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
account to impose the proof upon the lawfull possessors but among all methinks it seems very unfair for any that stiles himself of the church of England to deny this principle of lawfull possession since their own best writers do much insist upon it to make out their right against thoses secttaryes who like new swarms separated from the stock As the Presbyterians Anabaptists Quakers sosinians c. But to come to the present point let us see the arrogant challange of this proud Goliah which runs to this purpose Whosoever is deserious to find and embrace a church where the old incorrupted principles of christianity are taught such doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upward of 300 years after christ let him embrace the present church of England where the said principles are duely profess'd the old church of Rome and the present church of England being the same in principles whereas the doctrines which the presnt church of Rome has added over and above what the church of England maintains wherein the said churches do now differ were never maintain'd by the said ancient church of Rome but newly brought-in some eight or nine hundred years others seven the most of theÌ„ 600 years after christ In justification of which charge we alwayes have and still do bid defiance to any Roman catholick liviÌ„g to bring any sufficient sentence out of any old doctor or father or out of any old council or out of the holy scriptures or any one example of the primitive church whereby it may be clearly and plainly prov'd 1 That there was any privat masse in the whole world at that time for the space of six huÌ„dred years after christ 2 That the communion was administred unto the people under one kind 3 That the people then had their common prayes in a toÌ„gue which they understood not 4 That the bishop of Rome was then call'd the universal â—ishop or the head of the universal church 5 That then the people were taught to believe that christs body is really or substantially in the sacrament 6. That then the people did fall down and worship it with godly honour 7. That in the sacrament after the words of consecration there reman only the accidents shew without the substance of bread and wine 8. That whosoever had then said the sacrament is only but a figure a pledge a token or remembrance of christs body had therefore been judg'd for an here tick 9. That images were then sett up in churches to the intent that the people might worship them 10. That then the people did invocate saints or pray to them 11. That then the people believ'd that there is a third place which commonly the Papists call purgatory 12 That then the people were forbiddeÌ„ to read the word of god in their own tongue If these thiÌ„gs be as we alleage it follows that whosoever maiÌ„taiÌ„e the aforsaid abus'd principles are not of the aÌ„cieÌ„t church of Rome but only of the preseÌ„t corrupted church of Rome if our allegatioÌ„s be false we desire to be disprov'd Before I come to any particular answer to the several points of this extravagant challange which the mans ignorance or vanity makes him belive unanswerable I will only thus in general retort his own argument upon himself that J may form his discurse in the true and right method Whosoever desires to find and embtace a church wherein the old incorrupted principles of christiaÌ„ity are taught and such doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient and pure church even of Rome for upwards of 300 years after christ let him embrace the present church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely profess'd the old and the present church of Rome being still the same in principles whereas the doctrines of those who now call themselues the church of England and wherein the said churehes do now differ were never maiÌ„tain'd by the aÌ„cieÌ„t church of Rome but rather impiously brought in by a series of hereticks who for those very doctrines were from time to time coÌ„demn'd by many general national and provincial councils and also by the most eminent fathers and doctors of the catholick church in those respective ages whose authorityes and very words I will hereafter produce in my answer to the several points heré controverted that every impartial reader may see how all the aspersions and calumnies rais'd by our pretended reformers against the church of Rome are but meer fictions without any toserable ground reason or authority In the mean time I think it is very plain that my retortion ought to take place before my adversaryes precaâ—ious sort of discourse and consequently that such a challange belogs properly to the church of Rome and not to any upstart sectary whatsoever for as J hinted before it is a principle in all well govern'd common-wealths that a peacable possessor ought not to be disturb'd untill by manifest proof he is convicted to be an unlawfull possessor but the church of Rome which undenyably was a peaceable possessor of thé true faith for the first 300 or as my adversary is willing to allows for six hundred years after christ was never convicted by any competent authority or proof that ever she fell from the true faith of Jesus christ therefore it necessarily follows that shee must be still suppos'd to retain the same true faith to this very day The major is manifest and a maxim in law and the minor J prove thus If the church of Rome could at any time be juridically condemn'd or declar'd to have fallen from the true faith it must have been either by some immediate revelation or commission from God as the written law was abrogated to make Place for the law of grace and as the high Priesthood was transfer'd from the house of Heli to an other family or by some other Church call'd