use of the Chalice that the Manichees might be discover'd who lurking amoÌ„ghst the Catholicks alwayes Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of bread but never the Chalice whosoever then during that Heresie wou'd not at the publicke Communion of Easter Receive the Chalice was suspected to be a Manichean whereby the reader may plainly see that the Church has reason to forbid at one time what it permits at an other Christ having left unto it a dispensing power to alter all matters of indifferency in the discipline thereof as the time place and circumstances wou'd require which St Augustin in his 118 Epistle openly declares and it may be confirm'd by St. Pauls first Epistle to the Corinthians c. 11 v. 34. but the Manichean heresie being smothered the Receiving of the â—ommunion under one kind was afterwards CommoÌ„ly practis'd in the Church as Hugo de sancto Victore who liv'd about the year 1130 relates in his book Now before I shall proceed further in my Answer let the reader observe those four points which Commonly have been in practice in the Primitive Church viz. that then the people wou'd bring the Eucharist home to their houses under the forme of bread for private Communion Secondly that the Communion was sent and given to the sick under the same forme Thirdly that infants children Receiv'd the Communion under the forme of wine only Fourthly that the Primitive Christians Receiv'd publickly in the Churches the Communion either under one or both species as they pleas'd untill the Fathers of the Council of Constance about the year 1414. order'd the layties to Receive in one sole species not decreeing that the ReceiviÌ„g thereof in both species was unlawfull or ever prohibited before by the Churâ—h but for several other weighty reasons of which I shall produce only two First that thereby they might supresse and smother the Heresie of certain Germans Bohemiâ—ns who then obstinatly deny'd thâ— integrety of the Sacrement to be contain'd in one sole species Secondly that for the future they might preveÌ„t several abuses prophanations which formerly happen'd when the Chalice was given to the laity who thro their weak zeal and cold Devotion permitted very offteÌ„ drops of the holy blood to be spilt as St. Chrys ostome in his first Epistleto Innocentius Eneas Silviusin his dialogue de utraque specie relateâ— which is against the subâ—ime Reverenâ—e due to this most excellâ—t Sacrament Wherefore it evidently appears that neither the Gâ—â—câ—aÌ„ or Latâ—nes ever believ'd that all which is written in the Gospel touching the Communion under two species is to be so universaly understood that it â—on prehends all Christians but that they alwayes suppos'd and believ'd from the very begining of Christianity that one sole speâ—â—es was sâ—fficient for a true lawfull Communion so that the Council of Constance did but follow the tradition and Doctrine of all precedent ages when it defin'd that the Communion under one sole species was as good and as sufficient as under both species and that those who wou'd Receive it under one kind wou'd neither contradict the institution of Christ or deprive themselves of the fruit of this holy Sacrament for whether we eat or whether we drink or whether we do both togeather we alwayes apply the same Death of Jesus Christ alwayes Receive the same substance of the blessed Sacrament and the same effecâ— of grace for the true flesh and blood of Jesus Christ are whoely and â—ntirly contain'd in everâ— drop of the blessed blood anâ— in every particle of the blesseâ— Host 〈◊〉 as well as he is coÌ„taiÌ„d the whole cup or in the whole Host or in both therefore let no bodie foolishly belive that more benefit is Receiv'd by taking the Communion in two species than in taking it in one alone for being that every drop of the blessed blood and every particle of the divided Host is a maine Ocean of spiritual Blessings many of them by the same moral action Receiv'd affords no more grace then one alone being that one alone contains the whole fountaine intirly therefore it appears that it was never our Saviours intention to oblige all Christians to Receive the Sacrament in both species for if this had been his intention he wou'd certainly institute iâ— in a materia more common to all nations as he did in the institution of the Sacrament of baptism knowing the wine to be so scarce in several parts of the world that the poor inhabitants tâ—ereof couâ—d but very seldom or perhaps never Receive the Communion