most eminent 〈◊〉 and Doctors of the primitive Church as the premisses do evidently make-out so that the reader may take noâ—â—ce of my adversarys ignorance and presumption for censuring contradicting a religion so ancieÌ„t which lawfull mission acknowledgment of antiquity holy Fathers several Councils divine miracles the word of God do plainly demoÌ„strate to be the only true and Apostolical line which leads Souls to the true way of everlasting glory happiness therefore reader if you have been heretofore of my adversarys opinion I beseech you for the love of Jesus Christ to compare seriously his principles and those of the Church of Rome togeather and then to consider â—ttentively the state and circumstances wherein you are out of â—he holy Catholick Church out of which there is no salvation to be expected as the following holy Fathers do openly declare St. Cyâ—rian in his book de vnitate Ecclesiae speaking of those who are out of the Church sayes thus do they thinke Christ is amongst them â—â—â— tho' they were drawn to torments â—xecution for the confession of the name of Christ yet this pollutioÌ„ is not wash'd away noâ— not with blood this inexpiable and inexcusable crime of schisâ—â— is not purg'd away even by death itself St. Chrysostome in his 11. hoâ— on St. Pauls Epist to the EphesiaÌ„s â—ayes also thus there is nothing so provokes the wrâ—th of God aâ— the division of the Church iâ— so â—uch that tho' we shu'd have perform'd all other sort of good thiâ—gs yâ—t we â—hall inâ—urr apâ—â—isâ—ment â—â— lâ—ss crâ—â—â— for dividing the vnity of the Church than those who have doâ—â— who 〈◊〉 and divided Christs 〈◊〉 St. Augustin in his 4. book of â—ymbole Cap 10. sayes â—â—e following words If any man be soâ—â—â— sâ—parâ—ted from her he shaâ—l be 〈◊〉 from â—he number of the childâ—â—n â—â—ither shall â—e have God for his Father 〈◊〉 wouâ—d not have the Church for 〈◊〉 â—â—ther â—nd it will nothing 〈◊〉 him to have rightly beliâ—v'd oâ— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so many good workes withâ—â—t the â—â—â—clusion of the soâ—eraign good 〈◊〉 sâ—pâ—r gâ—â—â—a Emar he sayâ— also the following â—ords out of the Church aâ— heretick â—ay have all things but salvation â—â— may have the sacraments he may â—ave faith and preach it only salvaâ—ion he cannot havâ— which may be â—urther confirm'd by the words of â—t James c. 2. v. 10. sayiÌ„g thus whoâ—iâ—ver shall keep the whole law and â—â—t offends in one point he is guilty of â—ll therefore being the salvation â—f your soul doth wholly depend â—f the true belief and intire obâ—ervation of all those points of â—ith which the holy Catholick Church sufficiently proposes â—â—iversaly teaches I do earnestly â—eseech you to open the eyes of â—our understanding for I know â—hat you have no invincible ignorance whereby yoâ— might be excus'd to embrace the principles and Doctrines of that pure ancâ—ent Church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail Matt. c. 16. v. 1â— assure your self that I do not invite you to any old heresie as my adversary does noâ— the Lord forbid but to the religion preach'd and taught by Jesus Christ and his Disciples to that I say where with your foreâ— fathers and anteceslors have been still contented since eveâ— they left Paganism untill in the 16. age they were deceiv'd by the erronious Doctrines of those false prophets Luther and Calvin hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast hard from me in faith and live which is in Christ Jesus 2. Timothy c. 1 v. 13 neither give heed to fables and endless genelogies which minister questions rather than Godly â—â—ifying in the faith from which some having sweru'd have turn'd aside unto vain jaâ—gling desiring to be teachers if the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm 1. Timothy c. 1. v. 4. 6. 7. let not villfull or gross ignorance the temporal riches and vanity of this transitory world or complyâ—nce to the request of your frieÌ„ds deceive mislead you but consider seriously the very words of your Saviour and redeemer Jesus Christ Matt c. 16. v. 26. saying thus for what is a man profited if he â—hall gain the whole world loose his own soulâ— or what shall a man give in exchangâ— for his own soul what will it then a â—â—il you after this life to be now for few years or dayes in great honour favour request in this deceitfull world afterward to be perpetually tormented in pain grief miseryes with out any hopes of mercy or redemption where neither frieds pompe nor riches can prevail in order to give you the lest dram of consolation from which punishment the Lord Jesus Christ of his infinite mercy defend both you me all Christians Amen FINIS An Answer to what oâ—e Wâ—ealy â—lleages in his Almanack against St. Peters Supremacy AFter having compos'd this little work Wheaâ—y's Almanack for the year 1â—99 came accidentally into my haÌ„ds wherein he or some other malicious person in his name labours to infect the whole Kingdom with false pernicious Doctrine which he pretends to ground on some nonâ—ensical arguments that he forms against St. Peter the Pope of Rome's Supremacy and tho' 't is hardly worth any mans while to coÌ„fute them yet because it concerns what I have said in my Answer to mr lennings fourth poit â— thiÌ„ke it fit to let him know his own ignorance and the errors of his pretended Doctrine First he offers to infer by a new invented consequence of his own that Peter was neither Bishop of Antioch or Rome because as he falsly alleages the Papists have not as yet agreed amoÌ„g themselves about the time he first remov'd from
