spilling of the Blood of Christ may it not pertinently be demanded Wherefore may not Laicks in this Age have as steddy hands as the Ages foregoing that Council Or if Priests are the best Supporters of a Chalice Why may they not hold the Cup to Peoples Heads as well as put the Bread into their Mouths Not to speak of that Infallible Prescience Christ behoved to have of that imaginary Inconvenience if we believe him to be God as well as Man. 3. Since it is also one of the Reasons assigned by Gerson wherefore the Council of Constance prohibited the Cup to the People lest the Consecrated Wine long kept should be converted into Vineger How can that Fear consist with Transubstantiation for it is not Blood but Wine which turns into Vineger 4. With what Effrontory can any Romanist pretend that the words of St. Iohn chap. 6. are to be understood of the Eucharist since the Mutilation of that Sacrament is thereby expresly condemned for a Man cannot be said to drink when he eats 5. Since the Eucharist is an Emblem of the Effusion of Christ's Blood How can they be said to drink of that Cup which is the New Testament of Christ's Blood shed for us who do not drink at all Suppose there was Truth in Transubstantiation and in that of Concomitancy first divised by Th. Aquinas 6. Since the natural Abstemiousness of some Men is likewise assigned as a Reason of that Sacrilegious Mutilation may it not pertinently he demanded Why is not the Bread taken away also because some Persons have been found who could never tast of any kind of Bread 7. It it may be farther enquired if it were a civil Apology at an ordinary Feast when there are very many invited that the Host should say He had provided neither Bread nor Wine in regard one of the Guests cannot taste of the former and another cannot drink of the later 8. Since it 's impossible to produce one Instance from any Authentick Record for a Thousand Years after Christ and more of the Celebration of the Eucharist in the Face of any particular Church without giving the Consecrated Cup to all the Communicants doth it not evidently follow that the Catholick Church behoved to have been in an Error so long or that the present Roman Church hath degenerated from the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church for so many Ages SECT III. Their with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks Quest. 1. SInce there is no Christian Church unless it be a Society of Blasphemers under the Notion of a Church that pretends to more Infallibility than Christ and his Apostles Upon what account should the Roman Church require more implicit Faith from its Members than Christ and his Apostles did from their Hearers For notwithstanding these were unquestionably endued with an infallible Spirit and the Gift of Miracles yet they still remitted their Hearers to the search of the Old Testament that they might find by their own Reason and Industry the Doctrine of the Gospel consonant to the Prophetick Oracles and Mysterious Types of our Saviour's Incarnation and Passion and were commended for doing so 2. If the Scriptures are so unintelligible that an honest man cannot find out the meaning of them without the Infallible Interpretation of the Church even in those things which are indispensably necessary to our Salvation for we are still ready to say with one of the Ancient Fathers That as they have Flats wherein a Lamb may wade so they have Depths wherein an Elephant may swim I would desire to know whether Christ and his Apostles preached intelligibly to their Hearers If not to what purpose did they preach at all By what means were Men converted to the Faith If they did How came these Sermons to be so unintelligible now they are written which were so intelligible when they were spoken For the Gospels contain a plain History of what Christ did and said and the Apostles wrote the same things to the Churches when they were absent which they preached to them when they were present and we reasonably suppose that they designed that the Churches should as much understand what they wrote as what they preached and therefore that they generally used the same Form of Words in their Writings and in their Preachings and this makes it a great Riddle How one should be very plain and easie to be understood and the other signifie nothing without an Infallible Interpreter 3. Where the Turkish Alcoran is permitted in English viz. at Rome Vid. Indic Libr. prohibit Alexandr 7. and the Bible in English ordained to be burnt vid. ibid. Whether do they fancy the Gospel or Alcoran better 4. Why may not an implicit Faith in the Scripture save a Soul as well as in the Church and why may not the one free from Heresie as well as the other 5. Since our Saviour recommended the reading of the Scriptures to Laicks and the Apostle St. Paul commended them for doing so and that the Primitive Fathers pressed it as a Duty on all Ranks of Persons Must not the Reasons of the Roman Church in prohibiting the Laicks to read the Word of God or to