about matters of faith Secondly If so they be no where written in Scripture Thirdly That if they be not written they be the same which ye deliver to the people and by what authority ye press and writ them But to take this text wholly from your mis-interpretation hear Theodoret who saith that the Apostle spake not of diverse doctrines but of the same diversely delivered For first he preached to the Thessalonians and then did writ the substance of it But as where ever ye find fire in the Scripture ye make it Purgatory so where ye find tradition ye make it pari ratione yours Will ye listen to Bell. lib. 4. de verbo Dei cap. 10. and he will put all out of doubt for he granteth that all in substance were written by the Apostles which they preached to the people or were necessar to salvation Cyprian in his epist ad Pompeium admitteth not any traditions but such as may be perceived to be in the Evangels in the Epistles or Acts of the holy Apostles Therefore it is a perfect rule to all discerners say I and no more was at first asserted Your Maxime Idem est non esse non apparere holdeth in law but not in divinity For the soul is not visible yet who can deny the being of it What is more in the Reply I judge not worthy the noticeing and I am forced to make digression because of an impertinent return Is it not strange that when I called men mutable creatures and at their best state vanitie subject to clashing contradiction and that the written Word is the only infallible rule for direction that upon this tradition universal consent should be so prolixely commented on without any connexion They who follow this reflecter must resolve to deviat from tho high way Question seventh Your Church which ye Papists Quest. 7 call reformed is but of yesterday where was it before Luther Answer It is as old in its doctrinals as Prote ∣ stants Answer the Scripture therefore not of yesterday See what societie from the beginning professed the doctrine mantained there that was out Church The Romans Corinthians Ephesians Philippians Thessalonians as taught by the Apostle Paul are our Church of old so it is not new Secondly In all ages there have been and are eminent professours of that doctrine which we mantaine as is abundantly proved by Flaccus Illyricus in his Catalogue Testium veritatis and learned Dr. Usher in successione Ecclesiae reform which testimonies no Popish shaveling of what ever ordour yet could answer Thirdly where was the church of Rome as now constituted before the council of Trent Nay more was the Popes supremacy and infallibility heard of the 600 year after Christ Is not all Popish faith as such resolved into a lie viz. the infallibility of the Pope or Council which though errand untruths are the key of the Popish Religion Fourthly All the positives of the reformed Religion were mantained substantially in the Primitive church the first 300. years I speake not of changeable circumstances nor integrals but essentials and the negatives could not be there because the controversies were not then started But ye Papists have amassed a body of humane inventions gross errours contrare to scripture obtruding them under Anathema to be the established doctrine of the Church And because we of the reformed Profession will not own these and call that which is new old ye excommunicat us as Hereticks Reply In your seventh Answere you say Papists Reply your doctrine is as old as scripture and your Church as the Apostles and this is common to you with all sectaries to claime the scripture and the Church in the time of the Apostles And like to that answer of the common people we are all come of Adam and Eve But I shall let you presently see how contrar your doctrine is to that scripture and how unlike your Church is to that of the Apostles the first 300 year In the second part ye pretend that Illyricus and Doctor Usher have sufficiently shewed that there have been eminent men of your Profession in all ages and that without a Reply of any Popish shaveling of whatever ordour But Sir I am sorrie that you who are a Nazarian and not a shaveling shoule be so ill versed in books of controversie as not to have seen so many Catholick writters who demonstrat clearly that of all these eminent men before Calvin you pretend to be yours there is not one hath holden all the same tenets with you and no more For it is enough for you that they dissent from the Church of Rome and sling at the Popes authority what ever tenets they hold in matters of belief to call them yours Which hath made Dr. Vane Chaplain to our late King judiciously compare them to Sampsons foxes which were all bound together by the tails although their heads went diverse wayes So that when you call the Luthereans Valdenses Albigenses Hussites Catharists Wicklessians Graecians Egyptians yours you may as well call the Turks and Tartars yours if we trust all records which speake of their tenets And as for the Fathers hear if they were yours in the opinion of the most learnea