AN ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGE Of Mr. Henry Jennings Protestant Arch-deacon of Dromore which evidently makes-out the present Church of Romes doctrine to have been maintain'd in the first five ages the adversarys Principles to be only a heap of heresies lawfully condemn'd by the primitive Church To which is annexed An Answer to one Whealy Set forth by JAMES O SHIELL Reader of Divinity Remember the dayes of old consider the years of many generations aske thy Father he will shew thee thy elders they will tell thee Deut c. 32. v. 7. Permissu Superiorum 1699 TO THE QUEEN MADAM THis little book makes bold to adress it self to your Sacred Majestie not to inform or instruct you in any thing it containes for beside the gifts of nature and great perfections with which your Majestie is so richly indowed you had the advaÌ„tage of being born bred in the most Catholick Country of Europe beiÌ„g well educated throwly instructed in vertue piety religioÌ„ in all other things proper for so great a Princess to learn The end and scope of this small treatise is Madam first to answer a ChalleÌ„ge made to all Catholicks in General by one of the most dareing most presumptuous of the protesaÌ„t it party next to prevent unwary and well meaning Christians from being seduc'd or impos'd upon by such artifices which it will effect by Gods help so it be but countenanc'd by your Sacred Majestie If you consider only its style contexture or the Author that compos'd it it caÌ„not on either of those accounts deserve this honour but the Docttrine it comprehends being compiled faithfully extracted out of the scripture holy Fathers Ancient CouÌ„cils it may on that score well pretend the patronage protection of so great a Quen a desceÌ„ded from the Glorious House of Est which has furnish'd Europe for many hunderds of years with Illustrious Dukes Princes Famous Generals great states-men most Eminent prelates Church-men yet never did oblige it more than in giving it so great a Princess so fit a consort for our Gratious King whose piety zeal are with-out example who for his religion only has lost the Imperial crown of three Kingdoms for his great resignation ChristiaÌ„ patience will infallibly receive a crown of everlastiÌ„g Glory your Majestyes Heroycal sted fast resolution of still prefering religio beforé all Temporal inâ—rest and your great zeal for the service of God the Catholick cause do evidently prove that no other Princess but yourself could be so agreable to his Majestie so conformable to his generous inclinations in this particular as well as in all other Royal perfections The King your Majesties chief study is to maiÌ„taiÌ„ support that religion for which both have sacrific'd your all your daily businesse is to comfort the poor to cloath the naked to feed the hungry to provide for the Fatherless widowes to supply all their waÌ„ts ever to the straitning of yourselves in a word to promote in others ' by your own example the practice of all the workes of piety Charity imaginable Now since standing-up in defence of truth endeavouring to instruct the ignorant in matters of salvation has ever been accounted a work of Charity this little book how ever meanly write may deservé your Majestie 's Royal protectioÌ„ approbation this will render it more acceptable to all good Christians supply it's want where-ever it is defective either in language or composition for this reason Madam the Author does most humbly presume to lay it at your Majesties feet to beg you wou'd be Graciously pleas'd not only to afford it the honour of your Royal patronage but also ot accept of it as a small testimony of the fidelity greatfull respect justly due from all his Country where with he is oblig'd daily to pray for your Majestie ever to continue MADAM Your Majesties Most obedient and most Loyal and most Humble Subject and Sevarnt JAMES O SHIELL An Answer to Mr. Iennings Challenge ALtho' this Treatise be but small yet it treats not of small matters the subject of it being of no less consequeÌ„ce than the salvation of those christians who are led astray from the true faith because they are not guided by any christian motive or Authority but rather by their own wordly interest and libertinism whith now a days too many preferre before gods cause and the salvation of their own souls notwithstanding all the convincing arguments both of our ancient and modern controvertists who with a great deal of pains have shifted the wheat from the tares and inspite of all oppositioÌ„ have made out very clearly the reall and naked truth of their assertions in all controverted points between our pretended reformers the present church of Rome for which reason I wou'd at present forbear writing of a subject so often scann'd and discuss'd before but that I was over perswaded at the earnest request of a certin person of quality who faithfully promis'd to be come a Roman catholick if she cu'd get but a satisfactory answer to an extravagant bold challange of one that stiles himself a prelat of the church of England now residing in the north of Ireland where he makes a great figure and wou'd faine perswade the ignorant and vnwary to belive that his notions are truely catholick To prevent wdich imposture and in hopes that some copyes of this litle work may for the good of souls pass over the seas to that afflicted country where books of controversy are very scarce J made it my business to get it printed haviÌ„g compos'd it as succint and compendious as the subject cou'd possibly permit that it may-be no burden in a mans pocket If the reader be not of the church of Rome I do advise him to perruse it with a