for the want of wine therefore our Saviours intention was when he said Drinke â—e all of this â—o oblige the Discâ—ples who only then were present and also their successors wâ—o are the Priests that daâ—â—y offer this most holy Sacrifice under both species and when he said to his Disciples John c 6. v. 63. that the flesh profitteth nothing his meaning was that it profitteth nothing â—o believe his bodie to be only human flesh excluding the divine nature as the Jews beliv'd who deny'd Châ—ist to be the son of God Câ—ap 3 proviâ—g â—hat tâ—e Coâ—mâ—n Prayers were 〈…〉 genâ—â—ally undeâ—stood by all â—hose of the Prâ—mitive Chuâ—ch The holy scripture encouragâ—s us to pâ—ay tho' we â—â—deâ—stand â—oâ— what is said theâ—efâ—re â—â—is lawfull and expedient for us â—o prâ—y tho' we understâ—nd no◠〈…〉 is saâ—â— the anâ—â—cedent is manifest by Sâ— Paulâ— fiâ—st Epist to â—â—e Corâ—nthiâ—ns chap. â—4 v. â— wheâ—â—â—e sayes thu◠〈…〉 â—peaâ—eth â—n 〈◊〉 unknown tongâ—â— â—â—eakâ—â—h not 〈◊〉 men but unto God for no man understandeth him Nay some times the speaker did not understand what himself said for the gift of languages and the gift of interpreting languages are two distinct gifts as is evident by the 11. v. and did not alwayes meet togeather as may be seen by the 13. v. of the aforsaid chapter for there the Apostle exhorts him who speaketh in an unknown tongue to pray that he may interpret which is a sign that ordinarilâ— he cou'd not as is manifest by the 14. v where he sayes thus â—â— I pray in an unknown 〈…〉 spirit pâ—ayâ—eth but 〈◊〉 understâ—nâ—â—â—g is unfruitfull where 〈…〉 see that St. Paul 〈…〉 unâ—erstanding to be unfruitfull and not our prayers when we pray in an unknown tongue moreover you see that St Paul gives to understand that it is lawfull and not prohibited to pray in an unknown tongue Now let us prove the consequenâ—e what the Apostles did and practis'd is lawfull and expedient for us to practice but the Apostles publick liturgies have been in languages which were not Generally understood by all the nations they Converted therefore t is lawfull and expedient for our liturgies to be in a language not generally understood by all nations 〈◊〉 use them the major is evident and I shall prove the Minor â—he Apostles publick liturgies were all in Hebrew Greecâ— Syriack or Latine as is manifest by all Ancient writters which were not generally known languages to all
Godly honour Tho' the aforesaid argument might be a sufficient answer to this point yet I will produce the following Authorityes to confirm the same St Denis the Areeopagite who liv'd in the Apostles time in his book de Eccles. Hier. c. 3 makes mention of the IncenciÌ„g of the altar of the Priest washing his hands of â—â—â— elevation of the blessed Host â— the adoration thereof Origines whâ— liv'd in the 3. CeÌ„tury in his 3. Hoâ— in Exod. sayes thus I design to â—â—monish ye with the examples of â—â—â— own religion ye know who are accâ—â—â—m'd to be present at the diviâ— mysteries when ye receive the Lorâ— body how with all caution â—â— veneration ye take heed least â— smal particle of it should fall down leâ—â— any thing of the consecrated gift shâ—â— slip out for ye belive your selves â—â—â— guilty and ye rightly believe if â— thing of it wou'd fall by your negligâ—â—ce St Ambrose who liv'd in thâ— 4th Century in his 3. book of thâ— Holy Ghost c. 12. expounding thâ— of the 98. Psal where we aâ— bid to worship the footstool of his feeâ— sayes thus therefore by the footstool the earth is understood and by the earth the flesh of Christ which also eveÌ„ at this day we adore in mysteries and which the Apostles ador'd in the Lord Jesus S. Chrysostome who also liv'd in the 4 Century in his â— hom on S Pau'ls Epist to the Ephesians sayes thus we speake of the body and of him who differs nothing from it how many are made partakers of that body how many tastes of his blood remember that it is the body blood of him who refides above the heavens who is humbly ador'd by the Angels He also sayes the following words hom 24th on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians the wisemen regarded thîs body laâ—ing â—n the â—angeâ— the iâ—pioâ—â—â—aâ—â—arouâ— men having leâ—t thâ—i◠〈◊〉 tâ—ey home made along voyâ— when they aâ—riv'd wiâ—h grâ—at â—â— trembâ—ing they worâ—hipp d â— let us therefore the Citizens of heâ—â— immitate the barbarous people do not see him in the mâ—ngeâ— but onâ— aâ—tâ—â— not a woman keepiâ—g him â—â— the Priest holding him let us theâ—fore