Qu. 1. WHen Nectarius with his Church of Constantinople discharged for ever the Office of Penitentiaries because of a scandalous Deacon can it rationally be presumed that this Office was ever reputed by them a Sacrament but rather at the best an Expedient to prepare men for it for we are bound in Charity to think that neither the Bishop nor that Church would have ever consented to the Abolition of a Sacrament for the sake of such a Scandal as happened in the mis-management of it or if they had done so much less can it be imagined that the greatest part of the Christian Church would have concurred with them in it Moreover since the ancient Church had no Form of Absolution but only the admitting Penitents to the Communion where then shall the Form of that pretended Sacrament be found among the Ancients 2. If the Absolution of a Roman Priest hath the power to convert Attrition that is such a consternation of mind as fell upon Iudas when he went and hanged himself into the Grace of Contrition as divers Popish Casuists aver had it not been an unspeakable happiness to that Betrayer of the best Master that ever was to have rencountred in the way of striving such a Priest when he was seeking after some Instrument to become Felo de se. SECT XV. Of the Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies restraint therefrom Qu. 1. IF Marriage be a Sacrament and confer Grace as Baptism and the Eucharist wherefore do they restrain their Consecrated Persons from that supernatural Quality since it s only an Ecclesiastical Restraint they pretend unto 2. Since God hath sufficiently declared his Approbation of the Marriage of the Clergy in that the whole World hath been twice by his Appointment Peopled by Two married Priests viz. Adam and Noah and that he tyed the Priesthood under the Law to a Race of married People and that the Scripture hath told us Marriage is honourable in all and placeth it among the Qualifications of a Bishop That he be the Husband of one Wife having faithful Children not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Gangra nor of the Discourse of Paphnutius in the Council of Nice nor of Spiridion S. Hilary Eucherius Lugdunensis and many other Primitive Bishops who were married beside the Apostle S. Peter may it not be pertinently enquired if the Church of Rome borrowed their Doctrine of the unlawfulness of the Marriage of Priests from the Manichees who allowed Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Laicks but forbad it to their Elect as that Church doth to her Priests 3. Had not Aeneas Sylvius afterwards P. Pius the 2d good reason to write that in consideration of the vile Abuses of the Celibacy of the Clergy whatever reasons the Clergy had at first to restrain them from Marriage now for much better Reasons they ought to be restored to that which God hath made the Privilege of all men who cannot contain SECT XVI Of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Quest. SUppose the Administration of Extreme Unction to dying persons as a Sacrament had been the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church in all Ages though for a Thousand years after Christ we find no such thing how can the Practice of the Roman Church be reconciled to the Doctrine of S. Iames or S. Mark for these are their Scripture-pretences who manifestly shew us that the design of that Anointing was the recovery of the Patient the gift of miraculous Healing not being ceased in the days of S. Iames whereas the Romanists do not practise that Ceremony till all hope of Recovery is past SECT XVII Of Tradition Qu. 1. OF those who magnifie the Tradition of the Church so highly as to imagin that the very Credit of the Scripture depends thereon or that it gives the Scripture its Authority which is as much as to say that Man gives Authority to Gods Word it may be demanded What if the Church should have concealed or taught otherwise of those Writings than as of the undoubted Oracles of God would she not have erred damnably in her Tradition 2. Since Tradition in the Roman Church is taken in to supply the Imaginary defect of Scripture and the Authority thereof to supply the defect of Tradition doth it not hence follow that neither Scripture nor Tradition signifie any thing without the Churches Authority And consequently it must needs be the Rule of their Faith that is They believe themselves 3. Since the Doctrine of the Millenaries was unanimously received as an Apostolick Tradition in the 2d and 3d Centuries of the Church meerly upon the Authority and Antiquity of Papias who lived presently after the Apostles and yet by St. Hierom and many of this present Age looked upon as an Imposture and if both Irenaeus for his asserting that our Saviour suffered about the Fiftieth year of his Age and Clem. Alexandrinus that he died for the Sins of the World about the Thirtieth year of his Age are judged exceedingly mistaken and not without good ground notwithstanding they both pretended an Apostolick Tradition as having conversed with Apostolick Men Irenaeus having written An. 180. and Clemens 190. And in fine since in that