and that P. Martin the 5th in his Bull for the Confirmation of the Council of Constance Sess. 45. gives the Sense of the Proposition of that Council Sess. 15. may it not be very pertinently asserted that the said Council condemns only the killing of a Tyrant and not of an Heretick and the killing of a Tyrant who is not condemned and deposed not of one who is excommunicated for Heresie for that last Clause without expecting the Sentence and Command of a Judge supposes that it may be a very lawful and meritorious Act to kill such Princes as are deposed by Superiour Judges that is by the Pope or Council which is the only Authority that ever pretended to judge or depose Sovereign Princes and therefore when Suarez was urged with this Decree he answered Defens Fidei lib. 6. cap. 4. Where do you find in the Acts of that Council that this extends to Princes excommunicated or deposed by the Pope 13. If we may take and leave of the Roman Councils what we please and be good Catholicks still wherefore may we not reject the Decrees of their Councils about Transubstantiation Purgatory Indulgences the Invocation of Saints and Worship of Images c. and continue as good Catholicks as they are who renounce the Authority of their Councils as to the deposing Power 14. Since P. Paul the 5th Anno 1606. by a Breve written to the English Catholicks declared and taught them as Pastor of their Souls that the Oath of Allegiance established by Parliament 3 Iac. 1. cannot be taken without violating the Christian Faith and injuring the Salvation of their Souls as containing many things which are manifestly contrary to Faith and Salvation Now as the Author of the First Treatise against the Oath of Allegiance called The Jesuits Loyalty well observes there are not in it multa many things to which this Censure is possibly applicable unless this be one that the Pope hath no Power to despose the King or absolve his Subjects from the Oath of Allegiance now when in Obedience to the Pope the Roman Catholicks have to this day obstinately refused this Oath some very few excepted who were Anathematized at Rome for doing so is there not reason to suspect that they are not clear in this Point and that they who will not abjure so pernicious a Doctrine may be perswaded to practise it when time serves and then let any man judge what security there is of their Loyalty 15. As for those Loyal English Romanists who will not allow the Deposing Doctrine to be the Doctrine of the Church of Rome though they acknowledge it to have been Decreed by Popes and Councils because all the Ages before Gregory the Seventh were positively against the Deposing Doctrine that this was a Doctrine brought in in the 11th Century against the Judgment and Practice of Ten before and that all the Fathers were against it must they not needs go upon these Principles 1. That Popes and Councils may and have decreed such Doctrines as are contrary to Scripture and Catholick Tradition 2. That no good Catholick is bound to own such Doctrines though decreed by Popes and Councils 3. That this Doctrine although so decreed is not the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4. That men are good Catholicks not by adhering to the Doctrine of Popes and Councils but to the Scriptures expounded by Primitive and Catholick Tradition These are indeed the better Subjects for adhering to those Principles for those are the very Principles on which our Reformation is founded and by which we justifie our selves against the Innovations of the Church of Rome But though these Principles will justifie the Reformation yet they will not prove that this Deposing Doctrine is not taught by the present Church of Rome 16. But to shut up all these Queries concerning that vile Deposing Doctrine I desire only to be informed what Roman Catholick Nation who had all the Power in their hands would have suffered a Protestant Prince to Succeed quietly to his Throne We know how it fared with Henry the Fourth of France notwithstanding the Parliament of Paris burnt Mariana's Book and what Henrician Hereticks in those days signified but our Church teaches better and the True Sons of the Church practise better and we hope they shall never have reason to repent of what they have done SECT XXII Of their Vncharitableness to all other Christians Qu. 1. HOw can they be vindicated from Hypocrisie in a very high degree beside their Uncharitableness who after they have Condemned an Heretick and delivered him to the Secular Judge to be burnt yet thus bespeak him We passionately desire you for the Love of God and in regard of Piety Mercy and our Mediation you would free this miserable person from all danger of Death or mutilation of Members How can this be reconciled to the 20 Cap. of the 25 Sess. of the Council of Trent about Reformation 2. Since Boniface the Eighth hath determined that it is indispensably necessary for all men to believe the Bishop of Rome to be the Oecumenical Patriarch the Universal Bishop the Visible Head and Monarch of the Catholick Church the Infallible Doctor of its Faith and Manners S. Peters Successor and Christs Sole Vicar upon Earth which Arrogant Titles are now become a part of their Canon Law and occur frequently in the sixth Book of the Decretalia may it not be pertinently demanded Where was their Charity to all Christians before the time of Boniface the Third who dyed in the 7th Century seeing there is no Bishop of Rome found who did assume or claim those insolent Epithets before that time 3. What difference can be assigned betwixt the old Donatists and the present Romanists since the former confined the True Church of Christ to Africa yea to that Corner of it which was ex parte Donati and the later to Rome 4. Let us suppose a man to walk as Conformably to the Precepts of the Gospel as ever any of