and summon'd by the inspiration of the holy Ghost in some National or general Council as the Arians Macedonians Nestorians Pelagians Eutychians and many other Heresies were condemn'd in former times but neither of those can be alleag'd in the case propos'd the first is not so much as pretended nor can the later be alleag'd by any man in his wits for no National or General Council no nor any old Chronicles Registers Ecclesiastâ—al or prophane Histories makes tention that ever the Roman Church fell from the true faith so that if we except the inconsiderable dregs of coÌ„demn'd Heresies which lay hid in obscurâ— corners of the earth there waâ— no Church or society of ChristiaÌ„s extaÌ„t in the sixth seveÌ„th eighthâ— ninth c. Centuryes but were aâ—â— in communion with the Church oâ— Rome in their respective ages all the eminent Doctors Fatherâ— of those times seriously exposâ— her cause as the cause of Chrisâ— wherefore either the Church Rome kept the true faith inviolably all that while or Christ haâ— no true Church upon earth whicâ— is
sayes thus It was not in vain the Apostles order'd that they shou'd be remember'd in the venerable and terribile mysteries for they knew this to be a relief and help to them for when all the people with open arms and the priests offer that dreadfull sacrifice full of veneration how shall we not pacific God praying for them he hath such an other Authority in his 41. Homily on St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians and in his 7. Homily on his Epist to the Hebrews he sayes thus speaking of Christ we offer alwayes the same truely noe other but still the same therefore it is one sacrifice for this reason because he is offer'd in several places are they many Christs no not at all but one Christ in all places who is wholy and intirely here and there one boâ—â— in his 32. de Consubstantiali â—â— Sharply reprehend those who neglect to hear masse and in his 2â— Homily de baptismo he compare those who leave masse before thâ— last benediction to Judas who the Lords last supper departe before giving thanks More â—â— his Authorityes may be seen nâ— only in his liturgy but also iâ— several places manifestly proving the ancient practice of celebrating masses St. Augustin whâ— liv'd in the begining of the 5. century declares in his 9 book oâ— Confession c. 12. that there wâ— masse said for the soul of his own Mothâ— Monica her body being laid beside tâ— sepulchre In his 32 Ser de verb is Apostoli speaking of the dead he sayes the following words the prayers of the holy church the comfortable sacrifice and the alms which are offer'd for those spirits is not to be doubted that they are help'd by them for this hast been deliver'd by the Fathers which new the universal Church observes that those whodye in the communion of the body blood of Christy are remembr'd when the sacrifice is offer'd who doubts them to be favour'd for prayers are not in vain offer'd for them to God And in his Enchiridion c. 110. he also sayes that it is not to be deny'd that the soul of the dead are oâ—s'd when the holy sacrifice is offer'd for them In his 22. book of the city of God chap. 8. he relates that when Hesperious's couÌ„try house was troubl'd by malignant spirits thaâ— he desir'd one of his priests to go thither by the vertue of whose prayers the spirits might give over one of them went saith he and offer'd there the sacrifice of the body of Christ and afterwards the House was no more troul'd More of St. Augustins Authorityes may be seen in hiâ— 46. Epist in his book de cura promorcuis c. 18. in his book desancta virgin c. 45. in his first book de origine animae c. 9. 11 in his 84. treatise in JoaÌ„nem All which I omit to produce for breviti sake shall only insert that of venerable Bede who in his first book c 29 â—â—lates that St. Gregory had sent Priestly ornaments to St. Augustin the apostle of England and in his 4 book c â—2 he tells that when Jâ—ma was taken captive by the enemyes that he cou'd never bety'd by reason of several masses which his brother Tunna the monke said for his soul believing that he was kill'd in the battel and also in his 5 book c. 13. speaking of that terrible vision of Driethelme who after his death reviu'd and told wonderfull things concerning the pains of purgatory from which said venerable Bede Prayers alms fasts and celebrations of masses doe release many before the day of Judgment Now let us see the councils Authorityes It was decree'd in the 5 can of the council of Vasens atowne in France where 18 Bishops gather'd the year 442 that kyrie eleison shu'd be said in the masses throughout all the Churches of France as it was said long before in the East and in all Italy here are the councils very words quia tam in sede apostolica quam etiam per totas Orientis atque Italiae provincias dulcis et nimis salubris consuetudo in tromissa est ut kirieelcison cum grandi affectu accompuÌ„ctione dicatur placuit etiam ut in ominibus Ecclesiis nostris ista consuetudo sancta et ad matutinum et ad missas et ad vesperam deo propitiante intromittatur Likewise it was enacted in the 6 can of the same council that the following words holy holy holy shu'd be said iÌ„mornig masses iÌ„ the masses of lent and in those masses which were offer'd for the dead as it was accustom'd to be said in solemn Masses the words of the CouÌ„cil are these In omnibus missis sive matutinis sive quadragessimalibus sive in illisquae prodefunctorum commemorationibus siunt semper sanctus sauctus saÌ„ctus eo ordine quo ad missas publicas dici debeat quiatam dulcis et desiderabilis vox etiam die noctuque possit dici fastidium non potest generare et hoc nobis justum visum est ut nomen Domini Papae quicunque sedi apostolicae praefuerit in nostris Ecclesiis recitetur