Protestants Dudithius apud Bezam ep 1. If that be true which Papists say the Fathers with mutual consent are altogether on their side Pet. Martyr 2. de verbo col 1539. as long as we stand to Councils and fathers we shal alwayes remain in the same errours And fully confesseth that Hierom Ambrose and Augustin held the invocation of Saints Chemnitius in ex concil trid art 3. pag. 100. did not disput but avouch that most of the Fathers said the souls of the Martyrs heard the petition of those that prayed to them they went to monuments and invocated Martyrs by name Whitgift in his defence pag. 473. all the Bishops and writters of the Greek and Latine Church too who no doubt were the Fathers for the most part were spotted with the doctrine of Free-will Merit Invocation of Saints Judge then Sir if they were pure In the third part you ask where was the Church of Rome before the council of Trent I answer you even where she is now except in Jappony India China and some parts of America where by their Christian labours and by the blessing of GOD she hath been established since Neither can you instance that she is not constantly the same in all points Nay more say you was the Popes infallible universal supremacie heard of the first 600. years Where it seems you must be very deaf who hear not the voice of 1200. Fathers speaking only in the four first general Councils He who holdeth the See of Rome is chief and head of all Patriarchs saith right seeing he is the first as Peter to whom all power is given over all Christian Princes and all their people and who ever contradicteth this is excommunicated Can. 29. Concil Nicaeni anno 325. Where 316 Bishops were conveened Secondly
Christians seeme to be nothing inferiour to Pagans in adoration of their Idols they make them with as much vanity and adore them with as much devotion From Scripture reason antiquity the confession and concession of adverâ—arieâ— it is sure and clear that Papists commit gross Idolatrie from which all good Christians should flee and make their escape Fifthly Ye mulitat the Sacrament of the § 5. Inst Supper contrar to the institution of Jesus Christ Matth. 26. 27. by with-holding the Cup from the people yea contrar to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul which be received from the Lord 1. Cor. 11. 25. where all the Communicants for the most were common Professours And albâ—iâ— our Lord command this to be done till he come again without any substantial alteration yet acrilegiously hoc non obstante as saith your Council of Constance ye with-hold the Câ—p â—rom the people and give them only the Bread The answer given to this is as followeth that Papists Reply Protestants in denying real Presence against the express words of Scripture This is my Body this is my Blood which is shed for you not only mutilat the Sacrament but take it clear away You give sufficient occasion to other Haereticks to say that Christ was no otherwise in the Crib or the Cross then ye say that he is in the Sacrament Scripture not being more clear for the one then the other So that denying the real presence ye destroy and ruine in a manner the incarnation and very ground of Christianity But Catholicks neither take it away from any nor give it mutilat Seeing they profess to give Christs glorious and living Body which is not seperat from the Blood and who so receiveth the one receiveth the other It was instituted not only for a Sacrament but for a sacrifice and so I grant that both kynds is requisit on the Altar but it should nor be given to every one otherwise the very Disciples of the Apostles had not known how it should be given For St. Dennis lib. de Ecclesia he asserteth the communion of Saints under one kind and St. Cyprian de Lapsis affirmeth the same of the sick Yea when Christians in the Primitive Church in the time of persecution did carry it home they did eat it but under one kind as Tertullain telleth lib. ad Uxorem More Christ himself did give it under one kind Luke 24. verse 30. as learned Fathers expound And the Apostles Acts 2. 42. and Acts 20. 7. who then can challenge a necessity of takâ—ng both kinds What St. Paul did then was lawful But what Christ and his Apostles did was no less which sheweth that the Church way follow either of these examples for good reasons as she thinketh â—iâ— Answer Your mutilation of the Sacrament is so clear that I admire how you can deny Prote ∣ stants Duply it did not the Council of Constance establish it hoc non obstante i. e. notwithstanding the institution c. Your citations for proof are mismarshalled For first you cite St. Dennis Cyprian Tertullian and then Scripture which sheweth your respects for the word But I cannot follow your Method in this Therefore know that the place Luke 24. v. 30. maketh nothing for you You say Fathers interpret it so but tell us not who they are so their interpretation is no more but your word but to shew that there be no mention in that place of the Sacrament First There was no cup