the Sons of Adam Christ only excepted would it not argue the height of uncharitableness to Damn that man in our Imaginations because he cannot believe the Popes Supremacy to be jure divino for want of Divine Revelation since the best Logician in the World cannot deduce it from any place of Scripture per decimam sextam Consequentiam 5. Because some moderate Protestants grant that he who is under Invincible Ignorance of the Corruptions of the Roman Church and makes Conscience to live up to his Light may through the infinite Mercy of God be saved though he live and die in that Society hence to argue that its best to joyn in Communion with the Church of Rome wherein by consent of both parties Salvation may be had doth the force of that Argument in the eyes of sober persons amount to any more than this Come over to us for we have less Charity than ye whereas a good Christian who understands the nature of his Holy Religion will be ready to answer
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
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
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
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
our ways nor his thoughts as our thoughts Isa. 55. 8 9. 11. Since it is no less behoofful for the Purity of the Militant Church to be secured from Vice than from Error by some infallible means and whereas the former is not pretended to by any is it not very reasonable to put the Romanists to it to shew from Scripture who this Infallible Visible Judge is who is invested with that Power or Commission especially when it is considered that our Judge of Controversies in the Church is now become our greatest Controversie Besides that it would puzzle any man to give a good reason why God should take more care to secure men against Errors in Belief than against Sin and Wickedness in their Lives 12. If an infallible visible Judge be such an adequate means to determin all Controversies in matters of Religion which happen in the Militant Church as the Romanists pretend how came it to pass that there were so many Schisms and Heresies too in the Apostles times when those who govern'd the Church were certainly guided by an Infallible Spirit 13. Can the fiercest Bigot of Popery prove from Holy Scripture that the Pope is infallible in the Popish Sense of the World I know that some fly the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible it is so as its representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other particular Church And how shall that which is common to all give power to one over all And what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch 14. Since the Council of Trent hath determined that Infants should not be Communicated because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lord's Body who can doubt but that Popes with their Councils and Roman Church have erred in their Belief and Practice of the Communion of Infants long ago it being past all doubt that for some Hundreds of Years it was so in the Roman Church 15. Was not the Apostle to blame to say there must be Heresies and Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be also an infallible Judge among you to obviate such pertinacious Errors and Schisms if so be that God had appointed any such infallible visible Judge to be for ever in his Church 16. If the many Dissentions in the Protestant Churches as is pretended make this infallible visible Judge always necessary how is it that this sole Remedy is found so ineffectual against the Divisions in the Roman Church and that there are so many Differences there about Infallibility it self the manner and subject of it so that many Romanists not of the dullest brains being ashamed of it have betaken themselves to Tradition instead thereof SECT XX. Of the Pope's Supremacy Qu. 1. SInce the Reason assigned by the Council of Calcedon giving equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with him of Rome is because old Bizantium was become Nova Roma that is the Emperours had fixed their Habitations there might not Milan and Ravenna have claimed the same Priviledge seeing some Emperours did honour those Cities with their Presence many years 2. Had not the African Churches as good reason to decline the pretended Authority of the Bishops of Rome as the Churches of Cyprus to reject the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch from which liberated at last by the Third General Council since they had still a Primat of their own and were no more within the Roman Patriarchat than Cyprus was within that of Antioch 3. Since all sober Persons hinc inde acknowledg a Primacy of Order in St. Peter either for his Age or his being first called to be an Apostle or for his Zeal or some other reason best known to his Lord and Master it being impossible that any Society should remain long without Confusion far less that it should continue well ordered which hath not one appointed to be the Mouth thereof it may therefore be pertinently demanded if any Romanist can produce any place of Scripture which imports a formal Jurisdiction in St. Peter which was not at some other time vouchsafed on the Catholick Church at least on the rest of the Apostles 4. Dato sed non concesso that St. Peter had a Primacy of Jurisdiction over all the General Members of the Catholick Church wherefore might not this have been a personal Priviledge and intransmissible to any Successor no less than the Gradus Mosaicus was to any other Prophet 5. Upon what Grounds do Bellarmin and others call Christ's Ingemination of these Words Feed my Sheep the peculiar Priviledge of St. Peter above all the rest of the Apostles since St. Augustin and St. Cyril of Alexandria call it the peculiar Penance of St. Peter for denying his Lord and Master which none of the rest had done 6. Since the Primitive Fathers by Rock in the 16th of St. Matthew generally understand either Christ himself or that excellent Confession of St. Peter where then doth his peculiar Prerogative lye in these Words 7. Suppose our Saviour did mean by St. Peter when he said On this Rock will I build my Church alluding to his Name by way of Emphasis not Exclusion I pray where is yet the peculiarity of St. Peter's Priviledge since if we believe either St. Paul or St. Iohn in his Revelation the rest of the Apostles were Foundations as well as he for I hope none will call him the Chief Corner-stone 8. Since the generality of the ancient Fathers look upon Peter both in his Excellent Confession and Promise made to him as personating the Catholick Church and that what our Saviour there promised was after his Resurrection fulfilled as we may read Iohn 20. 