before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles
only knows the Thoughts but we do affirm the Devils who are always about us do know what we speak and act but the Saints are at a distance from us and therefore cannot and the Angels if the Opinion of every Persons having one for a Guardian be true may possibly know the actions of those whom they are Guardians to but this proves no knowledge of the Thoughts nor if they did know them is there any Reason we should pray to them Pa. 81. The Angels of God have prayed for those on Earth or they have not Pro. They have not Pa. Why then do you not agree with us that Angels pray for us Pro. We do agree with you that they pray for us but what is that to our Praying to them Pa. 82. It is either Lawful to pray to the Angels or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why do you accuse Jacob of an Error in invocating the Angel to bless his Children Gen. 48 16. Pro. Jacob did not there invocate any created Angel but the Angel of the Covenant the Lord Jesus Christ. So saith St. Athanasius orat 4. in Arrian the Patriarch Jacob in his Prayer joined none with God but him only who is the Word whom he calls Angel so that we do not condemn him of an Error Pa. Why do you condemn this Text Job 5. 1. Call therefore and turn to thee some of the Saints Pro. We do not condemn that Text but we may justly condemn you for alledging it after such a manner and to such a purpose the Words are Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn whereby Eliphaz upbraids Job as unworthy of such a Privilege as he had enjoyed in Chap. 4. v. 16. of a Vision to instruct him but says nothing of Prayer to Saints or any thing like it Pa. Why do you condemn that Hos. 12. 4. Jacob prevailed against the Angel and wept and prayed to him Pro. We do not condemn it the Prophet there speaks of the Angel which he met in Bethel Gen. 23. 24. Which Angel was no created Angel but Christ for Gen. 32. 30. Jacob calls him God now will it follow that because Jacob worshipped God therefore we must invocate a Created Angel Are these Arguments for Men of Reason to use Of the Worshipping of Angels and Images PA. 83. When St. John in the Apocalypse 22. 8. fell down to adore before the Feet of the Angel be knew it either to be lawful or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. Then you accuse the most Wise and Excellent Apostles of gross Ignorance and wilful Idolatry Pro. We do not accuse them of gross Ignorance it was no invincible Ignorance for it is plain St. John took him for Christ in that the Argument he uses to withhold him is that he was a Created Spirit and such an Ignorance St. John was guilty of but for wilful Idolatry We do not accuse him he did not as you do worship that which he knew not to be God but he was about to worship that which he took for God. I wonder how you can alledge this Text in your Favour which is so clearly against you Pa. Again when Lot ador'd the Angels Gen. 19. 1. with his Face bowed towards the Earth he either committed Idolatry or he did not Pro. You beg the question Lot did not adore the Angels the Scripture tells us he rose np to meet them and bowed himself with his Face towards the Ground which was only a civil Salutation for he took them only for Men and therefore could not adore them So that there is no Argument to be drawn from hence Pa. 84. All that which is recorded in Holy Writ to have been done by the known Saints of God without reproof either is Lawful or it is not Pro. All that they so did without an extraordinary Call to it is Lawful but there were some things which were peculiarly lawful to them which is not so to us Pa. If all things they did as their ordinary Duty be Lawful then why do you call it Idolatry to worship Images Pro. Because the Saints of God never worshipped them Pa. Did not John the Baptist the great Precursor of Christ worship the very Latchets of our Saviours Shooes Pro. This is a pleà sant question where do you find he ever did The Scripture saith no such thing he said indeed he was not worthy to bear them but he never worshipped them Prove it if you can Pa. Why did Jacob worship the top of Joseph's Rod Heb. 11. 21. Pro. He did not there is no text of Scripture that says he did that place which you quote is plainly perverted for the words are He worshipped upon the top of his Staff that is leaning on it or that he worshipped leaning towards the Beds Head and therefore St. Jerome whose Translation you profess to follow in his questions upon Genesis rejecteth that Version which yet you retain we affirm then still that the Saints of God did not worship Images Pa. 85. The holy Veneration and Worship of Images have either profited the Jews and Christians or they have not Pro. They have not Pa. How then were the Israelites healed of the biting of the Serpents in the Desarts Pro. Not by worshipping any Image no not the Brazen Serpent but by looking on it thereby exercising their Faith on Christ whom it was a Type of Pa. How then did the Primitive Christians receive special benefit by venerating the Shadow of St. Peter and St. Paul Acts 5. 