serious consideratioÌ„ and remorse of conscience which if he does perhaps it may be an ocasion of leading him to the true light and way of salvation whatever he may carp vpon the method or language I shall bear it patieÌ„tly if he does but observe and consider the meaning and doctrine thereof But before I proceed further I must take notice of this daring champions legerdemain who being sensible â—â— of his own want of proofs and authoritys to make out any one point now controverted he wou'd faine turn the scale impose upon the Roman catholicks to prove their assertions whereas it is plain that since he owns the church of Rome to have been in a legal possession of the true faith for above 300 years after christ he ought coÌ„sequently to suppose that she kept the same faith all along unless he can prove the contrary yet this is no peculiar device of our bold challenger but rather the ordinary practice of all preteÌ„ded reformers who finding no solid grounds for their new notions are forc'd to trust wholy to negatives and endeavor upon that
peoples owne Devotion but in the time of the aforesaid solemnityes specifi'd by the council of Agatho all which may be confirm'd by St. Chrysostomes words who in his 3. Homily on Saint Pauls Epistle to the Ephesians complains that then the people were so undevout that tho' there was Masse daily celebrat'd yet none of them Communicated There are several other Authorityes that might be produc'd for the further proof of this point but to avoide tediousnesse J will conclude with the following passage 'T is not pertinent to the Essence of a Sacrifice the standers by or those for whom 't is offer'd to be partakers of it but Masse is a Sacrifice therefore 't is not pertinent to the essence of Masse the standers by or those for whom it 's offer'd to be partakers of it The major is evident out of the 6. 7. chap. of Leviticus where we read that the Priests of the old law were commanded to offer Sacrïfices that the standers by or any of those for whom they were offer'd did not take the least particle of them the minor also is evident out of the 9 thâ— canon of the Apostles and out of the 24 chap of the 3 Council of Cartage who sate in the year 397 and declar'd masse to be a lawfull sacrifice as for the consequence t is undenyable being the argument is in forme Chap. 2 Provâ—ng that the Communioâ— was admiÌ„nistred under one kind in thâ— Primitive Church The Authorityes which my adversary defies to be produc'd doe clearly make-out the ancient pratice of Receiving the Communion under one sole species in the Primitive Church therefore this doctrine was not first brought in by the present Chuch of Rome either in the 6 7 8 or 9 age the consequens is manifest as will appear hereafter As for the anticedent it may be prov'd by the example of Christ himselfâ— Luck c. 24 v 30. 35 where we read the following words It came to passe as he sate at meâ—t with them he tooke bread bless'd iâ— bâ—ake gave to them And they told whaâ— things were done in the way how he waâ— knowâ—n by them in breakiÌ„g of bread But there is no mention made of the cup no not in the whole Chapter St. Hierome in Paula's epitaph St. Augustin in his 3 book dâ— consensu Evangelistarum c 23 venerable Bede Thèophilactus and several others in the commentary of this chapter doâ— plainly affirmâ— that our saviouâ— gave then the blessed sacremenâ— to those two disciples moreoveâ— we read in the acts of the Apostles c 2 v 42 that the beliverâ— Continued stedfastly in the Apostleâ— Doctrine and fellowship in breakinâ— of bread and in prayers but wâ— see no kind of mention made oâ— the cup but rather a confirmation of the contrary as is manifest bâ— the 46 verse of the same Chapter wherefore I may lawfully iÌ„feâ— that our Saviour Jesus Christ did not oblige all the belivers to Communicate in both species otherwise certainly himself wou'd not be the first transgressor of his own law neither wou'd he promise everlasting life to those who wou'd receive the communion under the forme of bread as he did John c. 6 v 51 saying thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever where by we see plainly that everlasting life is promis'd to us for eating worthily that heavenly bread Now let us see did those of the primitive Church ever practice to give the communion in one sole species to prove which will produce the Authoritye and examples of those Fatherâ— who then liv'd Tertulian whâ— Liv'd thâ— year 230 in is boâ—â— of Oration c. 14 and in his book ad Uxorem c. 5. gives â—â— understand that it was then custom to carry the Eucharâ— home for private Communiâ—â— St. Ambrose who liv'd in the Century relates in his Oration â—â— Obitu Satyri that then the peopâ—â— were wont to keep the Eucharâ— about them and that his oâ—â— brother Satyras once in a shiâ—â—â—rak was miraculously Saâ—â— from being drown'd by the vâ—tue of the blessed Eucharâ— which was ty'd about his neâ—â— St. Basil who liv'd in the same Century expressly affirms in his Epist to Caesaria Patricia that it was a common practice to bring the Eucharist home to their houses and to receive it when they pleas'd which is a manifest sign that then the people did not alwayes receive the Communion in both species for those who tooke it under the forme of wine receiv'd it in the Church from the Priests or Deacons as St. Cyprian relates in his ser De lapsis and those who pleas'd to bring it home under the forme of bread for privat Communion were not hinder'd until by reason of several abuses which happen'd the Father of the Council of Caesaragust who sate the year 382 Can 3 prohibit'd it St. Denis