weaken our selves anâ— be grâ—â— afraid let us shew a great deal nâ— reveâ—ece than these barbarous peopleâ— for open the gates of heaven and lâ—â— and then you will see that whiâ—â— said to be true for that which iâ— tâ—â— most precious and most to be ador'â— aâ—l thinks I do â—hâ—w you the same â—â— on earth even as in a Kiâ—gs palâ—â— that which is most magnificeÌ„â— of thiÌ„gs not the â—alls no◠〈…〉 â—t the Kingâ— â—t that yâ—◠〈…〉 do nâ—t hâ—w yoâ— thâ— Aâ—gâ—lâ— Arâ—â—geâ—s oâ— he heaves bâ—t tâ—â—ir masâ—er â—â— have percâ—â—v'd hâ—w â—ou 〈◊〉 on the â—â—â—h that which is most excellent â—est to be regarded of aâ—l things neiâ—her do â—ou only see hiâ— but aâ—so yoâ—â—â—â—h him you eaâ— him after you â—at him you return home clean puâ—ifie your soul prepare your mind against the receiving of these mysteriesâ—â—or if a King's son wiâ—h a neat preâ—ious â—â—own had been giveâ— to you â—o â—e carri'd you wou'd slight all the thiÌ„gs â—â— the world but now receiving not â—he son of a worldly King but the only â—egottn son of Goâ— c. St Augustin who liv'd in the begining of the 5th Century expounding the 9â— Psal sayes that the earth is thâ— Lords footstool according to thâ— of Isaiah c 66 v. 1. saying thuâ— the heaven is my throne the earâ— is my footstool and he inquires hoâ— is it lawfull to adore the earth with-out impiety and then hâ— sayes the following words being troubl'd in mind I do turn myself Christ because I do seeke him I find how the earth is ador'd with-out impiety the footstool of his feet is ador'd for he receiv'd earth from the earth because the flesh is of the earth he receiv'd flesh from the flesh of Mary because he walk'd here in that flesh gave us the same flesh to eate for our safety none eats of that flesh if he adores it not before t is found-out after what 〈…〉 â—â—otstool of â—â— Lord may 〈…〉 not only â—â—t we doe not 〈…〉 it but â—â— we siâ—n in not a â—oriâ—g it More â— S. Augustin's Authorâ—â—yes may â— seen to the same purpose in â—s 118. Epist c. 3. and in his 120 â—pist c. â—7 which I omit to produâ—â— least I shu'd be too troubleâ—â—â—e to the reader Chap. 7 Proving that TransubstaÌ„tiaâ—â— was believ'd by those of the Primiâ—â—ve Church I shall only here enlarge those â—â—â—ts of scripture produc'd in my â—nswer to the 5th point with the â—â—llowing Authorityes of the â—â—ly Fathers and Doctors of the â—rimitive Church Tertullian who liv'd in the begining of the 3. Cenâ—ury in his 4. book agaiâ— Mâ—â—cian c. 4â— saâ—es 〈◊〉 â—â— bâ—ead taken and distributed â—â— his â—â—sciples he maâ—e hâ—s owâ— body St. 〈◊〉 martyr and S Iâ—eneus who boâ—â— liv'd before â—ertulliaÌ„ do affâ—â— the same as the reader may see â—â— their Authorityes produc'd â—â— my answer to the 5. point S â—â—prian who liv'd the year 25â—â— his sermon of the Lord's supâ—â—â—ayes thus the â—read which ouâ— gave to his Disciples being changâ— not in shâ—pe but in natûre bâ— the â—â—nipotency of the word was made â—leâ—â— S Cyrill of Jerusalem who liv'd in the 4. Century speaking â—â— Christ in his 4. Catech. sayes thâ—â— followig words he did once in Caâ—â— of Galelee only by his will turn water â—nto wine which is near blood aâ—d â—hall he not be wâ—rthy to be believ'd â—o uâ— that he tuâ—n'd wine into blood â—â—erefore let us receive the body and â—â—ood of Christ with all assurance for â—nder the shape of bread the body is given to you and under the shape of â—ine the blood is given therefore let us not consider it as bare bread and bare wine for it is the body and blood of Christ according to the Lord 's own words for altho' your sense wou'd not represent this to you nevertheless let faith confirm you you ought not to judge these things by the taste therefoâ—e knowing this with all certainly holding the bread which is seen â—y us not to be bread altho' the taste perceives it to be bread but to be the body of Christ the wine which is seeâ—â—â— altho' it may seem to the pallâ—â— be wine notwithstandiÌ„g it is not â—â— but the blood of Christ Let the â—â—der be Pleas'd to take notice â—â— plainly St Cyprian affirms by â—â— former words that the substaâ—â—â— of the bread wine is dissolâ—â— at the intrance of Christ's bâ—â— and blood and also how St. Cyâ—â— bids us not to judge of this myâ—â—â—rie according to the apprehensioâ— of our senses but to firmly believe the true and real presence of Christ's body and blood undeâ— the shape of bread and wine that is to say under the accidents which the bread and wine had before cheir
