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
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
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
Eat and Drink the Natural Flesh and Blood of Christ And suppose a man should eat his Son in a Pasty where the Figure of the Body is so altered that it cannot be easily known to be human Flesh or so minced and aromatized that the Taste can no more discern what it is than Minodoe could tell of what Ingredients the fifty Dishes at the Mogul's Table were compounded though his Curiosity led him to taste of them all yet if the Father know it it can no ways excuse him from unnatural Barbarity 9. How can any Romanist ascertain himself free of Idolatry without Divine Revelation For if Transubstantiation be not true by their own Confession they are certainly guilty of the most damnable Idolatry in the World in Worshiping a piece of Bread as God and suppose such a change could be they can never be certain that it is since according to the Councils of Florence and Trent the Validity of the Consecration depends on the Intention of the Priest which cannot be known assuredly without Divine Revelation neither is it sufficient to excuse them from Idolatry that they intended to Worship God and not a Creature for so all the Idolatry that ever was in the World may be excused which was nothing else but a mistake of the Deity and upon that mistake a Worshiping of something that was not God as God. 10. Suppose a Miracle were produced to prove the Truth of Transubstantiation may it not be demanded to what purpose is that production seeing we cannot believe the Miracle unless it be obvious to some of our Senses and then the Argument for Transubstantiation and the Objection against it would just ballance one another so that in this case a Miracle would signifie nothing because that would be to prove to a man by something that he sees that he does not see what he sees 11. If the Senses of all mankind may be deluded what Evidence have we for the Passion and Resurrection of Christ Suppose we had seen them with our Eyes and not only heard of them with our Ears for if in the matter of Bread and Wine all our Senses save one are deceived why might not one have been deluded in reference to the Humiliation and Exaltation of Christ so that we might have as easily mistaken an Image for a living man upon the Cross as to imagine a piece of Bread to be the true Body of a man and that a living Human Body is to be found in every Atome thereof 12. Whereas it s said in the Institution that Christs Body is broken for us and yet the Doctrine of the Roman Church is that it is broken into Wholes and not into Parts doth not this clearly imply a Contradiction that Christ's Body is broken and not broken at the self same time or that it is whole and not whole 13. Doth it not involve horrible Impieties to imagine that the glorified Body of our Saviour should be contracted to the Crum of a Wafer That he should be perfectly deprived of Sense and Reason That he should not be able to defend himself against the Assaults of the most contemptible Vermine That if the Stomach of the Communicant chance to be overcharged with Wine that he should be Vomited up again or if he have a Lienteria that he should go wholly to the Draught 14. Since the Apostle 1 Cor. 10. tells us expresly That the Fathers did eat the same Spiritual Meat and Drink the same Spiritual Drink which we do may it not be pertinently demanded if the Manna and Rock which followed them were Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ Or may not Believers under the Gospel feed upon Christ in a Spiritual and Mystical Sense as the Fathers did under the Law without any Transubstantiation of the Elements 15. Since our Saviour Iohn 6. saith That he who Eats his Flesh and Drinks his Blood hath Eternal Life how can this be applyed to Transubstantiation unless any be so absurd as to imagin That all who partake of those Consecrated Elements shall be saved 16. Since the Cartesian Philosophers have by irrefragable Reasons demonstrated that the Nature of all real Bodies must needs consist in extension or as they phrase it the having partes extra partes it being simply impossible to conceive an indivisible Atome or least particle of matter which is laid on a plain to touch it in all parts but that the Superiour Portion thereof must be without the contact of that plain where there is no penetration if therefore Christ's Body be reduced to an indivisible point by Transubstantiation it may be pertinently demanded if this Opinion doth not reduce the Body of Christ to the Nature of a Spirit and consequently is a worse Heresie than the Phantastical Body of the Marcionites 17. Since divers of the ancient Fathers improved the Doctrine of the Eucharist in order to the Confutation of the Eutychian Heresie had it not been perfect non-sense in them to have avowed from such a Topick if they had believed Transubstantiation which did apparently afford a great Instance to the Eutychians against them SECT XII Of the Propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass. Qu. 1. SInce in a true Sacrifice the Thing sacrificed must be destroyed and if it have Life it must be killed it may be demanded if Christ be truly and properly Sacrificed as the Romanists will have it is he not truly and properly put to Death as oft as the Priest says Mass which is directly contrary to Heb. 10. 11. Cap. 2. Whereas the Apostle argues the perfection of Christ's Sacrifice above those of the Law because those were offered year by year but the Sacrifice of Christ's Body was offered once for all if Christ be daily Sacrificed in the Mass must not the Sacrifice of Christ be much more defective than those of the Law since one Sacrifice of Expiation for the whole Congregation of Israel was thought sufficient for the whole year whereas the Sacrifice of Christ's Body is repeated every day yea for one single person he may be Sacrificed a Thousand times over if we may believe the Doctrine of that Church 3. How could that be a Propitiatory Sacrifice at the first Institution which was previous to Christ's Death unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered though with divers of the ancient Fathers we are still ready to acknowledge the Eucharist to be a Commemorative Sacrifice and its possible that the Error of the Romanists had its rise therefrom SECT XIII Of private Masses Quest. IS it possible to reconcile the Solitary Mass wherein the Priest Comumnicates alone after he hath Consecrated to the Institution of Christ the practice of the Primitive Church or with the very nature and intendment of that Sacrament or with the Roman Office as it now stands or if there can be any instance given of Solitary Masses before Gregory the Great dyed which was 600 years after Christ SECT XIV Of the Sacrament of Penance
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
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