who liv'd in the 2 〈…〉 in his book de Eceles 〈…〉 Chap affirâ—s that it was 〈…〉 custom to give the Communion to the children under the 〈◊〉 of wine and St. Cyprian who liv'd the year 250 in his sermon Delapsis makes mention of acertain child who receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine and also of three more who receiv'd it under one sole species St. Denis of Alexandria who has been St. Cyprians contemprory in his Epists to Tobias tells of a certain Priest who gave a particle of the consecrat'd host to aboy in order to bring it to serapion who waâ— desparate ill in his dying bead Paulinus who has been very familiar with St. Ambrose and present at his deah relates writing his life that he receiv'd the Communion only under the form of bread and St. Basil did the same as also we read in his Life which neither of them wou'd offer to do if they had believ'd it to be either agaiÌ„st the doctrine of the Church or the institution of Christ Sozomenus in his 8 book c 5 Nicepherus in his 13 Book c 7 writes of a certain womaÌ„ who was infected by the Macedonian heresie but thinking to conceal her wickedness and pretending before the people to be a Catholick she receiv'd the blessed Sacrement under the form of bread from the haÌ„d of St. Chrisostome which afterwards she gave privately to her maid thinking to eat in its sted other bread which shee brought from home but it seems that God Almighty was pleas'd to discover her prophane intention for that bread which she thought to eat was sudeÌ„dly turn'd into a stone before all the coÌ„gregatioÌ„ The Manichees who abhorr'd wine believing it to be the Devils gall never Communicated by only under the forme of bread as St. Leos 4 Ser in â—ent expressly testifies but Epiphanius St. Augustin several others who writt of the Manichean errors never mention'd that they err'd in Receiving the Communion in one sole species But I acknowledge that the Bishops of Italy about the year 444. did much Recommend the
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
and I prove the first part of the Anticedent by our Saviour's own words Iohn c 6 v 51 where he sayes thus I am the living bread which came down from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever and the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world But then the Iewes wanting true faith said one to an other how can this man give uâ— his flesh to eate v 52. certainly then our Saviour who came to this world to instruct and leade us out of all darknesse to the true light hearing the Iewes murmuring so and doubting of what he said to be true wou'd explain the aforesaid words if he had any mystical meaning but he was so far from so doing that he confirm'd and repeated them again over and overâ— as is manifest by the 53 54 c. v where we read the following words then Iesus said unto them verily verily I say unto ye except ye eate the flesh of the son of man and drinke his blood ye have no life in ye whosoever eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternall life and I will raise him up at the last day for my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drinke indeed he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me and I 〈◊〉 him as the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is the bread which came down from heaven not as your Fathers did eate â—anna and are dead he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever So that every faithfull sincere Christian may plainly understand that if our Saviour then had not meant that he was to give his own true flesh and blood to be really eaten and dranke that he wou'd not so proceed in confirming what he said in the begining and also that he wou'd not suffer his own disciples to part with-out declaring his mind to them as he did often before when he spoâ—e in parables neither wou'd he declare at his last supper that he gave to his discples his own body and blood saying thus Take eate this his my bâ—dy and he tooke the cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying drinke ye all of it for his is my blood of the new testâ—meâ—t which shall be shâ—d for many for the remission of sinnes Matt c 26 v 26 27 28 I leave it to all faithfull Christians seriously to be consider'd whether Christ gave only figuratively his own body and blood for the remission of our sinnes or his reall body and blood If he gave them really for our Salvation he also gave them really tâ— his disciples as his own wordâ— do manifestly affirme to deny which is of no less consequence than to charge Christ with untruth or at lest that he had not words significant to explain his intention which is rash and impious to judge of his infinite power therefore all Christians are oblig'd not to mistrust of the truth of Christ's words or doubt of their literal sence in the aforesaid text for being we acknowledge that Christ is omnipotent and consequently that it is in his Power to make of the bread and wine his own flesh and blood by his divine benediction we ought not to doubt of what he said to be true and if in case he had not exprest so plainly his mind unto us concerning this mysterie we ought to believe it firmly by St Paul's testimonye â—ae Corinth c 11 v 23 24 c. saying thus for I have receiv'd of the Lord that which also I deliver'd uâ—to ye that â—he Lord Jesus the same night in which he wâ—â— betrayed â—ooke bread and when he had given thankes he brake and said take eate this is my body which shall be â—â—liver'd for ye thiâ— do ye in remembranâ—e of mâ— afteâ— the â—ame maÌ„ner also he tooke the câ—p when he had supped saying this cup is the