to prevent which now their very tinkers coblers butchers tailers and all sort of curious and ignorâ—nt mechaâ—icks do take the liberty of interpreting and expounding the whole Bible to their own ruine and destruction 2. Petri c. 3. v. 16. for how can such ignorant people understand or expound either â—o themselves or to others the prophesie of Ezekiel of Daniel the Revelaâ—ions of St. Iohn where aâ— S. Hâ—erome affirms every sentence is a misttery which of them can expound the Canticles or what Salomon meaÌ„t by those similitudes of Gods Church or the following texts I am the Lord they God visiting the iniquit of â—he Fathers upon the children unto the 3. 4. Generation Exod. c. 20. v. 5. which seems to be contradicted by that of Fzekiel c. 18. v. 20 saying thus the soul that sinneth it shall die the son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father we are expressly commanded by the 20 c. v. â—2 of Exodus to honour our Fathers and mothers But it is said in the 14. Chap. of Luke v. 26 that he 〈◊〉 heats not his Father and mother cannot be the disciple of Christ Moreover Deuteronomie c. 6. v. 13. it is written that thou shall fear the Lord thy Gâ—d serve him and â—wâ—ar by his Name Which seems to be conâ—radâ—cted by that of St. Mat. c. 5. v. 34. where we read thus I sa untâ— yoâ— swear not at all these and several other texts which â—ight seem to the unlearned to contradict each others and also the misterâ—es of the holy scripture do exceeâ— the poor ignorant people's understanding and weake capacity nay the very Disciples of Christ cu'd not understand the prop esiâ—s of the old Testament untill their understanding were open'd whereby they came to their true knowledge as evidently appears Luke c 24. v. 27. and 45 where we read the following words and begining at Moses and all the prophets he expâ—uâ—ded unto them that things concerning himself then he opened their understanding that they might understand the scriptures For want of which understanding in the law of God the pretended reformers and also the ancient hereâ—â—â—ks of the Primitive Church deserted their true Mother the holy Catholick Church by misinterpreâ—ing the word of God as for example the Aerians denâ—ing tâ—e 2. person of the Blâ—ssed Tâ—inâ—tâ— to be God and alleâ—ging for their ground that of St. John c. 17. v. â—â— saying thus holy Father keep through thine own Name thoâ—e whoâ—â—â—ou hast given me that they may be one as we are the Eunomians asserting the holy Ghost not to be God and producing for their Authority that of Christ Matt. c. 11. v 27. where he sayes thus all things are deliver'd unto me by my Father neiher knoweth any man the Father save the son ' and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him the Eutychians affirming the divine nature in Christ to have been converted into his human nature and alleaging for their ground that of St John c. 1. v 14. where we read the following words the word was made â—lesh and dowleth among us The Berengarians Wicklefians Husites Lutherans and Caluinists err'd so grossly in so many texts of scripture by reason of the great liberty they tooke in interpreting and expounding it to the advantage of their own design that their errors iâ— they were all related woud require a whole book to themselves so that it plainly appears that the reading and interpreting of the serâ—pture is not profitable to all people specially to those who do not â—ecur for the interpretation thereof to the holy Catholick Church which has a promise of the infallible asistance of the holy Ghost to the consumation of the world Matt c. 2â— v. 2â— so that the Church of Rome had great reason to hunder the ignorant sort of people who might easily be deceiv'd â—rom perusing it with-out having license from their respective Bishops especially in those countryes where heresie abounds and where Bibles are corrupted fearing lest that instead of acquiring more knowledge thereby they might peradventure fall into greater ignorance or some heresie as the aforsaid sectaries have done in so prohibiting she imitateâ— the example of fond parents who keeps all sort dangerous weapons from the hands of their children forbids them all kind of dieaâ— which might occasion or creat any ill distemper Chap. 12 Proving that the pretended reformers Doctrines are but a heap of several old heresies lawfully condemn'd by the Primitive Church Having sufficiently made-out by the same Authorityes which my adversaâ—y in his Challenge defies to be produc'd that the old and present Church of Rome is still the same in priÌ„ciples ti 's now fit that I shu'd let my adversary know what principles himself the rest of the new reformers do embrace I will only produce the following point 1 The Aerians demolish'd and threwdown the Altars where upon the holy sacrifice were wont to be offer'd as the following Fathers do relate St. Athanasius in his Epist de fuga sua Theodoretus in his 4th book of History c. 19. 