famous contention about Easter which miserably afflicted the Church in the days of P. Victor Bishop of Rome by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western one pretending Oral Tradition from S. Iohn and S. Philip and the other from S. Peter and S. Paul may it not be pertinently demanded What stress can be laid upon a pretence of Apostolick Tradition sixteen hundred years after Christ suppose it were now become Universal but especially when it is but the particluar Tradition of a particular Church 4. What greater certainty can be given of the uncertainty of Oral Tradition as it is contradistinguished from the Scripture than this consideration that of all Christ said and no doubt he spoke much in point of Morality which is not expressed in the Gospels nothing is found in any Authentick Record save the Scriptures except that one expression preserved by S. Hierom Be thou never merry unless thou see thy Brother living in Charity for which notable expression we have the sole Authority of S. Hierom 5. Since its evident from the penult of S. Iohn's Gospel at the end as also the close of the last Chapter That our Saviour did many great things which are not recorded in Holy Scripture is it not a great Evidence of the great incertainty of Oral Tradition that none of all those Miracles not found in Scripture are conveyed to us by any warrantable Record the Legends which contain some of those pretended Miracles being rejected as Fabulous by the best Criticks of the Roman Church SECT XVIII Of that Thred-bare question Where was your Church before Luther Qu. 1. OF those who are still harping on that Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther May it not as pertinently be demanded Should a Revolt happen from the
Primitive Fathers that they all condemned the making of any kind of Image as unlawful much more the placing of them in Churches and most of all the adoring of them 4. Since in the Ierusalem Talmud there is no mention of the Idolatry of Christians tho frequently of that of the Heathen because it was written about Two Hundred Years after Christ But in the Babylonish Talmud which was compiled about Five Hundred Years after Christ's Nativity there is scarce a Page therein wherein they do not inveigh against the Idolatry of Christians and terms their Churches Beth-havora-zada the Houses of Idolatry May we not in consideration of the infinite Malice of the Iews against the Christian Religion most rationally conclude tho it be from a Negative Argument that the placing of Images in Churches began not any where during the Two First Centuries and if we believe both Secular and Ecclesiastical History not till about the End of the Fifth Century tho they were worshiped no where by publick Authority till after the Days of Gregory the Great not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Elliberis and that Epistle of Epiphanius translated by St. Hierom which positively holds forth that in the Fourth Century it was judged simply unlawful to have any Image in a Church whether painted or graven 5. May not Garlick and Onyons the Egyptian Deities be justly accounted Gods right worshipful when compared with the Nails the Thorns the Chips and Shreds and many other Objects of the Roman Adoration 6. Since the Governing Part of the Roman Church teacheth and enjoyneth the People to worship Images with an inferiour kind of Adoration as the Council of Trent phraseth it is it not in some sense charitably done by them not to let them know the Second Commandment by expunging it out of their Chatechisms that the People may not become guilty of sinning against so plain a Law 7. Since the Romish School-men have devised many Distinctions of Religious Worship no where to be found in Sacred Scripture to obviate the Imputation of Idolatry to the Adorers of Images Saints and Angels c. such as Latria Dulia Hyperdulia a Relative and Terminative Worship a Mediate and Immediate a Direct and Indirect a Supreme and Subordinate a Sovereign and Subaltern a Transitive and Final a Proper and Analogical c. May it not justly be demanded if any sober Person can rationally imagine that ignorant Laicks are sufficiently warned by these Beacons to shun the Rocks of Idolatry when their greatest Clerks controvert among themselves about the proper import of those Terms and the due Application of them as is most evident from the contrary Sentiments of Aquinas and Bellarmine Vasquez and Perron concerning them 8. Since Miracles are especially necessary to convince Unbelievers and that many Miracles were Recorded before the Reformation but few or none after it Is it not an Argument sufficient to make a wary Man believe that there were few real Miracles at any time since the settlement of Christianity And that only the Superstitious Credulity of former Ages was apt to be abused with such Pretences well-meaning Ignorance being easily wheedled thereby into a Golden Dream of great Advantages redounding from the Adoration of Images c. in regard that there is far more need of them since the Reformation when so many dis-believe the Roman Religion than was before