new testament in my blood this doe ye as often as ye drinke it in remembraâ—ce of me for as often as ye eate thâ—s brâ—ad and drinke this cup ye do shew the Lords death till be come whosoever shall â—at this bread â—â— drinke this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the â—oâ—d By which words St Paul openly declares that Christ gave his own body blood to his disciples at his last supper and also he affirms himself to have been taught this doctrine by the Lord and that he deliever'd the same to the Corinthians that there by he might perswade them not to doubt of what he said to be true but to firmly believe the reall presence beâ—ng it was the Lords doctrine delieuer'd unto him in order to teach it to the Christians Now let us heare the Authorityes of the holy Fathers Doctors of the Primitive Church wherewith I shall prove the second Part of the antecedent St. Ignatius the Apostles Disciple in his Epist to those of Smyrna ciâ—ed by Theodoret in his â— Dialogue sayes thus they â—â—mit not the Eucharists and oâ—lations because they confess not the Euchâ—râ—st to be the flesâ— of our Saviour who suffer'd for ouâ— sinneâ— Let the reader take â—otice of those heretickes against whose principles St Ignatius speaks in the aforsaid text for they rejected the Eucharist lest they would be forc'd to confess that Christ had true flesh but if the Eucharist had not then been believ'd to be Christ's â—rue flesh those heretiks could have no kind of reason to re-ject it for they did noâ— deny the figure or Image of Chrisâ— but what they deny'd was thaâ— Christ had true flesh The like argumenâ— may be form'd against the Jewes admiration hearing the word of Christ Iohn c 6 v. 51 c. for if then the jewes would believe that Christ was to give his flesh only in figure and remembrance they would have no reasoÌ„ to murmur or to mistrust the truth of Christ's words so that it manifestly appears that the Jewes suppos'd that Christ meant his true flesh and also that those heretiks of the prmitive Church believ'd and acknowledge that it was then some of the Catholickâ— Doctrine to believe that Christ's true flesh was really present in the holy Eucharist St. â—â—ustin Martyr who liv'd in the year 150 in his 2 Apology to Antoninus sayes thus we do not receive this as common bread or as common drinke but as the son of God Iesus Christ ouâ— Saviour inâ—â—rnate had flesh and blood for our salvation so are we taught that thâ— Eucharist is the flesh blood of the same Iesus incarnate St Irenaeus who liv'd in the same Century speaking of the hereticks of the Synagogue who deny'd Christ to have been the son of God sayes the following words in his 4th book c 34 how can they be assured the bread in which thankes are given to be the body of our Lord the
substance was chang'd St. Gregorie Nysen who liv'd the year 380. in his Oration term'd Cateehetica c. 370. sayes thus I do also now rightly believe the sanctifi'd bread to be chang'd into the body of Christ and these things he bestows transelementing the thiÌ„gs that are seen into it by the vertue of his blessings which words do plainly make-out that St. Gregorie positively believ'd the Transubstantiation otherwise he wou'd not have said these words St Ambrose who siv'd about the same time in his 4th book of sacraments c. 4th sayes thus perhaps you may say my bread is ordinary but the bread is bread before the words of consecration but when consecration comes it is the flesh of Christ a nother convincing Authority of St. Ambrose may be seeÌ„ in my answer to the 5th point St Gaudentius who also liv'd in the 4th age in his 2. Treatis on Exod. sayes the following words the Cream and Lord of natures who brought forth the bread out of the earth and again of the bread because he can do it promis'd it made his proper body and who of the water made wine made of the wine his own blood S. Chrysostome who liv'd in the year 398. in his 83. hom on S. Matt. speaking of this mysterie sayes thus these are not the works of human power which the Lord perform'd in that supper the same also offers now the sacrifice he performs we enjoy the office of ministers truly t is he who sanctifies and chaâ—ges these things And in his Homily of the Eucharist in â—â—â—aenys he also sayes the following words do you see the bread do you see the wine do they go like other meat to the privy the Lord forbid you ought not to imagin so for eveÌ„ as after wax is apply'd to the fire nothing of the substance remains even so consider here the mysteries the substance of the body to be consum'd that is to say that the breads substaÌ„ce is annichilated when Christ's body inters under those accidents which formerly the bread had before it was annulâ—d St. Augustin in his â—8 ser de verbis Apostoliâ— sayes thus I told ye that the bread which is offer'd is call'd bread before the words of Christ but as soone as Christ's words are pronounc'd then t is not call'd bread but it is call'd the body And in the book of the IncarnatioÌ„ of Christ we read the following words t is not to be believ'd that the â—ubstance of the bread or wine remains but that the bread is cheang'd into Christ's body and the wine into his blood c St. Cyrill of Alexandria in his Epist to Calosyrius and Eusebius Emissenus Ser. de corpore Domini do affirm the same All which Authorityes do evidently make out the thing signifi'd by the word Transubstantiation that is to say the real change of the substance of bread and wine aâ— the intrance of Christ's flesh blood to have been alwayes believ'd and maintain'd by the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church so