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
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
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
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
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
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