have the Bible translated into their Mother Tongue be exceedingly weighty if they can preponderate all these Authorities 6. Since it is well known from Ecclesiastical and Secular History that the greatest Heresies and Schisms in the Christian Church and which gave it the greatest and most lasting Trouble had their Rise from Men in Holy Orders who were accounted great Clerks in their time such as Marcion Paulus Samosatenus Arius Eunomius Apollinaris Macedonius Photinus Nestorius Eutiches Pelagius and many others Novatius also and Donatius who rent the Catholick Church by long lasting Schisms were Men in Holy Orders not to speak of Lucifer and Meletius Is it therefore a solid Reason to with-hold the Scripture from the ignorant Laicks for fear of their broaching Herefies or Schisms seeing the sad Experience of the World doth rather teach that the learned Clergy should be restrained therefrom SECT IV. The Adoration of Images Qu. 1. DOth not the Roman Church in picturing of God not only act directly contrary to Sacred Scripture where it is so frequently forbidden but also to the very Nature of God who is an infinite Spirit and can no more be represented by a bodily Shape than a Thought can And how can their Practice be re reconciled to that Canon of their Second Council of Nice which determined it not only unlawful but also absurd and impossible to make an Image of that Being which is spiritual invisible and incomprehensible 2. If any Man can reconcile the Worship of Images to the Second Commandment may it not also be imagined that he can make Adultery Perjury Murther Theft and False-witnessing to become Vertues 3. How can any Man that hath the use of Reason imagine that the Antients were clear for the Worship of Images since it is most apparent from the Writings of the most
those cruel Opiniators be justly termed Step-fathers of Infants as St. Augustin was named Durus Pater Infantum SECT XI Of Transubstantiation Qu. 1. SInce the most eminent of the Roman School-men such as Scotus Durandus Alphonsus a Castro Suarez Vasquez Alliado Biel Canus Occam Cajetan and Bellarmine himself confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantion cannot be evidently proved from Scripture and that there is no absolute necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in that Sense may it not be pertinently demanded is there not a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise seeing that strange Sense is so directly repugnant to the Senses of all that are endued with an animal Life 2. Since there be so many parallel places in Scripture which every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd Sense as where the Lamb is called the Passover Circumcision God's Covenant the Church Christ's Body the Rock which followed the Israelites called Christ Christ calls himself the Door the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumphed in if he had said this is my true Body wherefore may we not also understand these Words This is my Body in a Metaphorical Sense especially considering that it is impossible to make Sense of the whole Words of the Institution without more Figures than one 3. Can it rationally be presumed that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded on these Words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Eucharist ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in these words but rather that this Bread signifies my Body and this Cup my Blood and this which ye see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me Far less would it have entred into any Mans Mind not blinded with gross Error or Prejudice to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and did eat himself and that he gave away himself from himself with his own Hands especially if it be further considered that our Saviour having pronounced these words This is my Body which is broken and my Blood which is shed before his Passion this could not be true in a literal Sense for his Body was then unbroken and his Blood unshed unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered Nor could the Apostles understand these words literally since they both saw and tasted what he gave them to be Bread and Wine and that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given Whence any rational Man may infer that St. Augustin's Phrase in his Enarrations on the Psalms Christus portavit se manibus suis is to be understood figuratively according to his own Rule for interpreting Scripture given Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. 