Which Authorieyes doe not only make out the ancient practice of celebreating Masses but also the Popes supremacy of which I shall treate in my answer to the 4 point In the mean time let us hear the Declarations of other old Councils concerning the present point We read in the 18 can of the council of Agato celebreated the year 506 that the seculars were then oblig'd to receive the CommunioÌ„ trice in the year viz at Christemas haster and Whitsuntide and in the 47 can of the same couÌ„cil t is expres'd that they were oblig'd to hear masse every sunday Which plainly makes out that in the primitive Church it was lawfull for the Priest to say masse tho' none else wou'd receive the Communion along with him to confirm which I shall produce the Authorityes of the two following Councils who sate above a thousand years agoe the fathers of the 12 council of Toleto can 5 sharply reprehend'd certain Priests for not receiving the Communion when they said Masses which is asign that they acknowledg'd the Masse to be lawfull tho' none wou'd communicate but onely the Priest And the council of Nant c 30 quoted by Ivo p 3 deer e 70 â— prohibit'd the Priests to say masse alone withoÌ„ut the assistance of one to answer them which Authority proves the ancient practise of celebrating privat masses Tho' Luther and his doctrine aleadges the contrary for the fathers of that Council only obliges the Priests to have clerks to answer them but mentions not a word of a second person to be requisite for receiving the communion along with the Priest for they knew too well that there was no divine or Ecclesiastical precept obliging the Priest not to say Masse if none else wou'd communicate along with him and moreover that there was no Precept commanding others to receive the Communion as often as the Priest wou'd celebrat Masse for that was left to the
mean time let us hear our Saviour's Promise to St. Peter Matt Chap 16. v 18 and I say also untâ— yoâ— that thou art Peter and upon this 〈◊〉 I will â—uild my Church and the Gates of Hâ—lâ— shall not prevail against it By which words our Saviour promis'd the Supream Goverment of the whole Church on Earth to St Peter as all the following Fathers and Doctorâ— do openly Declare Origines Homily 5 in Exoâ—um Tertullian in his book de Praescrip St Cyprian in his Epist to Quintus St Athanasius in his Epist to Felix St. Basil in his book against Eunomius St. Hilarius St. Hierome expounding the aforsaid text St. Chrysostome Hom 55. in Matt St. Cyrill of Alexandria in his 2 book c 1 in Ioann St Ambrose ser 47 and in his book de Isaac c. 3 St. Leo ser 11. of our Saviours Passion and in his 2 ser of St. Peter and St. Paul St Augustin in Psal Contra partem Donati and in his 2 book against Gaudentius Epistles c 23. which promise was effectually fullfil'd after Christ's Resurrection as all the aforsaid Fathers doe Testifie and it manifestly appears by our Saviour's own words Iohn c. 21 v. 15 16. 17 where we read that Christ Commanded St. Peter thrice consequently to feed the flock saying thus feed my Lambs feed my Lambs feed my Sheep which words doe plainly make-out that it was our Saviour's intention to appoint Peter the Supream head and chief pastor over all Christians under himself on earth which is further Confirm'd â—y the following Testimonies S. Denis the Areopagite cited by S Damascen ora 2. de dormitione Deiparae affirms that he and Timothy were both present at the blessed Vâ—rgin Marâ—'s death to be hold that body which gave tâ—e begining of life and that there was also present both fames and Peter the Supream and most anâ—â—ent top of Divines S Irenaeus who liv'd in the 2 Age in his 3 book c 3 says that all Churches round abouâ— ought to resort the Roman Chuâ—ch by reason of her more powâ—rfull Principality Tertullia who liv'd in the yeâ—â— 2â—â— in his booâ— call'â— Scorpiaâ—u◠〈◊〉 speaking to a heretick sayes thus so alâ—ho ' you thâ—â—k heaven to be still 〈◊〉 â—p remember tâ—e Lord to have lefâ— her it's â—eres with Pâ—ter and by Peter to the Church Origines who liv'd about the same time Hoâ— 5 in Exod sayes thus Obâ—â—rve what thâ— Loâ—d said to â—hat gâ—eat fâ—â—ndation of the Church and most solid â—ocâ— upon whom Christ built his Church And oâ— tâ—e 6 Chap. of S. Paul's Epist to the Rome he also sayes the folâ—owing whords when the câ—iâ—f charâ—â— of fâ—â—diÌ„g Christ s sheep was given to S. Peter and the Church foundâ—d upon him there was requâ—r'd of him tâ—e Confessâ—on of no vertue but of Charity S. Cyprian who also liv'd in the same Century Epist to Iulian sayes thus we hold Peter to â—e the hâ—â—d root of the Church Epist 5 he sayes the following words Peter upon whom the Church haâ—â— been buiâ—â— spoâ—e for all asweâ—iÌ„g in the Church's name sayâ—g â—â—nd to whom shall we go and in hiâ— 71. Epist he also saâ—es thus Peter whom thâ— Lorâ— first choes'd and upon whom he built his Church St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 3â—0 sayes ' heresie 51 that Christ choâ—s'd Peter first in order to maâ—â— him the Captaine of his Disciplâ—s and heresie 5â— â—e calls St. Peter the â—riâ— of the Apostles St. Ambrose who also liv'd about that same time in his Commentary on St. Paul's Epist to the Gala c. 1 speaking of St. Paul sayes thus Iâ— was â—it that he long'd for to see Peter who was the chiefest of the Apostleâ— to whom our Saviour intrusted the care of all the Churches and also in his Commentary on St Paul's 2. Epist to the Corin c 12 he says Andrew firâ—t fâ—llowâ—â—â—ur Saviour yet Andrew Receiv'd not the sâ—premacy but Peter Optatus who liv'd in the year 365. sayes thus in â—is 2. book against Perminian there is oâ—e chaiâ—â— and you darâ— not deny to â—now that the chaiâ—â— was first bestowed vnto Peter in the City of Rome