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
the Apostrophe of Greg. Nazianz. to his Sister Gorgonia or S. Ierom to his devout Paula and S. Augustin to his Mother Monica than in these Apostrophes frequently found in Sacred Writings to insensate Creatures Hear O ye Mountains the Lord's Controversie Praise the Lord ye Dragons and all Deeps c. And who will infer from hence that the insensate Creatures were hereby invok'd and addressed unto yet we must carefully distinguish betwixt the Speeches of some particular Fathers and the general Doctrine of the Church betwixt what they express in Rhetorical Strains to move Affection and what they lay down in plain terms to inform the Judgment betwixt what results from the heat of their popular Orations and what in cool and deliberate Debates they set down for the Truth of Christ for its generally confest that the Fathers oft-times hyperbolize particularly St. Chrysostom and we must not take their flights of Fancy for the Doctrine of the Church 5. If these words Matth. 4. 10. taken out of Deut. 6. 13. Him only shalt thou serve are to be understood only of the highest degree of Religious Worship as a part of the whole and distinguish'd from a lower kind this superiour degree being Latria and the inferiour degrees Hyperdulia and Dulia as the Romanists term them it may be demanded how could that have been a sufficient Answer to the Devils demand for he might thus have replyed to the Son of God I acknowledge the Soveraign and Almighty Power of God as well as you the same acknowledgment being insinuated by himself St. Luke chap. 4. 6. therefore I desire not thou shouldst Worship me as God with Latria but only with Dulia a lower kind thy Heart the most elevated conceptions of thy mind may be reserved to God it s only the outward act I challenge of thee that thou wouldst only fall down and Worship me or by falling down Worship me which our Saviour simply refused notwithstanding 6. Since the chief argument whereby the Primitive Fathers used to prove the Divinity of the Holy Ghost and of the Son against the Macedonians and Arians was the Catholick practice of the Church in praying to them what force could have been in that argument had they believed that any Creatures tho never so highly exalted in Nature and Condition might have had that Honour payed unto them 7. Since the Catholicks did frequently accuse the Arians of Idolatry for praying unto Christ whom they conceived to be no more than an excellent and good-like Creature had the Catholicks at the same time practised the Invocation of Saints might not the Arians have returned the Charge with greater force upon themselves for if the Catholicks had replyed as the Romanists do now that though they did pray to the blessed Spirits yet they did it not with that Sovereign Direct and final Prayer nor with those sublimest thoughts and intentions of Honour wherewith they did address to God but only with indirect subaltern and relative Prayer and with no higher Intentions of Honour to them than what is proportioned to the excellencies of their finite Nature Since the Arians might have returned upon them with great advantage by saying Sirs With the same due Limitations we Invocate the Man Iesus Christ who as the Scripture assures us is exalted above all Angels Principalities and Powers and every Name which is named in Heaven and Earth so that tho we may not Honour the Son in the same high degree as we do the Father yet the Scripture enjoyns us to do it with that same kind of Honour Which is more than can be said in defence of that Honour and Invocation you offer to Saints and Angels 8. Since the fancy of making the Court of Heaven resemble Princes Courts on Earth hath brought forth that voluntary Humility of Worshiping Saints and Angels at least this excuse of the Romish Supplicants that it s out of an humble sense of their own unworthiness and an awful regard to the infinite Majesty of God that they address not immediately to himself but by the Mediation of Saints and Angels these Courtiers and Favourites of Heaven may it not be pertinently demanded What wise Man on Earth who is abundantly satisfied of the readiness and ability of his Prince to help him and hath free leave given him on any occasion to come immediately unto him and is frequently invited for that effect will choose to wave this freedom of his access and will apply himself to some inferiour Officer or Favourite to make his Address This is our case God hath invited all that are in Trouble to come immediately unto himself and hath frequently promised to grant all their requests who seek him with their whole Hearts and hath appointed his own Son God with himself the Master of Requests from time to time to receive all the Petitions of his Subjects and both the one and the other are infinitely more able and infinitely more willing to Hear and Succour them than the best the wisest and most powerful of all created Beings And shall we now be afraid to take that Liberty which God hath given us Shall we call that Impudence which God hath made our Duty And whilst we pretend Humility shall we forfeit our Allegiance and distrust his Promises and suspect the goodness of his Nature for fear of being found too faucy and too bold with his Person 9. Since Deut. 13. we are expresly forbidden to hearken to any Prophet tho a Worker of Miracles who teacheth the Worship of any other Being beside the one Supreme God may it not pertinently be demanded if Christ and his Apostles had taught the Worship of Saints and Angels had it not been a just Reason for the Unbelief of the Iews notwithstanding of all the Miracles wrought by them 10. If Ten thousand Miracles should convince a Christian of the Lawfulness of Praying to Saints departed whilst he hath such a plain express Law against believing all Miracles upon any such account For if ever real Miracles were wrought at the Tombs of Martyrs it was in Testimony of the Truth of Christianity for which they suffered not to betray any to a Superstitious or Idolatrous Worship of them tho there is most forcible reason to doubt of many of those pretended Miracles if ever they were in rerum natura and to fear that many of them were but Satanical Illusions 11. Can there be a solid Reason assigned why Sacrifice as well as Prayer may not be an Act of inferiour as well as superiour Worship since the Heathens offered Sacrifice to their Inferiour Demons as well as to the Supreme 12. Since the Roman Doctors grant that the difference betwixt Supreme and Subordinate Worship doth not consist in the outward Act and that all the outward Acts may belong to both kinds Sacrifice only excepted by them which the Spirit of God notwithstanding makes inferiour to Prayer now it may be demanded since the Law did forbid the external acts of Worship without any
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
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