plainly giveing the lye not only to the Angel Gabriel who dâ—clar'd that â— of Christs Kingdoâ— which is his Church ther shouâ—â— be no end Luke chap. the 1. v. â— but also to Christ himself who expressly promis'd that the Gates of Hell shou'd not prevaile agaiÌ„st his Church Math. chap. the 16. v. 18. and that he wou'd be with his disciples in the administration of their function even to the end of the world Math. chap 28. v. the 20. For a further confirmation of this point it is evident that no Church or society of Christians can shew their lineal and lawfull succession of pastors and Bishops ever since the Apostles time but the present Church of Rome and such as are in communion with her for those that now stile themselves the Church of England cannot for their lives shew any before Cranmer in Edward the fixth time as appears by Goodman the Protestant Bishop of Hereford in his Catalogue of all the Bishops of England since the first plaÌ„tatioÌ„ of ChristiaÌ„ religion amoÌ„gst them where he expressly names Thomas Cranmer to be the first protestant Bishop thaâ— was ever seen in England Upon the whole matter since none but the preseÌ„t RomaÌ„ Catholik Church can pretend to have had since the Apostles time a continued series of Bishops with whom all their coÌ„temporaryes of the orthodox part of Christians alwayes agreed in one faith and comunion it plainly follows that she alone can pretend to the purity of the Christian faith And therefore whosoever desires to find and embrace a Church wherein the old incorrupted principles of Chrstianity are taught and such principles only as were maintain d by the Ancient and pure Church 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 as I shall manifestly prove in my Answer to the aforsaid points for being the ancient Father St. Basile in his 63. Epistle declares unto us That we ought not to pase â—â—er calumnyes not out of revenge but lest we shu'd seem to give way to a lyeor suffer men seduc'd to be further decev'd I shall therefore answer my Adversary a challeÌ„ge in the same order that he has laid â—â— chap. 1. Proving both publick and privaâ—â— Masses to have been celebâ—cated in the premitive Church This Challenger seens to lav his main stress upon the word privat Masse but what he means by it he does not explain t is certain that altho' Masses were said privately in all age especially during the persecution of the Heathens when Christians perform'd their Devotions in caves and vaults under ground yet the word privat masse was seldom us'd by Catholick writers either before or since the year 600. until Martin Luther by his book de-Missa privata oblig'd Catholick Divines to write upon that subject and confute to the full Luthers arguments against it but why is the question rais'd about private masse does my adversary own that publick Masses were in use in the primitive church If so he must either quitt the old as well as the present Church of Rome or condemn his own Church of England which declares against all masses both privat publick and indeed whosoever admits one can have no tolerable reason to deny the other contrary to the practice of so many ages But let him deny or own what he pleases t is evident to us by the undeniable testimonyes of several Fathers and Councils more ancient than the year 600 that both publick and privat masses were then in use in the Catholick Church and offer'd to the Almighty both for the living and the dead as occasion requir'd St. James the Apostle speaking to Almighty God in his liturgy sayes we offer unto thee an unbloody sacrifice for our sins and for the ignorance of the people And St. Andrew likewise said as the Priests and Deacons of Achia in the book they writt of this Apostles passion I sacrifice daily unto Almighty God an immaculate lamb who when he is truely sacrific'd and his flesh truely eaten remains still wholy and alive St. Ireneus who liv'd the year 180 in his 4. book against heresies c 32 after speaking of the sacrifices which were offer'd in the old law sayes that our Lord taught the Apostles to offer anew sacrifice which the Church afterwards beiÌ„g taught by the Apostles offer'd through the universal world St. Cyprian who liv'd the year 250. prohibit'd to offer any sacrifice for the soul of Gemininus Faustus because he did not observe the decree of his own antecessors the Bishops Cornelius Bishop of Rome who liv'd about the year 254. complains that the persecution was so great in his own time that they could not say masses either in publick Churches or in Caves under ground which Authority may be seen Tomo 1. Biblia Sanctorum Patrum Tertuiliam who liv'd in the same century sayes in his book decorona miâ—it s c. â— that masseâ— were then offer â— so the souls of the dead and Fusebius Cesariensis who liv'd the year 326 relates in his 4. book c 4â— that there were masses said for the soul of Constant the Great St Cyriâ—l of Jerusalem who liv'd in