when all the Nations of the West appeared to be at the Devotion thereof SECT V. The Invocation of Saints and Angels Qu. 1. WHen Romanists pray to Saints departed to pray for them it may be pertinently inquired that these Saints do either hear their Prayers and become acquainted with their Desires or they do not If they do hear all those Prayers that are put up to them at the same time by innumerable persons through all the World what 's this but to ascribe to them that Omnipresence and Omniscience which is peculiar to God alone especially if it be considered that their Devotions are not only Verbal but also Mental Voce vel mente supplicare being decreed by the Council of Trent yea it is necessarily implyed in every Prayer that is made to them that they not only hear it but also know the disposition of the heart from whence it proceeds otherwise the Hypocritical Supplicant must be supposed as likely to obtain their favours as the sincerest Votary if they do not hear their Prayers then it s very absurd and ridiculous and a great abuse of that reason God hath given Men for other ends than to trifle with to pray to them As for that imaginary Glass of the Trinity it may be further demanded if the glorified see all things therein or but some if all then they must share in God's incommunicable Property which is to be the searcher of the Heart if but some what assurance have we that they see those things whereof we stand most in need so that we cannot pray in Faith. 2. Since the learned Men of the Roman Church such as Bellarmin Valentia Horstius and many others conclude their Books with Praise to God the blessed Virgin and Jesus Christ may it not be pertinently demanded if they give her not only an equal part with God in their Praises but by placing her before Christ seem to give somewhat of preheminence above him 3. Since it s acknowledged by the most part of the Popish Schoolmen that the Invocation of Saints and Angels was not enjoyned in the Old Testament because of the Limbo wherein these Fathers were before Christ's Resurrection so that not being admitted to the Beatifical Vision they could not hear those Prayers upon Earth It may be pertinently demanded 1. What should have restrained the Worship of the Angels at that time who since their Creation enjoyed that blessed Vision they being represented in the Old Testament as the constant Attendants and Retinue of God and the great Ministers of his Providence and therefore they were as capable of Divine Worship in the time of the Law as they are now and it may be a little more for the Law it self was given by the Ministry of Angels and their Appearances were more frequent and familiar and the World seemed to be more under the government of Angels then than it is now since Christ is made the Head of the Church and exalted above all Principalities and Powers 2. What Evasion can they find who are of Opinion that the glorified Saints at all times did know the Petitions put up to them from Earth not by the Beatifical Vision but by special Divine Revelation 3. Since the generality of the Fathers of the three first Centuries were of Opinion that the glorified Saints shall not enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment it may be pertinently enquired if these Fathers practised or believed the necessity or expediency of Saint-Invocation no fewer than Eighteen of the Fathers being of this Opinion by the Romanists own confession 4. What is more in
Supremacy therefore he who believes the Council of Trent doth not believe the eight first general Councils and therefore is guilty of Heresie And how can any Pope evade the Brand of Schism the foulest that ever the Church groaned under aggravated with the horrid Crime of Perjury since the Pope as such professeth to believe and sweareth to govern the Church according to the Canons of the first General Councils yet openly claims and professedly practiseth a Power condemned by them all thus quatenus Pope he stands guilty of Separation from the ancient Church and as Head of a new and strange Society draws the Body of his Faction after him into the same Schism in flat contradiction to the ancient Church and to that solemn Oath by which also the Pope as Pope binds himself at his Inauguration to maintain the Doctrine and Practice thereof SECT XXI Of the Pope's Deposing Power Qu. 1. SInce the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent the Third promised a Plenary Pardon of all their Sins and a greater Degree of Glory hereafter to those who did extirpate Hereticks if it may not be presumed that this most bountiful Proffer doth animate Traitors to murther their own Princes whom Rome hath declared Heretical 2. What greater reason is there of expounding these words spoken to Ieremy I have set thee over Kings to root out to pluck up and destroy of the Pope's Supremacy and Deposing Power as both Innocent the Third and the Canon-Law do than had the Donatists of applying those words in the Canticles Tell me O thou whom my Soul loveth where thou feedest where thou makest thy Flock to rest at Noon to the Flock of their Party in