where Peter the head fâ—ll the Apostles continued S. Basil who also liv'd in the â—ame age in his ser de Iudicio dei calls Peter that blessed one who was prefer'd before the rest of the Apostles â—usebius Emissenus who also liv d about the same time in his ser de nativi St. Joan speaking of Christ says that he first comâ—itted his Lambs afterwards his sheep to Peter becâ—uâ—e he made him not only pastor but pâ—stor of pastors and Ecumenius who like wise then liv'd sayes the following words in his commentary on the 1. Cap. of the acts Not Iames but Peter rais'd up as being both morâ— fervent and also the president of the Disciples S. Cyrill of Ierusalem â—ho liv'd in the same Century Catech 2 sayes thus Peter the Prince and most excellent of all the Apostles St Hierome who liv'd in the year â—90 in his first book against the Pelagians c 14 calls Peter the Prince of the Apostles upon whom the Lord's Church has been built and also in his first book against Jovinian Cap. 14 he sayes That one of the twelve was choesen to be the head of the rest that the occâ—sion of sâ—hisme might be prevented St. Chrysostom who liv'd in the same time in his 2 Hom de paenit in Psal 50 calls St Peter the pillar of the Church the foundation of the faâ—th and the head of the Apostolical quâ—re and in his last Hom on Ioâ—n he sayes that the charge of the brothers that is to say of the Apostles of the whole whâ—â—ld was câ—mmited to Peter and also in his 55 hom on Matt he sayes that the pastor and heâ—d of the Chuâ—ch was oncâ— a poor fisherman Theodoretus who liv'd in the year 430. sayes thus in his Epist to Leo. Paul that preacher of the truth and trumpet of the holy Ghost run'd to great Peter that he might bring his Sentence to those who indeavor d to establish the legals in Antioch S Augustin who liv'd in the same age in his 24 Ser de Temp â— casâ—'s Peter the governer of the Church And in his 68. Epist he calls him the head of the Apostles the gate keeper of heaâ—en c. in his last Treatise in Ioan he sayes thus whom Peter by reason of the Supremacy of his Apostle-ship c. S. Leo who liv'd in the year 440 in his 3 ser de Aslump sua ad Ponâ—iâ— sayes the following words out of the wholâ— world one Peter â—is choâ—sen who is prefer'd before all people and before the Apostles and before all the fathers of the Church and altho' among the people of God theâ— be many Priests and many pastors yeâ— Peter particularly governs them all and Christ governs them principaly S Gregory in his 4. â—ook 32. E. pist which is to Mauritius the Emperor sayes that it was maâ—ifesâ— to all that knew
not rashly searâ—â— them over â—est you should burn in their search St. Epiphanius who liv'd in the year 370 in his book nam'd Ancoratus sayes thus We see thaâ— our Saviour tooke in his hands as thâ— Evangelist hath when he gave thanks he said this is my body none mistrusts his words for he whâ— dose not believe it to be his true fleâ—h falls from grace life and in a nother place cited by the Fathers of the 7th General Council in the 6th Action he sayes the following words Never shall â—o find our Lord or his Apostles or the Fathers saying that the unbloody sacrifice which is offer'd by the Priests is an Image but his very body blood St. Hierome who liv'd in the year 390 Epist to Hedib sayes thus but let us know that the bread which the Lord brake gave to his Disciples was the Lord our Saviours body himself saying to them take ye eat this is my body St Chrysostom who liv'd the year 398 Hon â—1 in Matt sayes the following words he who bestowed his own life for you why will he sâ—orn to give you his own body therefore let us hâ—arken the Priests how noble how admirable is that thing which is granted unto us he has given us his own flesh c. He also sayes thus Hom 53 Let us believe God let us not contradict him altho' what he sayes may seem strange to our sense imagination for it surpasâ—es our sense reason I beseech you what may we suppose of his words in all things chiefly in mysteries not only considering â—hese things which layes before us but also his words for we cannot be deceiv'd by them but our senses may easilie be deceiv'd his words cannot be false therefore because he said this is my body let us he convinc'd by noe ambiguity but let us believe perceive this with the eyes of our understanding O how many now sayes I wou'd fain seâ— his face countenance I wou'd wish to see his garments therefore you see him you feele him you eat him you desire to see his garmeÌ„ts truly he deliver'd himself to you not only that you may see him but also that you may touch him intertain him in yourself In his 3. book de sacerdotio he sayes thus he that â—its above with his Father even in the same instant of time is touch'd by the hands of all gives himself to all those who are willing to receive him whereas Christ leaving his flesh to us yet ascending to heaven there also he hath it More of St. Chrysostom's Authorityes plainly confirmiÌ„g the same may be seen in his 8â— Hom. on Matt. 45th on John 3 on St. Paus's Epist to the Ephes in his 2. to those of Antioch and in his 6th book de Sacerdotio St. Augustin who liv'd the year 420 expounding that of the 33. Psal he was carri'd in his own hands puts the question inquiring how can these words be understod aÌ„swers sayiÌ„g thus we cannot find this in David according to the litteral sense but we may find it in Christ for Câ—râ—s◠〈…〉 in his own haâ—ds wâ—e gâ—v◠〈…〉 body he said thi◠〈…〉 he caâ—rid that bâ—d◠〈…〉 In his â— book 〈…〉 legis eâ— Prophet c 9 he sayes â—he following wâ—rds wâ— receive the Mediator of God man Ieâ—us Christ with a fuâ—l heart mouth gâ—vâ—ng us his own flâ—sh blood to be 〈◊〉 dranke Here the Reader may take notice of the word mouth that thereby he may understand S. Augustin to have openly declar'd that we do not receive the flesh blood of Christ in figure and by faith only as my adversary believes which may be further confirm'd by S. Augustin's own words in his 2. ser de verbis Apostoli where he sayes thus we understâ—nd the true master divine redeemer kiÌ„d Saviour recommending unto us our price his own â—lood for he spoke of his own body blood More of S. Augustin's Authorityes proving the Real presence may be seen in his 11th 26th 27th 31 Treatise in John in his commeÌ„tary on the 98th psal in his 2. book agaiÌ„st PetiliaÌ„s letters in his 17th book of the City of God c. 20. In his 3. book or the Trinity c. 4. 