4. May not the Church of Rome as well conclude from 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all Christians are substantially changed into one Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by the participation of the Sacrament because they are said to be one Bread and one Body as to infer Transubstantiation from the Verse immediately foregoing or from any other place of Scripture 5. Suppose Iustin Martyr who lived An. 150. Ireneus who lived An. 180. Tertullian who lived An. 206. Origen who lived An. 230. St. Cyprian who lived An. 250. Theodoret who lived An. 450. P. Gelasius who also lived in the Fifth Century and Facundus the African Bishop who lived in the Sixth had not written any thing against Transubstantiation as it is simply impossible to make sense of their Writings if they believed that Doctrine and not to speak of many other Testimonies of St. Augustin against Transubstantiation I would demand if any Man in his right Wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered such a Testimony against it as we find lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. already cited where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous Crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or to forbid that which is profitable to others its figurative for Example Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you this seems to command an heinous Wickedness therefore it s a Figure commanding us to Communicate of the Passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us 6. Since Bellarmin in lib. descript Eccles. an 118. tells us that Paschasius Rabertus Abbot of Corbey was the first who did write seriously concerning the Truth of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist it may be demanded very pertinently if any of the Fathers before him wrote in jest concerning such a sublime Mystery 7. Since some of the Fathers have as high Elegies of the Sacrament of Baptism as of the Eucharist notwithstanding the Popish Schoolmen grant there is no substantial Change made in that consecrated Water and yet that the Divine Blessing accompanying the Institution it may be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration what reason can be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine Blessing accompanying this Institution make all the worthy Receivers Partakers of all the Spiritual Comfort designed to us thereby without any substantial Change made in those Elements since our Saviour hath told us that verily the Flesh profiteth nothing 8. If the Canibals be abhorred as Inhuman for eating the Flesh of their Enemies must it not be great Inhumanity to eat the Flesh of a Friend and the best in the World If none can read without horrour the Stories of Tereus Thyestes and Harpagus their eating of their own Children though ignorantly how much more horrible must it be to feed upon the very Body of the Son of God that was Born of the Virgin knowingly Deum suum primo conficiunt deinde devorant said Averrhoes justly deriding that prodigious Doctrine which a little before his time began to be publickly taught in the Roman Church and with what Face could the Primitive Apologists upbraid the Heathen with one of their Gods who did eat his own Children if the Christians had believed at that time that they did Eat their own God and that no such thing being then objected by the Pagans to the Christians is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed for the Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing as it is believed and practised in the Roman Church is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe they verily
Imprimatur Aug. 19th 1687. Guil. Needham A REQUEST TO Roman Catholicks To Answer the Queries upon these their following Tenets § I. Their Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue II. Their taking away the Cup from the People III. Their witholding the Scriptures from the Laicks IV. The Adoration of Images V. The Invocation of Saints and Angels VI. The Doctrine of Merit VII Purgatory VIII Their Seven Sacraments IX Their Priests Intention in Baptism X. The Limbo of unbaptized Infants XI Transubstantiation XII The Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. XIII Private Masses XIV The Sacrament of Penance XV. The Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies Restraint therefrom XVI Their Sacrament of extream Vnction XVII Tradition XVIII That thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther XIX The Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils XX. Tho Pope's Supremacy XXI The Pope's Deposing Power XXII Their Vncharitableness to all other Christians By a Moderate Son of the Church of England LONDON Printed for Brab Aylmer at the Three Pigeons over against the Royal Exchange in Cornhil MDCLXXXVII A REQUEST TO Roman Catholicks c. SECTION I. Their Divine Service in an Vnknown Tongue Quest. 