at all there at least none is mentioned How then can you make it a Sacrament seeing you say to us that both kinds are necessar to a sacrifice and the Sacrament of the Supper is such say you Reconcile your self with your self if you can Here there was no Sacrifice Ergo no Sacrament Secondly It is sure this was an ordinary meal honoured with Christ his presence And for proof of this read Jansenius on these words There be some saith he who would take an argument from this place that it is lawful under one kind to give or receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which opinion is neither certain nor hath it any liklyhood of truth We are commanded to eat and drink at that table how we shal make eating eating and drinking too saith he can hardly be perceived That breaking of bread Acts. 2. 46. is interpreted to be eating their meat at home with gladness and singleness of heart Oecumenius Lyra Cajetan Carthusian say it is only meaned de communi victu non de Eucharistia So saith Lorinus also on the text Existimo hic de Eucharistia non esse sermonem sed de victu quotidiano vel convivio quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant So that place Acts 20. Lyra Carthusianus Cajetanus make it corporal refection only for they say the Disciples did conveen to eat with Paul before he went away and this is proved from the 11. v. But grant that place Acts 20. to be meaned of the Sacrament which is probably mantained by others it will no more follow that the Apostle did mutilat it there then that he preached without Prayer seeing the one is no more mentioned then the other Lorinus saith he could not make use of this text for Communion sub una specie against an adversary Your citation from St. Dennis maketh little for you For supposing his testimony to be â—eal the administration of it to Infants was contrary to the institution as well as under one kind We know Infants can drink before they can eat if any such thing was it is liker an administration to Infants then to discerning Christians It is true that they used to carry home the bread as you imply from Tertullian and Cyprian but did alwayes take the cup in praesentia But to put this out of doubt see Cassander Consult 22. Communion under one kind was not in the Church saith he till Aquinas his time anno 1265. And is it not against your light and reason then to argue so against the institution of Jesus Christ Our judgement about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament will be heard a none but it will be no ground for you to mutilat divine ordinances and clip treacherously the King of Saints his coin Sixthly Ye adde to the Sarament of Baptism § 6. Inst Matthew 3. 11. Here your Reply is that there is no command Papists Reply of Christ against it and if it be against Christs command because he hath not commanded it then it will follow that to call Baptism a Sacrament is against Christs command for neither hath he commanded this but by his Church which also commanded that Answer Here we have consitentem reum that 〈◊〉 Christ hath not commanded salt Prote ∣ stants Answer 〈◊〉 c. to be added in the administration of the Sacrament If it were a circumsâ—â—â—ce of the action the true Gospel Church 〈◊〉 command theâ—e But it is a material point of the work and by parity of reason ye may â—â—de â—â—lt spâ—â—tle oyle
Of 150. Bishops in the first Council of Constantinople anno 381. Where the Bishop of Constantinople is decreed to be the chief next the Bishop of Rome Thirdly Of 200. Bishops in the first council of Ephesus anno 431. where in the third action it is defined that saint Peter was the head and prince of the Apostles and that the power of binding and loosing is granted to him who in his successours liveth and exerciseth judgement unto this very day Fourthly Of 600. Bishops in the Chalcedon council in the year 451. where in the third action also Pope Leo is called universal Bishop Patriarch of old Rome and sentence is pronounced against Dioscorus in the name of Leo and sunt Peter to acknowledge Leo Peters successour The Fathers in particular I do not cite for their citations in this would make a volumn Only I engage that of a 100. there be 90. clear for this And not one against it Is not Popish faith resolved into a lie say you viz. the infallibility of Pope or Council You should have said Pope and Council putting tâ—em together as the head and chief members which represent the whole body of the Church As the Parliament doth the whole Kingdome and then if you doubt of their infallibility you deny the express words of Scripture which calleth the Church the ground and pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. and which assureth us that the gates of hell shal not prevail against her Math. 16. 18. Yea you take away all possible means to know infalliblie what is true Scripture what is the true sense thereof which is to make us doubt of all and leave us no sufficient ground to believe undoubtedlie any thing You take away Christs promise to be with the Church to the end of the world Matth. 