2â— and Ruffinus in his 11. book c. â— Martin Luther who apostated from the Church of Rome the year 1517. and John Calvin who did the same the year 1538. caus'd alâ—o the Altars of those Churches which ere under their jurisdictions to be throwdown demoâ—ish'd as may be seen in Luther's booâ— de Formula Missa pro Ecclesia Wittâ—mbergenâ—i in Calvin's 4th book of Institutions c. 18. 2 The Aâ—rians rejected all traditions which were not written in the word of God as St. Augustin in his first book against Maximiâ—us c. 2. last testifies which heresie the Nestorians â—utychians held afther-wards as appears by the first Action of the 2 General Council of Nice the Nâ—itorians errors were condemn'd by the General Council of Ephese the year 4â—1 as may be seen Tomo 3 Coâ—ciliorum Luther in his commentary on St. Pauls â—pist to the Galaâ—â—ans c 2. and Calvin in his 4. book of Institutions â— 8. held also the same heresie 3 The Aerians and Eunomians deny'd that Images ought to be venerated as the Fatherâ— of the 2 Council of Nice do relate in the 6. Action John Calvin in his first book Chap. 11. and in his â— 4 book c. 9. and now all the reformers do teach the same 4 The Aerians held that there is no difference between Bishops and Priests but that they are of equal dignity and jurisdiction As St. Epiphanius heresie 75. St Augustin heresie â—3 do write Luther in his book of the Captivity of Babylon cap. de Ordinis Sacramento and adversus falso nominatum ordinem Episcoporum and Calvin in his 4. book of Instutions c. 3 held likewise the same hereâ—ie which now the presbyterians and several others doe embrace 5 The Aerians did not judge it lawfull to pray for the dead or to offer any sacrifice or alms for their releasment and did not believe that there was any place
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
Peâ—er â—nd therefore it was he pray'd that his faiâ—h should not faiâ—e Luke c. â—2 v. â—â— Whealy expresly contrâ—dicts himself in this matter for in his very last point he slaâ—ly denyes that our Saviour comâ—itted any particular charge to Peter more than to any other of the â—pâ—stles for want of the word only and here he owns that our Saviours words were particularly apply'd to Peter more than to any other of the Apostle which is a manifest contradiction for things signify'd by words must of necessity be apply'd to him to whom the words are apply'd as Philosophers commonly teach as for Whealy's explication saying that it was particularly apply'd to Peter because he was in danger of sweariÌ„g cursing c. t is nonsence at lest if he pretends to be a Christian for our Saviour spoake these words of John c. 21. to Peter after he deny'd him after his resurrection so that there was no daÌ„ger of Peter's cursing swearing and denying Christ the second time if our Saviour was not to suffer again after his resurection which would be an abominable Doctrine to thinke of that his first Passion sufferings was not suficient to redeem all mankiÌ„d If it was in order to give Peter some consolation our Saviour spoake to him also pray'd to his heavenly Father that his faith should not faile according to that of Luke c. 22 v. 31. aâ— Whealy alleages why did he exclude St. Thomas who by noe perswasion would believe our Saviours resurrection untill he saw the wounds in his hands and put his finger into the same and trust his hand into his side John c. 20. v. 25 for really Peters error was of less coÌ„se queÌ„ce than that of Thomas for he only deny'd that he knew Christ personally and that out of human fear for which act he immediatly repented and wept betterly as appears Mat c. 26. v. 75. but we find nothing of Thomas's repentance tho' he would not believe one of the chiefest Misteryes of faith nor do we find in Scripture that our Saviour spoake so favourably to him or pray'd his heavenly Father that his faith should not faile so that there must needs be some other thiÌ„g uÌ„derstood by the said texts which Whealy ought not to deny since he cannot shew scripture Authority or