that it plainly appears that this Doctrine of Transubstantiation was not broughtin by the Church of Rome either in the 6th 7th 8th or 9th age or by the Council of Latran in the year 1215 as some of the preteÌ„nded reformers do falsly aleadge It is not worth my while to answer here the Adversary's 8th point for it is sufficiently answer'd by what I have produc'd in my answers to the three last points for t is manifest that all those who contradicted in the Primitive Church the aforsaid Doctrine that they were esteem'd and beliv'd by the holy Catholicke Churh to have been notorious heretickes as I will shew in the later end of this worke Chap. 8. Proving the use and veneration of Images in the Primitive Church If it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worship Images but t is lawfull to worship other creatures therefore t is lawfull to worship Images the major is manifest for the saâ—e honour which the scripture forbids to be given to the one forbids it to be given to the other as I will shew hereafter therefore if it be lawfull to worship other creatures t is also lawfull to worshâ—p Images whose making and puting up in Churches is commanded by the holy scripture as evidently appears by the following texts Exodus c 25 v. 18. 19. 22 where we read that God commanded two Câ—erubins to be made of goâ—d which were to be set up on both sides of the Arke before which the people were to pray and promis'd that there he wou'd meet with Moses we read also Numb c. 21 v. 8 and 9 that the Lord commanded Moses to make a fiery serpent and to set it up on a pole and that it shu'd come to passe that if any one would be bitten by a serpent that he wou'd recover when he wou'd looke upon the serpent of brasse more examples may be seen in the 3 book of Kings c. 6. v. 35. c. 7. v. 25. 29. and 36. c. 10. v. 19. in the 2. book of Chronicles c 3. v. 10 and 14. where we read that Salomon caus'd at several times Images to be made but we can never find out that ever he was reprehended for so doing Now let us see is it lawfull to worship other creatures that thereby the minor may be prov'd Lot seeing the Angels bowâ—â— himself with his face to wards the ground Gen. c. 19. v. 1. Baâ—aam did the same seeing the Angel of the Lord Numb c 22 v. 31. and also Joshua as may be seen Joshua c. 5. v. 14. Saul seeing the soul of Samuel stoop'd with his face towards the grouÌ„d and â—bowed himself as may be seen in the first book of Kings c. 28 v. 14. and in the 3. book of Kings c 18 v 7. we read that Abadiah fell on his face and worshipp'd Elyah The sons of the Prophets seeing Elisha they came to meet him and bowed themselves to the ground before him as may be seen in the 4th book of Kings c. 2. v. 15. we also read in the 2. c. v. 46. of Daniel that the King Nebuchad-nezzar fell upon his face and worshipp'd Daniel and commanded that they shu'd offer an oblation and sweetodours unto him Chirist approv'd of the making and exalting of the brazen serpent and owens it to have been the type and figure of himself exalted on the crosse â—ohn c. 3 v 14. S. Iohn the Baptist worshipp'd the very latehet of our Saviours shooe the latchet of whose shooes saith he I am not worthy to unloose John c. 1. v. 27. for which fact St Augustin on that place concluds him to have been full of the holy Ghost the Patriarch Jacob ador'd the top of Joâ—eph's rod a signe or Image of his regal power as we read in S Pauls Epist to the Hebrews c. 1 v 2â— the Primitive Christians venerated the very shadow and garments of S Peter and Paul and receiv'd thereby speciall benefit as may be seen in
mount â—alvary which Image in the reign of Tiberius the Emperour was brought to Rome and there honourably reserv'd and shew'd to the people every munday and thursday Several other Images of Christ were made even by those who liv'd in his one time as for example there was one made by the woman whom he heal'd of the bloody flux which was set up in the city Penades where several miracles were wrought upon the account of it as Eusebius in his 7 book c. 14th Sozomenus in his 5th book c. 20 and Damascenus in his first book de Imaginibus do relate for a certain herbe which grew at the foot of that Image when it came to be so high that it cou'd touch the hem of the Image it receiv'd vertue to heal all kind of distempers and as Sozomenus testifies when Juliaâ— the Emprour order'd to fall it down and to place his own Image in stead of it his was immediatly consum'd by fire from heaven which miracle the Pagans seeing most impiously by the instinct of the divel brake our Saviours Image not considering that he who caus'd their Emprours Image to be burn'd might by the same power cause also fire to come down from heauen in order to burn both themselves and thier Emprour too only that his divine goodness and clemency had more patience to expect their conversion of which the Emprours Image was uncapable another Image of Christ was made by Nicodemus which a Christian 43. years after it was made carri'd from Jerusalem to Berith a Village in Syria where in deâ—ision of our Saviour's Passion it was by the Jewes crown'd whipp'd pierc'd c vs'd it with all manner of villany as they us'd our Saviour himself but not with out great miracle for as they pierc'd it there issu'd out of it aboundance of water and blood by which divers maladyes were cur'd and several Jewes conver ted seeing these miracles as Athanasius in his book de Passione Imaginis Domini c. 4th and Gregorie of Tours de gloria martyrum c. 21. do relate To which examples may be also added those Images of our blessed Lady one made by S. Luke which is to be