the same century Catech 5. sayes thus we belive that the holy and dreadfull sacrifice which is offer'd upon the altar is agreat relief to those for whom its offer'd so Zomenus relates in his 7. book c. 5. that St. Gregory Nazianzen said Masse in a privat chappel and Paulinus writing the life of St. Ambrose affirms that St. Ambrose said Masse in a certaiÌ„ Gentel somans house St. Ambrose himself in his commentary on the 38 Psal â— bids the Priests to offer this holy sacrifice for others Theâ—dâ—â—et who liv'd the year 4â—0 in his History c 20. declareâ— himself to have said masse in a Hermits cell and St Gregorie in his 37. Homily affirms that the holy Bishâ—p Cassins was wont to say masse in his oratory being hinder'd from going to the church by reason of his infirmity St. Hierome who liv'd the year 390. in his Commentary on the â— chap of the proverbs sayes the following words It s to be Observ'd that altho' there is no hopes of pardon for the wicked after their death yet there are those who dye with small sins and after their death can be discharg'd either by chastifing them with punishments or by their friends prayâ—rs alms and celebration of masses In his commentary on St. Pauls Epist to Titus he sayes thus If the Laity are commanded to abstaine from their wives in the time of communion what is to be suppos'd of the Bishop who daily for his own and the peoples sins offers to God the underfiled sacrifice he hath such an other Authority in his first book against Jovinian c. 19. speaking of the priests St. Chrisostome who liv'd in the later end of the 4. century in his homily on St. Pauls Epist to the Philippians speaking of those who dye in the fear of God
denys Peter to have been bishop for it was resolv'd by those that were in that â—ssâ—mbly that it wou'd be expeâ—ient to send Bishop to the Samarians who then receiv'd thâ— faith in order to confirm them in the same so that it was agreed that John and the chifest Bishop viz Peter shoud go thither to perform the same which they did to the Samarians great satisfactâ—on After this Whealy produces an argument which he sound in a manuel of coâ—troveâ—sie priâ—ted at Doway the â—ear 654 proviÌ„g that to be the only Church of God whiâ—h hath had a cotinued succession of Bishops pastors from the time of Christ and the Apostles to this present daâ— which he denys with out giving any Authority or reason but promises in the following page to confute it I will be silent in the matter untill I see what he can alleadge agaiÌ„st it He afterwards â—ites out of the same manuel the following texts Isa c. 59. v. â— c. 60. v 1. 3. 1. c. 62 v. â— Ezâ—â—â—iâ—l c. 37 v. 26 Daniel c. 7 v. 13. 14 proving the infallibility of the Church which in Whealy's opinion can have no relation â—o â—â— they being write long before the Apostles dayes but if this shu'd taâ—e place it would as well prove that all the prophesies of the old Testament concerning Christs passion resurection and assention could have no relation to the said Mysteries they being prophesy'd loÌ„g before any â—f hâ—m came to pass all Whealy's witt can shew noe tolerable reason for denying the one and admitting the other as for the texts which he brings out of Matt c. 28 v. 20 John c 14 v. 16. Ephe c. 4 v. 11. 12 it is but some of Whealy's calumnyes to alleage that the Author of the said Manuel ever Produc'd them in order to prove St Peter supremacy whereas he only â—akes use of them to prove the visibility and infallibility of the true Church and its contiÌ„nued succession of Bishops Pastors from the time of the Apostles till now as appears in the 2. 37 45 page of the same Manuel After this Whealy denyes Peter to have been Bishop of Antioch or Rome for six several reasons and sayes in the first that he cannot grant it because the scriptures are wholy silent in the mattâ—r But if he can grant nothing wherein tâ—e scrâ—ptures are silent he is no true Christian for he does not believe or grant the Apostles creed or tâ—at the present Bible of which he makes use himself to be the uÌ„corrupted word â—f God or the baptism of children before they come to the years of discrection to be lawfull and sufficienâ— for salvatioÌ„ seeing the scriptures are â— holly silent in these matters beside he Possitively swears to several poiÌ„ts that are not mention'd therein and consequently contradicts his owne assertion this is too evident to require a proof for he wickedly swears believes that the true flesh blood of Christ are not really present in the blessed Sacrament that the Virgin Mary Mother of God hath no more power than a nother Woman that the Bishop of Rome hath no spiritual or temporal jurisdiction over England Ireland or Scotland and several other points propos'd by the present goverment therefore he believes and wickedly swears to several points as articles of faith wherein he himself pretends the Scripture to be wholly silent but let Whealy deny or own what