reason but impiously strives to misinterpret the plain words of our Saviour to favour his owne wicked design I see he passes over slightly one of the convincing argumeÌ„ts that he fouÌ„d in that manuel of coÌ„troversie which he pretends to confute and denyes the major minor and consequence with-out giving any manner of reason only alleaging that thâ— râ—st of the Apostles are nam'd before Peter in several places of Scripture but because he could not poiÌ„t any of those places he was forc'd to leave the whâ—le argument in it's vigor and run to an other of his owne as commoÌ„ly all sectaryes do when they find themselves at a stand saying that if Christ had invested Peter with any such dominion either Peter or â—ome of the Evangelists would upon some occasion or other mention'd it but Peter is no where in scripture said to be invested therefore Peter had no such dominion as they preteÌ„d he had the major passes yet it may be absolutly deny'd for all the actions of Christ are not individually mention'd in scripture as evidently appears by the following words of John C. â—1 v. 25 there are also many other things which Jesus did which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world it self could not contain the bookes that should be written So that it appears that if the scripturâ—s were silent in this matter as they are not that it would not follow that no such thing hath been as I have shew'd by several other examples before now the minor also is false as evidently appears by what I have produc'd onâ—â—f St. Mathew c. 16. S. John c. â—â— the consequence cannot be true for out of false premisses there cannot follow but a false consequence As for that frivolus argument wherewith the adversary falsly accuses the Catholicks alleaging that they conclude Peter to have been bishop of Rome because he remov'd his sea from Antioch let the reader be pleas'd to observe that consequence to be only some of his calumnies and not that consequence which the Catholicks do infer but this which follows Peter remov'd his sea from Antioch to Rome therefore Peter was bishop of Rome so that the other is but some of his ill infer'd consequences As for these two reasons which he alleages first saying that it would be more reasonable to conclude that in case Peter had been Bishop of Antioch and would from thence remove that it was to Ierusalem he remov'd because his following calculation proves S. Peter to have been often there secondly because he was Apostle of the circumcision I retort his first reason thus It were more reasonable to conclude that all shoe-makers would apply themselves in makeing of shooes thaÌ„ to impeach themselves in matters of divinity contraversye therefore it were more reasoÌ„able to coÌ„clude that Whealy who is a shoe-maker would apply himself in makeing of shooes thaÌ„ to impeach himself in matters of divinity and controversie this consequence does not happen as is manifest by what Whealy publishes in his Almanack so that it appears that that which is more reasonable to conclude does not alwayes happeÌ„ for if it thou'd indeed we would never wrong our neighbours or commit any sinne against our creator redeemer for it would be more reasonable to conclude that we ought to obey his commaÌ„dmeÌ„ts than to be come rebells against him yet we see by daily experieÌ„ce that this happens noâ— that which is more reasonable to conclude As to that removing of Peter let Whealy know that it was convenient that the chiefest sea of Christianity shoud be fixd and florish in that City of Rome which formerly was the chiefest City head of Idolatry it 's the General opinioÌ„ of â—everal holy Fathers that Peter was commanded by a special revelation to fix his sea there but if in case he had fixâ—d it in Jerusalem his successours the Bishops of Jerusalem would in haeâ—i St Peter's suprâ—macy have the same jurisdiction that now those of Rome have as to the adversary's second reasoÌ„ I say thaâ— there was no such compact between Peter Paul viz that oâ—â— should only preach to the Jewes the oâ—ner to the Gentiles otherwise Peter would not have declar'd in the assembly that the Apostle◠〈◊〉 is had at Jerusalem that God 〈…〉 among them that the GeÌ„tiles by his mouth should hâ—are the word of God belâ—eve Acts c. 15. v. 7. neither would Paul preach to the Jeâ—â—s when he came to Rome Acts c. 28. v. 2. 3 c. So that the agreement between them was that Peter shoud preach where ever he pleas'd but principally to the Jewes and that also Paul wou'd