10. in his book super Leviticum â— 57. In his 2. ser de Temp. anâ— in several other places which wouâ—d be too tedious to produce here therefore I will conclude only with the two following Authorityes S. Cyrâ—ll of Alexandria who liv'd in the year 430 in his Epist to Nestor which Epist was aprov'd of by the Fathers of the General Council of Ephesiâ— sayes thus so immediatly we come to the mystical blessings we are sanctifi'd being partakers of the holy body precious blood of Christ the Redeemer of us all not taking it to be common flesh God forbid But made the proper flesh of the word himself that â—s to say of the son of God It was defin'd in the 18. Can. of the first General Council of Nice That Deacons who have no power to offer sacrifice ought not to give the body blood of Christ to Priests who have that power All which proofs do evidently make-out that it was alwayes believ'd iÌ„ the Primitive Church that Christ's body and blood were really and substancially preseÌ„t in the holy sacrament and consequently that our Saviour had no mystical or figurative meaning in the institution of this sacrament So that it is to be admir'd what pretence can my adversary aleadge for denying the real presence If he has not a mind to deny all mysteries that surpasles his own weake understanding if so he may be the same rule Presume to deny that of the blessed Trinity Incarnation ResurrectioÌ„ c. for they surpasse his understanding and capacity as well as this of the reall presence Chap. 6 Proving that the holy Eucharist was ador'd worshipp'd by those of the Primitâ—ve Church If it was lawfull to fall down and worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship the holy Eucharist with Godly honour but it was lawfull to falldown worship our Saviour Jesus Christ with Godly honour when he was in this world therefore t is lawfull to fall down worship the holy Eucharist with Godly hoÌ„our The coÌ„sequence is most certain as we shall see hereafter and the minor is manifest Mat. c. 2 v 11. c. 14. v. 33. Jo. c 9 v. 38. as for The major it may be prov'd tâ—us the same Saviour Jesus Christ who was worship'd in this world is really substâ—ntially present in the holy Sacrament as I have prov'd in my answer to the adversarys 5th point and will confirm it in my answer to his 7th therefore if â—t was lawfull to full-down and worship our Saviour Iesus Christ with Godly honour wheÌ„ he was in this world t is also lawfull to fall-down and worship tâ—e holy Eucharist with
the arke was a prepariÌ„g Mâ—lachi c. 3 v. 3 and he shall sit is a refiner and a puriâ—â—er of silver and â—e shall purifie the sons of Levi and â—urge them as gold and silver that they may offer unto the Lord an offeriÌ„g in righteousnesse Which text signifies the punishment of Purgatory as the following Fathers do testifies Origines hom 6. in Exod. S. Ambrose in his commentary on the 36. psal St Hierâ—me in the exposition of this text and St. Augustin in his 20th book of the city of God c. 25. we find in the 2 book of Machabees c. 12. v. â—3 that Judas Machabeus had sent to Jerusalem twelve thousand peeces of silver to be offer'd for the souls of his souldiâ—rs here are the very words of the scripture and making a â—athering he sent twelve thousand dracmes of fâ—â—ver to â—erusalem for sacrâ—fice to be offer'd for â—â—nne well and religiously thinking of the Resurection for unless he â—â—p'd that they that were slaiâ—e should raise againe it should seem superflous and vainâ—â—â— prayfor the dead and because he conâ—ider'd thaâ— they which had taken their sleep with Godliness had very Good grace lay'd up for them It is therefore a holy and healthfull cogitaâ—ion to pray for the dead that tâ—ey may â—e loose from sinnes perhaps you may Answer saying that this book is not the word of God or canonical and consequently that it's Authority is of no force but in case it wou'd not be canonical it self it ought to be sooner belier'd then either Calvin or Luthers â—nd consequently prefer'd before their Authorityes being Juâ—as was always esteem'd to have â—een a most faithfull servant to God Almighty and then has â—een a high Priest of the true Church Moreover ti 's false that this book is not Canonical for Tradition and the Authority of the holy Catholick Church which is all the testimony we can produce to prove that any book of the whole Bible is canonical or the true word of God expressly affirms that this book is Canonical and consâ—quently the word of God as may â—e seen in InnoceÌ„t the first 's letter to Exuperius in St Cyprian's first book c. 3. in his book de Exâ—orâ—atioâ— Martyry c. 11. in St. Gregorie Nazianzens Oration de Machabaeis in St Ambrose's 2. book de Jacob c 10. 11. 