he pleases its evident to us by the testimonies of all ancient writers and the following holy Fathers Doctors that Peter was Bishop of Rome viz St. Irenaeus in his 3. book c. 36. Tertullian in his book de Prescrip adversus hereticos St. Cyprian in his first book Epist 3. and in his 4. book Epist 2. Eusebius in his chronicle of the 44. year S. Epiphanius heresie 27. S. Athanasius in his Epist to those who lead a solitary life Dorotheus in his Inventory Sozomenus in his 4. book c. 4. Optatus in his 2. book against PerminiÌ„an S. Ambrose in his book of the Sacraments c. 1. St. Hierome de Viris Illustribus and in his first Epist to Damas St. Augustin in his 2. book against Petilian c. 51. and in his 165 Epist Theodoret in his Epist to Leo. Isidorus writing the life of Peter and all other ancient writers till the year 1400. before which time I defie Whealy to produce any Author that ever write of Peter's not being Bishop of Rome Whealy's second reason for denying this matter the office of an Apostle was deriv'd immediatly from Christ and by consequence more honourable and supream than that of Bishop which was ordain'd by men only it were therefore no less than madness to think Peter so weake of judgment to quitt the more honourable for the lesser or the superiour for an inferior But in this Answer Whealy makes two false suppositions first he supposes that Peter was ordain'd Bishop by men and not by Christ as Aron was formerly ordain'd by God chief Priest over the Isralites secondly he supposes that there is an incompâ—â—â—bility between the office of an Apostle and that of Bishop which â—s also 〈…〉 tho' they be two 〈…〉 they do not tend to incompaâ—ible effects for they both tend to the glory of God propagating the Doctrine of Christ and establishing the holy Catholick Church which no man of sence can deny As to Whealy's third reason wherein he sayes that the commission of an Apostle go ye forth teach all nations c. was then more universal than that of Bishoprick c. If this wou'd prove any thing against Peters being Bishop it wou'd also prove that James was not Bishop of Jerusalen or John Bishop of Ephese because their commission was also to go forth and teach all nations c. which hinder'd them not from being Bishops of the aforesaid seas as all ancient writers do unanimously testifie as to that which he adds saying that 't is epressly agaiÌ„st the special command of Christ to accept of bishoprick at all 't is but some of his presbyterian Doctrine where with he not only attakes the Church of Rome but also the present Church of EnglaÌ„d as manifestly appears by what he produces in his last argument out of Luke c. 12. v 25 26. His fourth reason against Peter being Bishop is that Peter was Apostle of the circumcision and such as write his Epistles from Babylon not to Rome but to the scatered â—eâ—es c. which reason coÌ„tradicts Whealys third Answer where in he sayes that it was agaiÌ„st Christs commaÌ„d that Peter should accept of bishoprick at all because as he alleages he was oblig'd to go fâ—â—th and teach all nations but if Peter was oblig'd to teach all nations he was not only an Apostle of the circumcision for the word all nations compreheÌ„ds both the Jewes and Gentiles by which it appears that Whealy in his owne discourse coÌ„tradicts himself as for Peters being Apostle only of the circumcision and Paul only of the Gentiles 't
do the same but priÌ„cipally to the Gentiles as for Peter's being at Jerusalem several times it argues not that he remov'd his sea thither wheÌ„ he quitted Antioch as for example Mr. Boyle the Bishop of Down in IrelaÌ„d remov'd his sea from thence and sate in the three last Parlements in Dublin shall you therefore infer that it was to Dublin he remov'd his sea this consequence would not follow for he remov'd his sea to Clougher and so might Peter remove his from Autioch to Rome tho' he was present at these assemblies of the Apostles Elders at Jerusalem as for Peter's creation I say that he was created Bishop by Christ after hiâ— Resurrection even as Aron was instituted high Priest by God over the Israelites when he gave him in charge the whole Church as all the proofs which I have produc'd in my Answer to Mr JenniÌ„gs 4th point do plainly make-out if in case he had been made Bishop by the Apostles it would not prove that he was not their superior as appears in the case of our Saviour who was superior to S. John Baptist and the Iewes yet was Baptis'd by the one and circumcis'd by the others as in manifest Luke c. 2 â— Now to come to Whealys preposterous sort of calculation the reader will be pleas'd to take notice of the followiÌ„g discouâ—se whereby he may plainly see how S. Peter came to be Bishop of Antioch and Rome before the 19th year after our Saviour's Passion he stay'd about four years after in Judea he â—as at Jerusalâ—m beholding Christ's asecution according to that of the Acts c. 1. v. â— Paul gave him a visit the third year after his owne conversion Gala c. 1 v. 18. in the begining or the 5th year after our Saviour's Passion Peter went to Sâ—râ—â—a and fixâ—t his sea in Antioch where he remained seaven years but did not continue in the City all that time for he went now and then to the ajacent provinces and preach'd the Gospel there viz in Pontos Asia Capodocia c. about the end of the 7th year he return'd to Ierusalem being 11 years after our Saviour's Passion and was immediatly imprison'd by Herod Acts c. 12. v. 4. but was soone inlarg'd by an Angel as appears by the 7. 