21 22 23. Where I pray you is St. Peter's special Priviledge above the rest of the Apostles since our Saviour said to them all alike As my Father sent me so send I you and I suppose S. Peter could not have a Sublimer Mission than our Saviour and breathed upon them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit c. 9. But what ever Sense these Words of St. Iohn may have or these of St. Matthew doth it not evidently appear that what our Saviour promised to St. Peter Matth. 16. was given to the Catholick Church at least to the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter in Matth. 18. 18. in the same words of Mat. 16. our Saviour himself having expounded the Power of the Keys by that of Binding and loosing 10. Since after that Promise made to St. Peter Mat. 18. we find the Apostles more than once controverting for Superiority may it not very rationally be presumed that H. Jesus the Wisdom of the Father and Prince of Peace having taken notice of that Ambitious Debate would once have undeceived them by telling them that tho the Despotical Power of the Gentile Kings or Governours should be
I will rather stay in that Church which enjoys most of that supernatural Quality which is Essential to Christianity 6. Because a man thinks that his Neighbour who is of a strong natural Constitution highly couragious and very temperate may be preserved from Death in a Pesthouse doth it hence follow that he believes his Neighbour is in as safe a condition as he who lives at a great distance from any danger of Contagion 7. If it be a solid Argument to comply with that Tenet wherein both parties are agreed wherefore doth not the Church of Rome embrace the Protestant Doctrine of Christs Presence in the Eucharist for all sober Christians in the World acknowledge that he is really present tho in a Spiritual and Mystical manner To this the Romanists have superadded their mode of Transubstantiation and the Lutherans their Consubstantiation therefore its safest to Acquiesce in that wherein all Dissenting parties are agreed the same may be urged as to many other particulars even all their Superadditions to the ancient Creeds 8. It may be further demanded if there be any Solidity in this Topick have not the Cerinthians the Samosatenians the Arians Eunomians Photinians and Socinians the better of the Orthodox by that way of arguing since it s acknowledged hinc inde by all that Christ was truly a man made like to us in all things Sin only excepted but the fallacy of this Topick is so evident that it is lost labour to insist any more upon it 9. Can it consist with Charity to call those Schismaticks who are not fugitivi sed fugati and to Anathematize them every year on Manday Thursday as Hereticks who believe the whole Scriptures of God in the sense of the Primitive Church and who embrace all the Creeds of the four general Councils that were first in order 10. Did not the leading party in the Council of Trent discover themselves to be Physicians of no value and Men of no Charity by using their utmost endeavours to perpetuate that deplorable Breach in the Visible Church which I account better express'd in the words of the History thereof which are as followeth This Council desired and procured by Godly Men to re-unite the Church which began to be divided hath so established the Schism and made the Parties so Obstinate that the Discords are irreconcilable and being managed by Princes for Reformation of Ecclesiastical Discipline hath caused the greatest deformation that ever was since Christianity did begin and hoped for by the Bishops themselves to regain the Episcopal Authority for the most part usurped by the Pope hath made them lose it altogether bringing them into much greater Servitude on the contrary feared and avoided by the See of Rome as a potent means to moderate the Exorbitant Power thereof mounted from small beginnings by divers degrees to an unlimited Excess it hath so established and confirmed the same over that part which remained subject to it c. 11. Since its evident from unquestionable Records that the Church of Rome I mean all of that persuasion amounts not to the third part of Christendom if all the Protestants of whatsoever denomination the Greek Church properly so called with all those Christians in Asia and Africa which are neither of the Roman nor Greek Communion be reckoned upon it may be demanded with what Charity the Romanists monopolize to themselves the Title of the Catholick Church FINIS Some Books lately Printed for Brab Aylmer A Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy to which is added A Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church By Dr. Isaac Barrow A Discourse against Transubstantiation By Dr. Tillotson A Discourse concerning the Adoration of the Host as it is Taught and Practised in the Church of Rome A Discourse of the Communion in One Kind In Answer to a Treatise of the Bishop of Meaux's A Discourse against Purgatory