12. in St. AugustiÌ„s 2. book against Gaudentâ—us Epistles c. 23 in his 2 book de Doc. Christ c. 8. in his 18. book of the City of God c. 36. and also in the 47 Chap. of the 3. Council of Carthage celebrated the year 397 whose very words are these Item placuit ut praeter scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum scripturarum Sunt autem canonicae Scripturae Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numeri Deuteronomium Jesus nave Judicum Ruth Regâ—um libriquatuor Paralipâ—menon libri duo Job psalterium Davidicum Salomonis libri quinque libri duodecim Prophetarum Isaias Jeremia Ezechiel Daniel Tobias Judith Ester Esdrae libri duo Machabaâ—rum libri duo Novi autem Testamenti Evangeliorum libri quatuor Actuum Apostolorum liber vnus Pauli Apostoli Epistolae tredecim ejusdâ—m ad Hebraeos una Petri Apostoli duae JoaÌ„nis Apostoli tres Judae Apostoli una et Jacobi una Apocalipsis Joannis â—iber unus Whereby the reader may plainly see that my adversary can have no kind of tolerable reason to reject the books of Mâ—chabees more than any other book of the whole Bible Now let us heare those texts of the new Testament which speaks of Purgatory Mat. c 5. v. 2â— But I say unto you that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of judgment whosoever shall say to his brother Racha shall be in daÌ„ger of CouÌ„cil but whosoever shall say thou fool shall be in danger of hell fire Which text expressly declares the soul to be punish'd after leaviÌ„g this world for three several sinnes and that only for the last of them he shall suffer Eternal fire so that I mâ—y lawfully infer that there must be some other place wherin the souls are punish'd for the two other sinnes but that other place cannot be heaven as is evident neither is it hell as the text makes-out therefore it must be that place of teâ—poral Punishment which the holy Catholick Church commonly call's Purgatory Which may be confirm'd by the 2â— â—6 v. of the same Chap. where we read thus agree with your adversarâ— quickly whilâ—s you are in the way with him lest the adversary would deliver thee to the judge the judge deliver thee to the officer thou be cast in prâ—son verâ—ly I say unto thee thou shalâ— by nâ— means come ouâ— thence till thou hast payed the uttermost farthing Whereby the reader may see that the word of God confirms the premâ—sses by bidding us to make penance in this world lest we shu'd be sent to that prison out of which â—â— cannot go till we pay the last farthing that is to saâ— untill our souls will be purifi'd from all manner of â—innes as the following Fathers do expressly declare â—ertullian in his book de Anima c 17. S. Cyprian in his 4th book Epist 2 Origines hom 35 in Lucaâ— Eusebius Emiâ—senus homâ— de â—piphâ—ia St Ambrose expoundiÌ„g the 12. c of Luke St. Hierome on thee aforesaid text where he sayes the following words this is what St. Matthew declares you shall not go out of the prison till also the small sinâ— be punish'd Matt. c. 12 v. 32. and whosoever speakeâ—h a word against the son of maâ— iâ— shall be forgiven him but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neiâ—herâ—n the world to come Which words S Matthew wou'd â—ot have said If he haâ— not suppos'd that some siâ—â— will be foâ—given in the world to come We fiâ—d also the following words in St. Pauls first Epist to the Corinthians c 3 v. 15. â—f any manâ— wâ—râ—e shall be burnt he shall suffer cosse but hiâ—self shall be sav'd yet so as by fire By which words S. Paul clearly firms that some souls after leaving this world shall be purgâ—d and purifi'd by a temporal fire as the following Fathers do testifie St. Ambrose in his coâ—mentary on this text in his 20. ser on the â—18 psal Sâ— Hierome on the 4. Chap. of Amos St. Augustin on the 37. Psal S Gregorie in his 4. book of Dialogues c. 39. Now let us beare the holy Fathers very words S. Denis who has been St. Paul's Disciple in his book de Eccâ—es Hier c. 7. sayes thus Then the Venerable Bishops do draw near and perform the hoâ—y prayers over the dead beseechâ—ng the divine clemency to forgive the dead all the sinnes which he commitâ—d by his human weaknesse and to place hâ—â— in light and in the region of the living Terâ—ullian who liv'd in the year 230. in his book de Monogamia bids acâ—rtain womâ—n
the said points if they had not understood and firmly believ'd that they taught false and erronious Doctrines neither wou'd all the aforesaid Councils of the Primitive Church which my adversary in his challenge acknowledges to have then retain'd the true faith of Jesus Christ condemn their Doctrines if they were not also Hethrodox contrary to the true faith which they and their forefathers receiv'd from Jesus Christ his Disciples therfore whosoever desires to find embrace a Church wherein the old incorrupted principles of Christianity are â—aught and such Doctrines only as were maintain'd by the ancient pâ—râ— Church even of Roâ—e for up-wards of 500 years after Christ let him embrace the present Church of Rome wherein the said principles are duely professâ—d the old and the present Church of Rome being still the same in priÌ„ciples whereas the Doctrines of those who now call themselves reformers the Church of EnglaÌ„d PresbyteriaÌ„s Quakers c. wherein the said convinâ—icles do now diâ—â—er from the preseÌ„t Church of Rome 〈◊〉 never maintain'd by the ancient Church of Rome but 〈◊〉 â—â—piously brought in by a serâ—es of Hereticks who for these very Doctrines were from time to 〈◊〉 condemn'd by many 〈◊〉 national Provincial Councils â— also by the most eminent 〈◊〉 and Doctors of the primitive Church as the premisses do evidently make-out so that the reader may take noâ—â—ce of my adversarys ignorance and presumption for censuring contradicting a religion so ancieÌ„t which lawfull mission acknowledgment of antiquity holy Fathers several Councils divine miracles the word of God do plainly demoÌ„strate to be the only true and Apostolical line which leads Souls to the true way of everlasting glory happiness therefore reader if you have been heretofore of my adversarys opinion I beseech you for the love of Jesus Christ to compare seriously his