15. and 19. 11. Pro. Here again you suppose what is not the Shadow of St. Peter healed many and so did St. Paul but they did not venerate or worship either their shadow or their Persons Pa. 86. It is lawful to bow the Knee to Images or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why doth the Apostle say at the Name of Jesus every Knee shall bow Phil. 2. 8. Which Name is nothing else but an Image of the Hearing Pro. This is as impertinent an Argument as ever I heard the question is about graven visible material Images not about Images in the Hearing but pray remember St. Paul doth not say Every Body shall worship that Name So that it is nothing to your purpose about visible material Images or worshipping them Of the Veneration of Reliques PA. 87. The Honour and Veneration of the Reliques of Saints which God himself hath approved by many famous Miracles is good or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Why then do you condemn the Veneration of Reliques Pro. Because God hath never approved it either by Miracles or any other way Pa. 88. That Woman which was miraculously cured of the Bloody-Flux by only touching the Hem of Christ's Garment was Cured either for venerating the Reliques â—â— she was not Pro. She was not but for her Faith. Pa. Why then was not she Cured afar off Pro. That is nothing to us it is
IMPRIMATUR Guil. Needham Jan. 26. 1686 7. A Plain DEFENCE OF THE PROTESTANT RELIGION Fitted to the Meanest Capacity Being a Full CONFUTATION OF THE NET FOR THE Fishers of Men Published by two Gentlemen lately gone over to the Church of Rome Wherein is evidently made appear that their departure from the Protestant Religion was without Cause or Reason Written for publick good by L. E. a Son of the Church of England as by Law Established Be not tossed too and fro with every Wind of Doctrine by the sleight of Men and cunning Craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive Eph. 4. 14. London Printed by S. L. and are to be sold by R. Taylor near Stationers-Hall 1687. To Mr. J. C. and Mr. J. M. C. The Authors of the Net for the Fishers of Men. Gentlemen I Hope that your design in publishing your little Treatise was a zealous desire to bring others of your Country-men into the same Church which you have made your selves Members of out of pure Love to their Souls which you I suppose think cannot be safe out of its Communion and I am the rather induced to believe it because you seem so confident of the strength of your Arguments that in the Epistle Dedicatory you reckon them unanswerable and in that to the Reader you express your Sence of them to be very high This I take to be an effect of your Zeal for I am sure it is not of your Knowledg and I would charitably perswade my self that you love the Truth too well to pretend a defence of what you know is Erroneous or endeavour to promote the Progress of delusions but out of a sincere Heart offer the Reasons which prevailed with you to a Change not seeing their weakness which is indeed so very notorious that I never thought to have seen them published though I have often known them vigorously pressed in private Discourses where heat and unwariness may let them pass without discovering that there is nothing of Force in them it being generally the Practice of the Romanists but especially the Jesuits to have a Set of Arguments for private unstudied Adversaries with which they catch too many who because they carry a specious Shew at first examine but little farther and without consulting others suffer themselves to be led Captive I have in the following Treatise according to your Desire in the Preface annexed my Answers to your Queries for which reason I have done it by way of Dialogue that so I might be the more brief and omit nothing of what you offered I don't doubt but I have shewn the weakness of every particular Argument but to save you and my self a great deal of Trouble if you reply I shall here take notice of several gross faults in your Arguing which if they be not remedied will create endless difficulties You never tell us what you mean by the word Church in some places you take it for the Congregation of the Faithful in others for a Council and in others for a particular Church In your Allegations out of Scripture you bring many Texts which indeed prove nothing to your purpose Thus in a question of the universal Church you bring a Text that speaks of a particular one or of every private Minister And in the question about Confirmation in defence of Oyl and Balm you cite places which mention only Imposition of Hands You suppose the Roman Church to be the only Church of Christ without any Proof which is plain begging the question and not arguing So in other places you beg the question And you take it for granted that Peter had the chief Charge