the Southern Country of Africa 3. If any be so quick-sighted as to find the Popes Universal Monarchy and Deposing Power in these Words Feed my Sheep Heretical Princes being those Wolves which are to be driven away as hurtful to the Flock may not such a Lyncean Eye by a like kind of Interpretation find this other Mystery in the Words that all Christians are Fools because Sheep are silly Creatures 4. Since the Doctrine of Deposing Power in Popes by which I mean not only their excommunicating absolute Monarchs but also the exposing their Dominions as a just Prey to the first Invader is so scandalous to the Christian Religion in the Eyes of all sober Romanists and hath been found so mischievous to many Sovereign Princes wherefore was not that destructive Doctrine condemned by some General Council they having had many which they account such since the Fourth Council of Lateran under Innocent the Third where it was certainly defined let them call it an Article of Faith a Point of Discipline or what they will. 5. Since it is evident from Baronius Binius Platina Onuphrius and many others that Gregory the 7th nick-named Hildebrand did excommunicate Henry the 4th Emperor of Germany P. Paschal the 2d Henry the 5th Alexander the 3d Frederick the 1st Innocent the 4th Frederick the 2. Boniface the 8th Philip the Fair of France Iulius the 2d Lewis the 12th with him who was King of Navarre at that time on which putrid Title Ferdinand the Catholick seized on his Kingdom and that Alexander the 3d did also excommunicate Henry the 2d of England And Innocent the 3d King Iohn Six years before the Resignation of his Crown into the Hands of that Popes Legat may it not be justly doubted if they who can confidently aver that never any Pope presumed to excommunicate an absolute Prince did ever read those Histories if so be they have put in Print what they did think 6. Whether that place 1 Pet. 2. 13. which is quoted by P. Innocent the 3d. in his arrogant Epistle to the Emperour of Constantinople doth prove that the Pope is as much greater than the Emperor as the Sun is greater than the Moon which strange Comparison is inserted by Gregory the 9th into the Body of the Canon-Law and ever since continued in all the Editions of that Law. 7. If Gregory the Great imagined himself superiour to the Emperor Mauritius and not rather much his Inferiour when he wrote to that Emperor that in Obedience to his Commands he had published one of his Laws which himself judged scarce agreeable to the Law of God 8. If according to the Doctrine of the Church of Rome it can properly be called Rebellion to resist and dethrone a deposed Prince or if it can be termed true Loyalty to defend him Since the deposing Doctrine doth import that when a Prince is deposed by the Authority of their Church they absolve their Subjects from their Fealty and then it is no Rebellion to take up Arms. 9. Since the deposing Doctrine hath been decreed and practised by their Popes and General Councils and that no Pope or Council since Gregory the 7th hath ever condemned it and that the Jesuits do still maintain it their greatest Champions Bellarmin Suarez Becan Gretzer Mariana Sanctarellus and many others having expresly declared for it yea tho the present Pope who is not the worst of the Pack did lately censure some other Jesuitical Doctrines as great Immoralities yet he thought fit to let the deposing Doctrine escape without Censure may we not justly admire how some of this Age have the Effrontory to out-face all Mankind who have Eyes in their Heads and Skill enough to read the Decrees of their Popes and Councils by saying that the deposing Doctrine is not the Doctrine of the Church of Rome but of a nameless Party 10. As for those who Found their Loyalty upon this Supposition that the deposing Doctrine is not the Doctrine of the Roman Church doth not this Hypothesis afford a shrewd Suspicion that if it were the Doctrine of the Church of Rome or ever should be so or they should ever be convinced that it is so then they would be for the deposing of Princes no less than those who at this Day believe it to be the Doctrine thereof 11. May it not be justly doubted whatever some little inferiour People in Communion with the Church of Rome think of these Matters while the Governing part of the Church believes otherwise as they certainly do at this day if the Pope and his Adherents are the Governing Part Princes have no security that Popes will not challenge and exercise this Authority but their want of Power to do it which is wholly owing to the Reformation for till Princes had Subjects who valued not the Popes Authority they themselves were the Popes Vassals and must necessarily be so again could they extinguish this pestilent Northern Heresie as they phrase it the great Fault of which is that it hath given Strength and Security to Princes by weakning the Popes Pretensions 12. Since the Council of Constance owns the 4th Council of Lateran for a General Council Sess. 39. where the deposing Power is as expresly declared as any thing can be unless Men will quibble upon Words and make Nonsense of them