seen at this very day in the Church of Loretta in Italiâ— and an other of hers whâ—ch Eudoxia sent from Jerusalem to Pulcheria which shee plac'd near her own seat in the Church that shee built in Constantinople as Nicepherus writes in his 14th book c. 2. Iâ— might Produce several other Images which were made worshipp'd by those of the Primitive Church If I had not suppos'd that any impartial reader might plainly perceive by what I have already produc'd that the vse of Images is no new Doctrine iâ— the holy Catholick Church and consequently that their worship and veneration is not prohibited by the second commandment as my adversary and his adherence do falsly teach for that which is prohibited by this commandment and also by the scriâ—ture in several places is to worship or adore any creature with that honour which is due to the Almighty God as formerly the Gentiles did when they made Idols and false Gods which afterwards they worshipp'd and ador'd even as if every one of them had been a true and an Eternal God wherefore they are alwayes believ'd by those of the Church of Rome to have been Idolators impious for soe doing which they wou'd not judge if themselves were guilty of the same crime or of any other of that kind therefore the worship which is peculiar to God is commonly call'd by the divines Cultus â—atriae that is to say a soveraign honour and the Church of Rome most strictly forbids all her members to give it to any creature therefore the honour veneration which shee alowes to be given to Images is not that of Latria or severaign as all the Fathers of the 7th General Council do declare in the 7th Action but it is an inferior kind of veneration call'd relative that is to say that they are worshipp'd in as much as they represent unto us Godly thingâ— and are instruments apt to move the people to thinke of what our Saviour the Saints have suffer'd done in this world so that they serve in a maÌ„ner as books to those who cannot read excites the people to great devotion pietv which other wise wou'd not have inter'd into their thoughts or imaginations â—o that the reader may take notice how uncharitable the pretended reformers do continually preach to their poor ignorant flock that the Papists are Idolators and impious by worshipping graven Images as Gods that thereby they might render the holy Catholick Church odious and abominable to the very simple people fearing that any of theâ— wou'd embrace her principles oâ— offer to find out the real verity of her uncorrâ—pted doctrine Chap. 9 Proving the invocation of Angels and Saints to be lawfull â— practis'd by those of the Primitive Church The Angels and Saints his a special care of us and we receive several benefits by their assistance and merits therefore it is lawfull to invocate them that they may interced for us to God the antecedent is manifest by the following texâ—s And the Angâ—â— of God call'd tâ— Hagaâ— ouâ— of heaven and said unto her what aileth thâ— Hagaâ— fear not for God hath haâ—â— the voice of the child Genesis c. 17. and the Angel of the Lord call'd unto him out of heaven and said Abraham Abraham lay not their hand upon the child neither do thou any thing unto him for I know that thou fearest God Genesis c. 22. v. 11. 12. The Angel which redeem'd me from all evil blesse these boyes Genesis c. 48. v. 16. Then the Angel of the Lord went forth smote in the camp of the Assytian an hundred and fouâ— score five thousand Isaiah c. 37. v. 36. Then the Angel of the Lord Answer'd said O Lord of hosts how long will thou not have mercy in Jerusalem and â—n the cityes of Juda against which thou hast indignation these three score and ten years Zechariah c. 1. v. 12. Michael one of the Princes come to help me there is none that holdeth with me in these things but Michael Daniel â— 10. v 13. 21. But while he thought â—â— these things behol'd the Angel of the Lord appear'd unto him in a dream saying Ioseph son of David fear noâ— to take unto thee Mary they wife for that which is conceiv'd in her is of the holy Ghost Matt. c. 1. v. 20. Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones for I say unto ye that in heaven their Angels do alwayes behold the face of my Father which is in heaven Matt. c. 18. v. 1â— And four twenty elders felldown before the lambe having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours which are the prayers of the Saints Revelations c. 5 v. 8. and c. 8. v. 3. 4. and an other Angel came stood at the altar having a
the year 390 tomo secundo Conciliorum and so were the Pelagians errors by the following Councils viz by the Milevian Council the year 416 by the Aâ—ican Council the year 4â—8 as â—y be seen tomo 〈◊〉 Conciliorum â—and also b◠〈◊〉 â—ral Council of 〈◊〉 which â—â—e the year 43◠〈◊〉 Conciâ—orum Luther assertione articuli 32 â—alvin in his 2 book of Insâ—â—uâ—ons c. 18 and in his 3 book c 4 â—eld likewise that all sins are morâ—l 15 Simon Magus and Menander â—eld that Christs true flesh is not â—â—lly present in the holy Euâ—harist as St. Ignatius declares â—â— his Epist to those of Smyrna â—f which Theodoretus makes â—ention in his 3. dialogue other â—â—reticks of the Primitive Church held the same as Sâ— Cyrill writes in his Epist to Calosirius Tho' Luther never expreâ—slâ— affirm'd this point of the old he reâ—â—e yet all his Disciples do endeavouâ— to defend it and so diâ— Calvin in his book de Caena Domini where he reprehends Luther for not holding it and alsâ— in his 4 book c. 17. 