over the Apostles committed to him that all oral Tradition is Apostolical that God hath commanded nothing concerning a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue and that because Reliques have been the Instruments by which Miracles were wrought therefore they must be Worshipped You mistake the Question and run on upon a Point not contested which is arguing to no purpose nothing but making a Puppet and knocking him down Thus when the Question is about Praying in an unknown Tongue you argue for the lawfullness of speaking with Tongues in the point of Free Will you plead for Free Will in Moral actions which we acknowledge when the question is about those Actions that are Spiritual again you argue against Faith without Works when the question is whether Faith alone justifies not whether Faith can be without Works for that we deny as well as you So in the point of Religious Vows you argue for the lawfullness of Vows in general when the Controversy is about those particular Vows which we Condemn You quote several Scriptures famous not only as to the particular references of which there are a Multitude so many that I am afraid you took them up upon Trust but also the very Texts Thus you make St. Paul call Marriage a Sacrament when he calls it only a Mystery so you have falsified Heb. 12 11. and several other places as I have proved in the Book it self I might add several Instances of these and other Particulars such as your taking the word Universal in three several Sences and yet applying all one way but these shall suffice and I am in hopes will let you see how wretchedly your Pretended Fathers have dealt with you by putting such Arguments upon you and founding your Faith upon such weak Grounds I desire you would not take it ill that I attribute this work to some of them and do so freely tax you with not seeing the Vanity of it for I suppose you are Gentlemen whose Education hath engrossed your time to other Matters and cannot therefore be reasonably supposed to have sufficient Experience in these Points to make you able to discern their Sophisms and unconcluding Arguments which they have shamm'd upon you for convincing Reasons If you are convinc'd by this answer I shall bless God for it if not I desire you would satisfy the World why you are not But don 't follow tht Methods of some late Writers who have wisely withdrawn from the main Business and only cavilled at a word or two as being Improper or something of that Nature when they could not answer the Reasons of their Adversaries nor defend their own I might easily have done so by you but as I have dealt seriously and plainly I expect the same and I pray God send us his Holy Spirit to lead us into all Truth I am Gentlemen Your very humble Servant L. E. TO THE Reader Courteous Reader A Serious Enquiry and search after Truth is the Duty of every rational Creature and he that hath an unfeigned desire to find it and happiness in it will not neglect any lawful means to arrive at the knowledge of it seeing by it the Mind is enlightened our Faith regulated and fixed and our actions guided to that true felicity which Crowns the Soul with
an Evidence of the Churches Sanctity but is indeed a meer invention of Men but our Sanctity we will prove by the Word of God because we teach the same Doctrine which that contains Pa. 32. Luther and Calvin and the rest of your Reformers confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles or they did not Pro. What if they did not Pa. If they did not they were not true Apostles Pro. The Doctrine they Preached was not theirs but that which Christ and his Apostles taught and confirm'd by Miracles so that it needed no more Confirmation except we had received it upon their Authority which we did not We acknowledge they were not Apostles as the twelve were and therefore no need of their working Miracles Pa. 33. The Signs which Christ said in Scripture followed your pretended Reformers or they did not Pro. All the Signs which Christ said should always accompany the true Preachers of the Gospel did follow them Pa. If they did shew one Man they dispossessed or one sick that they restored to Health for if these Signs did not follow them they are not true Believers Pro. That doth not follow for Christ never made that a Sign of True Believers nay you must confess that many never worked any of these Miracles who are yet true Believers If indeed they had Preached any new Doctrine you might call for Miracles but seeing they Preached none new but the Doctrine that was taught by Christ his Apostles and the Ancient Fathers there is no need to confirm that by Miracles seeing all the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought were for that end However we can shew many certain instances of Mens being dispossessed by the Prayers of the Faithful in our Church and many among us who have had their Health restored them in answer to their own and the Churches Prayers but for all that we