principles and those of the Church of Rome togeather and then to consider â—ttentively the state and circumstances wherein you are out of â—he holy Catholick Church out of which there is no salvation to be expected as the following holy Fathers do openly declare St. Cyâ—rian in his book de vnitate Ecclesiae speaking of those who are out of the Church sayes thus do they thinke Christ is amongst them â—â—â— tho' they were drawn to torments â—xecution for the confession of the name of Christ yet this pollutioÌ„ is not wash'd away noâ— not with blood this inexpiable and inexcusable crime of schisâ—â— is not purg'd away even by death itself St. Chrysostome in his 11. hoâ— on St. Pauls Epist to the EphesiaÌ„s â—ayes also thus there is nothing so provokes the wrâ—th of God aâ— the division of the Church iâ— so â—uch that tho' we shu'd have perform'd all other sort of good thiâ—gs yâ—t we â—hall inâ—urr apâ—â—isâ—ment â—â— lâ—ss crâ—â—â— for dividing the vnity of the Church than those who have doâ—â— who 〈◊〉 and divided Christs 〈◊〉 St. Augustin in his 4. book of â—ymbole Cap 10. sayes â—â—e following words If any man be soâ—â—â— sâ—parâ—ted from her he shaâ—l be 〈◊〉 from â—he number of the childâ—â—n â—â—ither shall â—e have God for his Father 〈◊〉 wouâ—d not have the Church for 〈◊〉 â—â—ther â—nd it will nothing 〈◊〉 him to have rightly beliâ—v'd oâ— to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so many good workes withâ—â—t the â—â—â—clusion of the soâ—eraign good 〈◊〉 sâ—pâ—r gâ—â—â—a Emar he sayâ— also the following â—ords out of the Church aâ— heretick â—ay have all things but salvation â—â— may have the sacraments he may â—ave faith and preach it only salvaâ—ion he cannot havâ— which may be â—urther confirm'd by the words of â—t James c. 2. v. 10. sayiÌ„g thus whoâ—iâ—ver shall keep the whole law and â—â—t offends in one point he is guilty of â—ll therefore being the salvation â—f your soul doth wholly depend â—f the true belief and intire obâ—ervation of all those points of â—ith which the holy Catholick Church sufficiently proposes â—â—iversaly teaches I do earnestly â—eseech you to open the eyes of â—our understanding for I know â—hat you have no invincible ignorance whereby yoâ— might be excus'd to embrace the principles and Doctrines of that pure ancâ—ent Church against which the gates of hell cannot prevail Matt. c. 16. v. 1â— assure your self that I do not invite you to any old heresie as my adversary does noâ— the Lord forbid but to the religion preach'd and taught by Jesus Christ and his Disciples to that I say where with your foreâ— fathers and anteceslors have been still contented since eveâ— they left Paganism untill in the 16. age they were deceiv'd by the erronious Doctrines of those false prophets Luther and Calvin hold fast the form of sound words which thou hast hard from me in faith and live which is in Christ Jesus 2. Timothy c. 1 v. 13 neither give heed to fables and endless genelogies which minister questions rather than Godly â—â—ifying in the faith from which some having sweru'd have turn'd aside unto vain jaâ—gling desiring to be teachers if the law understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm 1. Timothy c. 1. v. 4. 6. 7. let not villfull or gross ignorance the temporal riches and vanity of this transitory world or complyâ—nce to the request of your frieÌ„ds deceive mislead you but consider seriously the very words of your Saviour and redeemer Jesus Christ Matt c. 16. v. 26. saying thus for what is a man profited if he â—hall gain the whole world loose his own soulâ— or what shall a man give in exchangâ— for his own soul what will it then a â—â—il you after this life to be now for few years or dayes in great honour favour request in this deceitfull world afterward to be perpetually tormented in pain grief miseryes with out any hopes of mercy or redemption where neither frieds pompe nor riches can prevail in order to give you the lest dram of consolation from which punishment the Lord Jesus Christ of his infinite mercy defend both you me all Christians Amen FINIS An Answer to what oâ—e Wâ—ealy â—lleages in his Almanack against St. Peters Supremacy AFter having compos'd this little work Wheaâ—y's Almanack for the year 1â—99 came accidentally into my haÌ„ds wherein he or some other malicious person in his name labours to infect the whole Kingdom with false pernicious Doctrine which he pretends to ground on some nonâ—ensical arguments that he forms against St. Peter the Pope of Rome's Supremacy and tho' 't is hardly worth any mans while to coÌ„fute them yet because it concerns what I have said in my Answer to mr lennings fourth poit â— thiÌ„ke it fit to let him know his own ignorance and the errors of his pretended Doctrine First he offers to infer by a new invented consequence of his own that Peter was neither Bishop of Antioch or Rome because as he falsly alleages the Papists have not as yet agreed amoÌ„g themselves about the time he first remov'd from