16 Simon Magus held that faitâ— alone is suâ—â—icient for salvation and consequently that good woâ—kes are needless in order to savation as St. Irenaeus in his firâ— book c. 20. and Theodoretâ— de heretic is fabulis do write Eunomius held the same erroâ— as St. Augustin in his book dâ— â—eresibus declares c. 54 Luther in his book de libertate â—hristiana and Calvin in his 3. â—ook of Institutions c. 19. held â—o the same error that thereby â—ey might provoke others to be â—ven to all kind of vices as themâ—lves were 17. The Eunomians held that â—e reliques of Saints ought not â— be veâ—erated as Magnes in â—s 4 book against Theostines â—firms and Vigilantius held the â—e error as St. Hierome writes â— his book against Vigilantâ—us â—ut the Eunomians errors have â—een condemn'd by the â— Counâ—il of Rome the year 369. by the â—eneral Council of Constantinoâ—e the year 381 tomo secundo by the Council of Calcedon which sate the year 451 tomo 4. CouÌ„ciliorum also by the Council of Constantinople the year 553. tomo 5 Conciliorum Luther in his 〈◊〉 de cruce and in his book de missa abroganda held the same and so did Calvin admonitione de reliquiis 18 Vigilancius affirm'd that it is unlawfull to invocate Saints as St. Hierome writes in his book against Vigilantius's errors Luther in his book de Eucharistia ad Waldenses and Calvin in his 3 book of Institutions c. 20. believ'd and held the same error 19 The Massalians rejected the fast commanded by the Church as St. Epiphaniâ—s heresie 8. and Theodoretus in his 4. book c. 11. do relate the Aerians did the same as St. Augustin declares in his book of heresie c. 33. and so did the Eustachians as St. Epiphanius heresie 75. and Socrates in his 2. book c. 33. do write Calvin in his 4th book of Institutions c. 12 rejected the same which error both his and Luthers Disciples do willingly embrace that théy might indulge their own bodies whilest they are in this world 20 Thë Massaliaâ—s held that holy order is no sacrament as St. Damascenus relates in his â—irst book of haeresie the Massaâ—ians errors were condemn'd by â—he Fathers of the Council of Syda who sate the year 383. as may be seen Tomo 2. Conciliorum and by a nother Council in the Orient the year 417 Tomo 3. Conciliorum Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. de ordine held also that holy order is no Sacrament which error his Disciples do now firmly believe 21 Helvidius raught that the Blesled Virgin Mary bore children to Joseph who were brothers to Iesus Christ as St. Hierome relates in his book against Helvidius's errors which were condemn'd in the Council of Milan the year 390. as may be seen Tomo 2. Conciliorum Calvin ad Caput 1. Lucae affirm'd the same error which several of his followers do now certainly believe 22 Eusebius in his 3. book of history c. 25. and St. Hierome in his book de viris illustribus do make mention of certain hereticks who deny'd the Epist of St. James oâ— Juda the 2. Epist of St Peter also the 2. 3. of St. John to be canonical Luther in his prologue on these Epist rejects St James and Juda's Epistles and he doubts of the rest to be canonical 23 The Marcionites deny'd the revelations of St. John to be canonical as Tertullian relates in his 3. 4. book against Marcion the Theodotians deny'd the same as St. Epiphanius wriâ—es hereâ—ie 51. 54. the aforesaid Martionâ—tes did also deny St. Pauls â—pist â—o the Hebrews to be canonical as St. Hierome declares in his preface on St. Pauls Epist to Tiâ—us and so did Arius as Theodâ—retus relates in his preface on St. Pauls Epist to the Hâ—brews Luther in his preface on the old Testament affirms the â—evelation not to be canonical and in his prologâ—e on that to the Hebrews he sayes likewise that it is not canonical 24 The Marcionites Basilidians held that all the old TestameÌ„t was apocryphal as St. Irenaeus relates in his book c. 20. 22. 29. the Manicheans held the same as St Epiphanius affirms heresie 66. but the Maniâ—heans errors were condeâ—n'd by the General Ephesian Council the year 431. Toâ—o â— Concilioruâ— and also by the Council of Rome the year 444. which is to be 〈◊〉 in the saâ—e Tomâ— as for thâ— Mâ—â—â—iâ—ni-teâ—â—â—â—ors they 〈◊〉 bâ—â—n câ—demn'd by the Geâ—â—ral Coâ—nâ—il oâ— Calâ—â—â—oâ— the 〈…〉 51. â—oâ—o 4. Conciliorum and by the 〈◊〉 Council of Constanâ—inâ—â—le the year 553. where also the 〈◊〉 errors were condemn'd as may be seen Tomo 5. Conciliorum Luâ—â—â—r and Calvins Disciples are something milder than the aforesaid hereticks for they do no◠〈…〉 thaâ— all the old Tâ—stament is apocriphal yet théy deny several books of it to be canonical and chiefly those books which â—vidently do falsifie their own principles If I had not suppos'd that the premisses might sufficiently demonstrate what Doctrines my adversary and the reformers do maintain I wou'd produce several other points of â—old heresies which also they maintain but lest I shu'd be too troublesome to thè reader I will only conclude with the following passage Whosoever maintains or hath for his principles the aforesaid points is lawfully accus'd for maintaining old heresies false and erronious Doctrines confuted by the holy Fathers and lawfully condemn'd by several CouÌ„cils of the Primitive Church but thâ— pretended reformers do maintain and have for their principles the aforesaid points therefore the pretented reformers are lawfully accus'd for maintaining old heresies false and erronious Doctrines confuted by the holy Fathers and lawfully condemn'd by several Councils of the primitive Church the minor is manifest as for the major ti 's prov'd by what I have already produc'd for certaiÌ„ly all those holy Fathers and Doctors wou'd not make it their business to reprehend and confutâ— the chief promoters of