have better grounds for our Faith which we rest upon Pa. 34. Your Reformers were either famous for their virtuous Lives or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why did they break their Vows made to God and teach Men so to do Pro. The Vows which they broke were unlawful Vows and your own Canons expresly say that an unlawful Vow ought to be broken C. 22. qu. 4. c. in malis by breaking then their Vow of single Life that is by repenting of it and not observing it they did no more than what they were in duty bound to do and therefore were holy Men for all that Pa. 35. The Catholick Roman Church and no other stands firm and infallible against all the Tempests of Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pro. The Roman Church is not firm nor infallible but as to the visible part of it is fallen both by Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pa. 36. The Romans had once the true Church or they had not Pro. The question is Ambiguous if you mean by it that the Roman Church was the true Church as the Mother of all other I deny it if you mean that the Roman Church was a true Church and had the true Faith I answer that she had the true Faith. Pa. If the Romans had the true Faith they retain the same still infallibly or do not Pro. They do not Pa. 37. If they do not then they must have their fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism Pro. She hath fallen by them all Pa. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church fell by Apostasie or it did not Pro. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Church fell not at all Nay the Ancient Roman Church fell not but the present Roman Church is fallen Pa. If she is fallen by Apostasie what prudent man will say that she ever renounced the sweet Name of Jesus which she ever hath in so great Veneration Pro. She may have fallen by Apostasie and yet not have renounced the Name of Jesus so that her having it in so great Veneration is no Argument that she is not fallen by Apostasie Pa. 38. The Roman Church fell by Heresie or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did by what General Council was she ever Condemn'd which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Or by what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd Pro. If nothing be an Heresy but what a General Council condemns then those Heresies which sprang up in the first three hundred years were wrongfully esteemed such in those times seeing there was then no General Council If a Doctrine may be Heretical which was never Condemned by a general Council then the Dostrines of the Church of Rome may be Heretical though never Condemned by a General Council so that question doth not vindicate her from being guilty of Heresie Pa. But which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Pro. All the Ancient Fathers disclaim those Doctrines which the Roman Church now holds but they could not write purposely against her because she did not then profess those Doctrines But if it be a good Argument the Church of Rome fell not into Heresy because no Father wrote purposely against her then the same Argument will vindicate us seeing no Father hath writ against us but if no Father had writ against the Church of Rome she might be Heretical for all that so that this question and the former are both impertinent Pa. But by what Authority was she reproved Pro. By the Authority of the Scriptures by the Authority of the Testimony of the Antient Church and the Authority of right Reason Pa. 39. The Ancient Roman Church fell by Schism and by dividing herself from some other Church or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did whose company did she leave from what Body did she go forth Where was the true Church she forsook Pro. She forsook the Primitive Church the Eastern Church and all those Christians who always maintained their Freedom from the Roman Yoke Pa. 40. The true Holy Apostolick Catholick Church is fallible and can err or it cannot Pro. Remember by the Church I mean the Faithful throughout the World and of these I say they all cannot err in any point of Faith. Pa. Why do you then falsly condemn her Pro. We do not condemn her we are part of her but for the Roman Church we condemn her Pa. 41. The Church of God is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faith or she is not Pro. All Definitions made by the whole Church of Christ are infallibly true Pa. If she be why do you deny infallibility Pro. The Infallibility we deny is that of a Pope or Council and this we deny because they are not the whole Church and therefore though the Church of Christ be infallible yet they are not Pa. 42. Christ being the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost the Soul of the Church guiding and directing the Church in all Truth she can err or she cannot Pro. She cannot Pa. Then she is not fallible Pro. The Church of Christ is not fallible but the Roman Church is 43. Christ is either a