1. MAY not the Seventh Commandment be as easily reconciled to Adultery as the Service of the Roman Church in an unknown Tongue to 1 Cor. 14. where the Apostle Five several Times expresly prohibits it and gives so many pregnant Reasons for the Inhibition 2. If the various Gestures and Ceremonies practised by the Priest at Mass be sufficient to excite Devotion in the Spectators may not a dumb Priest be as useful for that effect especially he who babbles with a Stentorian Voice as he who speaks in an unknown Language since one who cannot speak at all may be as mimical as he who can speak more Languages than ever Ioseph Scaliger did or as many as were at the Confusion of Babel 3. Since it 's possible that the Priest may be so Diabolical as to be practising Conjuration in an unknown Language instead of Devotion or may be cursing his Congregation in lieu of blessing them would not Reason without the Apostolick Authority perswade us of the necessity of understanding his Language that we may say Amen to what he says 4. Since the Priest in these publick Offices is the Mouth of the People in offering up their Tribute of Honour and Adoration to God if the Congregation understand him not how can he more justifie himself than if he did celebrate the Service in a Tongue himself knows nothing of and which neither the one nor the other did understand 5. Since it 's given as the principal Reason of the Roman Service in Latin by the Rhemish Annot. that Christians where-ever they travel may find the same Service and Priests officiating in it as at home it may be demanded if for the sake of some few that travel the many that stay at home should be left destitute and for one Man's Convenience a Thousand be exposed to eternal Perdition for there will not be one to a Thousand who understand Latin in the Christian World 6. Since in the Service in an unknown Tongue the People are wholly left to the Ability and Sincerity of their Priest Is not the case of that People very lamentable For if the Priest wants the former he may through Ignorance turn the most Solemn Part of their Service into Ridicule and Nonsense or Blasphemy And if he want the later he may use a Spell for Prayer or the antient Charm of the Valentinians Abracadabra for Ave Maria nay instead of Baptizing in the Name of the Father c. he may do by the Person as a Iew under the Profession of a Priest is said to have done by a certain Man in this last Age who Baptized him in the horrid Name of the Devil there being nothing so absurd or wicked which according to this case may not be practised 7. Since Scripture the Reason of the Thing the Fathers and Practice of the Church for about Seven Hundred Years together are for the Expedience and Necessity of having God's Publick Service in a Tongue understood by the People may it not justly be enquired with what Effrontory the Council of Trent hath Anathematized all those who believe the necessity of having God's Solemn Worship in a known Tongue as if Trent because a City of the Alps were transformed into Mount Ebal whence they might curse that great Doctor of the Gentiles in the first place 8. Is it not evident from 1 Cor. 14. that in St. Paul's Judgment they deserve to be reckoned Mad-men who Pray to God in an Unknown Tongue 9. Is it not probable that the Romanists have borrowed their Service in an Unknown Tongue from some Heathens who as Clemens Alexandrinus reports thought those Prayers most effectual which were uttered in a Barbarous Language or from their Neighbours the old Cusleans of whom Varro testifies that their Priests did scarcely understand their own Sacred Rites 10. Since the English Liturgy is so agreeable to the undoubted parts of the most antient Liturgies it being a Form which hath all those parcels of the Roman Offices that were known and used in the first Three Centuries but wants all the Innovations and Coruptions of the present Mass May we not truly and pertinently challenge all Christendom to produce any publick Platform or Solemn Church-Service so constant to the purest Primitive Devotions 11. Since the Famous Bishop of Condam hath most cunningly endeavoured a palliative Cure by soft and smooth Words as to many Practices in the Roman Church which stand in need of Amputation yet both in his Exposition and Exhortation he still passeth by their Service in an Unknown Tongue Is it not because he had no Tongue of his own to answer for that Practice which is so directly repugnant to Scripture and Antiquity having despaired it seems to find either Butter or Oyl to cicatrise or soften that Wound SECT II. Their taking away the Cup from the People Quest. 1. SInce the Council of Constance Anno 1418. made it an Article of Faith That the Laity ought to receive the Eucharist only in One Kind non obstante of the Institution of Christ as it was then acknowledged and the constant Practice of the Catholick Church above a Thousand Years Wherefore may they not Christen the Laick's Children only in the Name of the Holy Ghost leaving out the Father and the Son by the way of Concomitancy it being as lawful to Baptize as to Communicate by halves and no less certain that since the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity partake of the same individual Nature where one is all the rest must be suppose the Mutilation of the Eucharist could not be disparaged by that Emblem of the Effusion of Christ's Blood which is necessarily required in the Sacrament 2. Since the principal Reason assigned by Gerson for that Canon of the Council of Constance which abstracts the Cup from the People is the Danger of