8. 9. v. of the same chap. the same year which was the second of the Impire of Claudius he came to Rome and fix't his sea there preach'd the Gospel to them for the space of seaven years after which time he was expell'd out of the City by Claudius and so were all the Jewes then in Italy Acts. c. 18. v. 2. after this expulsion which happen'd in the be giuing of the 19th year after our Lords Passion Peter went to Jerusalem when those of Antioch heard of his coming thither they sent Paul and Barnabas to him in order to decide a controversie risen amoÌ„g them about the circumcision which he did before the whole assembly as appears Acts. c. 15 v 10. he could not afterwards return to Rom e for the space of four years by which time Claudius the Improur dy'd so that the advers party 's foolish demoÌ„stratioÌ„ is grouÌ„dless appareÌ„tly false wherein he preteÌ„ds to prove that Peter could not be Bishop of Rome dureing the first 19. years after Christ's Passion because the scripture makes meÌ„tion of his being in Ierusalem four several times duriÌ„g that time as also his preaching the Gospel in Iudea Siria c. But if this had hinder'd Peter's being Bishop of Rome untill that 19th year Whealy may as well coÌ„clude that the Prince of Orange was not Crown'd in EnglaÌ„d from the year 1688. untill 1699. because that dureiÌ„g this time he was seen every year in IrelaÌ„d HollaÌ„d or Flanders as for his saying that the Second year of Nero's Impire is the 19th of the years assign'd of Peter's being Bishop of Rome it 's manifestly false for it is but the 1â—th year for as I have shew'd before Peter came first to Rome the secoÌ„d year of Claudius Impire who raign'd 13 years nine mounths 20 dayes so that eleaveÌ„ years of Clâ—uâ—iu's Impire with those 〈◊〉 and two years of Nero's do not make up fully 14 years before which time Paul never came to Rome as is evident Act c. 28. v. 14 but he write before then his Epist to the Romans in his Journey to Ierusalem and in the 16. c. he salutes many of the Romans and Jewes who were then Christians and converted by Peter before he was expell'd by Claudius where by it appears that Whealy is wholly a strenger not only to ancient Historyes but also to the very scripture by which he pre tends to prove his false Doctrine as for Paul's two years imprisonment in Rome under Nero and not makeing mention of Peter in his Epistles to the Golossians Timothy c. It proves not that Peter could not be then in Rome as for example it cannot be infer'd that Christ was not circumcis'd because S. Mathew makes noe mention of it that the star did not appear to the wise-men because Luke is silent in the matter that Christ was not born of a Virgin because Marke makes no mention of it so that it is to be admir'd how any maÌ„ of sence can offer to infer such an illegal consequeÌ„ce as if St. Paul had been oblig'd to specifie all Christians then in Rome or as if he had possitively affirm'd that not ChristiaÌ„ had beeÌ„ at Rome that time but only those that he names to explain these texts Colo c. 4. v. â—1 12. 2. Timoth. c. 4 v. 10. 11. c. on which Whealy insists the reader may observe that Pauls intent was to give an account of his owne domestick family to those to whom then he write who knew them before which is a most usual thing for commonly when people write to their well-wishers they salute them in their acquaintences name if they goe from one place to an other they give them an account of their removeal so that from first to last Whealy cannot make out that Peter was not Bishop of Rome from the second year of Claudius reign till he was crucifi'd in the same City with his head down wards by Nero the Empâ—our's orders 25 year after which Whealy might easily understand with-out any manner of confusion or incongruity out of the following Fathers and ancient writers viz S. Ignatius in his Epist to the Romans Eusebius in his 2 book c. 25. Egesippus in his 3. book c. 2. Origenes in his 3. on Geneses St. Athanasius in his Apology de fuga sua S. Chrysostome in his 32 hom on S. Paul's Epist to the Romans Tertullian in his book de Praescrip Lactantius in his â— book Divinarum Institutionum c. 21. St. Ambrose in his Oration against Auxenâ—iâ—s St. Hierome de Viris Illustribus St. Augustin in his fiâ—st book de Consensu Evangelist c. 10. St Maximus in his 5. ser de Natali Apostolorum Sulpitius in his