28. 20. Yea you take away an Article out of the Creed I believe in the holy Catholick Church and leaving men either to the dead letter of Scripture which killeth many or the privat spirit which deceiveth more or natural reason which can be a motive of faith to none you cast loose all Religion every one reâ—ecting or receiving Scripture as he pleaseth Expounding Scripture as he pleaseth and following in both no infallible rule or guide but his own opinion fancie imaginatioÌ„ In the fourth part you say that all the positives of the reformed Religion were mantained in the primitive Church the first 300. years But if this were true it would be made good no otherwise but by the Fathers writtings in the first three ages after Christ Now if they had all your positive tenets why do your learnedest writters openly disclaime them as I have shewed formerly Why saith Luther your Apostle lib. deserv arbitrio cap. 2. the authority of the Fathers is not to be reguarded and in his Collâ—q cap. de patribus In the writtings of Hierom there is not aword of true faith of Chrysostom I make no account Basil is of no worth he is wholly a Monk Cyprian is a weak Divine But I must not insist on this because you may in some measure deny the greatest parts of controverted points betwixt you and us to be positive tenets Albeit there be none of them but justly may be called so For you not only deny for example the real presence invocation of Saints use of Images that a man is justified by faith and works c. But ye positively believe that Christs Body and Blood is not reallie present in the Sacrament that to invocat the Saints is to give Gods worship to creatures that to make use of Images is idolatrie that a man is not justified by faith only Therefore I instance only two upon which all your visible reformation is grounded First That the whole visible Church may erre Secondly That we should believe nothing but what is in the written Word Now I have made it appear reflecting on your sixt answer that both these positive tenets are against the express wordes of Scripture and Fathers How then did the Church in the first 300. years hold all the positives and what you affirme As for your negatives and what you deny you grant they cannot be there because the controversies were not then stated But this is a bold and open calumnie for not one point is denyed by you but the Fathers in the first 300. years have clearlâ—e asserted And so the controversie betwixt you and us was sufficientlie stated even then You deny real presence and transubstantiation but in the second age Justin Martyr Apol. 2. ad Antonium saies as Jesus Christ incarnat had flesh and blood for our redemption so are we taught that the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of the same Jesus incarnat And in the third age Cyprian serm de coena Domini saith the bread which the Lord gave to his Disciples being changed not in shape but in nature by the omnipotencie of the Word is made flesh Secondlie Ye deny the sacrifice of the Masse asserted in the first age by St. Andrew in the book of his passion written by his Disciples I daily saith he sacrifice the immaculat Lamb to Almightie GOD who when he is truelie sacrificed and his flesh eaten remaineth intire and alive And in the third age by Origen hom 13. on Exod. Ye think your self guiltie and worthilie if any part of the consecrated Hoste be lost by your negligence Thirdlie Ye deny Purgatory asserted in the second age by Tertullian lib. de anima cap. 58 seeing we understand Matthews prison which the Apostle demonstrats to be places below and the least farthing is every smal fault delayed to be paied till the resurrection none will doubt but the soul will recompence something in places below And in the third Age It is one thing being cast into prison not to go out thence till he pay the uttermost farthing another presently to receive the reward of faith One thing to be affected with long pains for sins to be amended and have all sins purged with suffering sayeth Cyprian ep 52. ad Antonium Fourthly ye deny Prayer for the dead allowed in the first Age by S. Clemens ep 1. de sancto Petro where he saith Peter there taught to give almes and pray for the dead And in the same age by Tertul. lib. de cor militis we make yearly oblations for the dead Fifthly ye deny invocation of Saints and Angells recommended in the secong Age by S. Dennis Eccl. hierarch part 3. cap. 3. saying I constantly affirm with the divine scripture that the prayers of the saints are profitable for us in this life after this manner when a man is inflamed with a desire to invocat the saints and distrusting his own weakness betakes himself to any saint beseeching him to be the helper and petitioner to God for him he shall obtaine by that mean very great assistance And in the third Age Origen on the Lambent sayeth I le begin to fall on my knees and pray to all the saints to succour me