is false as is manifest by that of the Acts c. 15. v 7 where we find the followiÌ„g words when there had been much disputing Peter rose up and said to them men bretheren ye know that a good while agoe God made choice among us that the Gentiles by my mouth should he are the word of the Gospel and believe c. as for that which Whealy adds that Peter writ his Epistles from Babylon and not to Rome c. it proves his ignorance and coÌ„firms what he would faine deny for in Peter first Epist c. 5. v 1â— by the word Babylon Rome is meant as Papias the Apostles Disciple cited by Eusebius in his 2. book of History c. 15. St. Hierome in his book de Viris Illustribus in Marco Eunomius Venerable Bedâ— and all the Fathers that ever writ a commentary on that Epist do unanimously declare and it is evident out of the 17. c. of revelations where John sayes that Babylon was builded on seaven hills and that i'ts Impire did extend over the Kings of the earth which notwithstandig should fall down and be destroy'd all which has beeÌ„ verify'd of the City of Rome and of no other City in the whole world for it was foâ—erly and is at present builded on seaven hills and it's Impire only did then reach all parts of the world yet what John fore see came to pass for the Roman Impire was reduc'd almost to nothing the City wholly run'd by the Goths Wandals Hunns Longobards but what occasion'd people in them times to call Rome Babylon was a certain similitude that was between the City of Rome and that of Babylon when in the time of NabuchodoÌ„oâ—or BabyloÌ„ was an Imperial City whose King Nabuchodonoâ—or crully persecuted the people of God duriÌ„g their captivity there eveÌ„ so in the time of the Apostles Rome was an Jmperial City whose Improur was Nero who persecuted most cruelly the people of God during his reign it 's therefore the City of Rome was call'd another Babylon Whealy's fifth reason is grounded on the audieÌ„ce given to Paul in the Apostles assembly Acts c. 15. v. 12. by which it seems that Peter till then was wholly a stranger to the wonders Paul told them he had perform'd amoÌ„g the Gentiles this consequeÌ„ce is false for tho' General Ginkle related in a Council of war before the Prince of Orange how he behav'd himself at the breach of Agherim against the Irish it cannot be infer'd that the Prince of Orange himself was till then wholly a straÌ„ger to the Irish affairs and that he never fought at the breach of the Boyne or elswhere against them tho' Peter gave audience to Paul telling the Miracles wonders which God had wrought among the Gentiles by him and Barnabas it does not follow that Peter never preach'd the Gospel to any of the Gentiles before that time as for Whealy's 6th reason that it was after Pauls said relation that the Apostles and Elders sent Barsabas and Silos with him to Antioch to assist in the ministry I allow that to be true but what Whealy would infer out of it is false for it does not at all follow out of this that the Gospel was never preach'd before in any of those Countryes but what might be lawfully infer'd is that Barsabas Silos were not commaÌ„ded to go with Paul to Antioch till after the said relatioÌ„ but before this time beiÌ„g the 18. year after our Saviours PassioÌ„ the Gospel was preach'd not only in Antioch but also in Rome by Peter as I will shew hereafter as for Whealy's new commeÌ„tary on the words of our Saviour Mathew c. 16. v. 18. 19. John c. 21. v. 15. 16 17. I believe no man of sense will prefer it before the exposiâ—ion of all the holy Fathers and Doctors which is coÌ„trary to that of Whealy's as may be seeÌ„ in my Anâ—wer to Mr. JeÌ„niÌ„gs 4 poiÌ„t as for that word only which our Saviour would have added if he meant Peter in particular as Whealy pretends I would willingly know by what reason can he or any other shew that the word only would be requisite here to prove Peter's supremacy and not in that of John c 6. v. 50. where he the present Church of England do wrest the words of Christ to a figurative sence without the lest meÌ„tioÌ„ of the word only or siguratively by which it appears how incoherently Whealy argues aâ—d pretends to expouÌ„d the worâ—s of Christ in the said tâ—xts ' its apparent that it would be superfluous for Christ to express the word oÌ„ly in either of these texts viz Matt c. 16. John c. 21 it was enough that he spoake to Peter personaly in the singular number in these words Blessed art tâ—ou Simon Bâ—rjona for flesh blood have not reveal'd it uÌ„to thee but my Father who is in heaven I say also unto thee that thou art Peter upon this râ—ck I will build my Church the gates of Hell shall not prevaile agaiÌ„st it I will give unto thee the Keyes of the KiÌ„gdom of HeaveÌ„ what soever thou shall biÌ„d on earth shall he bouÌ„d in heaveÌ„ whatsoever thou shall loose on earâ—h shall be loos'd in heaveÌ„ Mat. c. 16 v. 1718. 19 so wheÌ„ they had diÌ„ed Jesus said to Simon Peter Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me more than these he said unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my lambes he saith unto him again the second time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me he saith unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee he saith unto him feede my sheepe he said unto him the third time Simon sonne of Jonas lovest thou me Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time lovest thou me and he said unto him Lord thou knowest that I love thee Iesus said unto him feede my sheep John c 21. v. 15. 16 17. which words do plainly prove that our Saviour then meant Peter and none else of the Apostles for he excluded them by the words Simon Peter sonne of Jonas levest thou me which as the reader may observe our Saviour thrice coÌ„sequeÌ„tly repeated and after Peter answer'd each time he gave him in charge his lambes and sheepe commanding him to feede them which he would not have done if he had then meant equally all the rest of the Apostles as Whealy falsly alleages but would speake to them Generally in the plural number as he did in that of Matt. c. 18. v. 19 when he commanded them to go and teach all nations as for that new explication which Whealy gives saying that our Saviour speake particularly to Peter more than to the other Apostles because they were not in the danger that Peter was of swearing cuâ—sing denying his blessed Master as Peter afterwards did Matt c. 26. v. 7â— therefâ—re wanted not the consolation which the Saviour of the world judg'd nâ—edfull for the support of a faâ—linâ—
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