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
Reformed Church of England to Romanism again which God forbid where was your Religion before 86 or before such a time Would they not answer at Rome and in England also only kept under and obscured by Hereticks And Christianity though not so visible yet was purer when its Professors dwelt in Mountains and Dens places of Obscurity and Privacy in the Reigns of Nero Decius and Dioclesian than when some Kings were called its Nursing Fathers and took possession of the seven Halls as when it groaned under Arianism in the days of Constantius and Valens 2. When some peremptorily require from us the Aera of all the Popish Errors may it not be as pertinently demanded when the Acephali began which was such a ridiculous Linsy-Wolsey Heresie as to be a Compound of these Contraries Nestorianism and Eutychianism and yet gave great trouble to the Church for many years for Baronius and Bellarmin ingenuously acknowledge that they know neither the Heresiarch or the Epocha of the Heresie nor when Filioque was inserted by the Latin Church into the Creed and if they know not the Aera of their Truths how can it be rationally expected that we should design the precise times when all their Errors began since it s in the Night Season that the Adversary Sows his Tares in the Field of the Church 3. It may be demanded what more pertinency amongst Disputers is in that old Thred-bare Question Where was your Church or Religion before Luther than in this amongst Husbandmen Where was the Corn before it was Weeded For if our Forefathers under the Papacy embraced the true Faith we have it still the Faith not being removed but the Corruption 4. Since the Church of England obligeth none to believe any thing as necessary to Salvation but what is plainly proved from holy Scripture and intirely holds the Apostolick Nicene and Athanasian Creeds and obeys more Canons of the first general Councils than those of Rome do and approves that Exposition of Scripture which hath the consent of the Fathers of the four first Centuries Yea holds all that the Church of Rome held necessary for Salvation for five or six hundred years together so that a Romanist may turn Protestant without adding any Article to his Faith but a Protestant cannot turn Romanist without the addition of many new ones or novel Inventions which have neither Foundation in Scripture nor genuin Antiquity May it not then be most rationally concluded that the Protestant way is the surest and safest because both sides agree therein and that their Church was long before Papacy appeared in the World 5. Since its impossible to produce any genuin Work of any of the Fathers who lived within Four Hundred Years after Christ that positively asserts the practice or the lawfulness of Prayer in an unknown Tongue of taking away the Cup from the People or with-holding the Scriptures from the Laicks or Adoring Images or having them in Churches the Pope's Infallibility or Supremacy Indulgences in the Sense of Pope Leo the Tenth the Doctrine of Merit in the Sense of the Council of Trent that there are neither more nor less than Seven Sacraments the necessity of the right Intention of the Priest for the Validity of a Sacrament Transubstantiation the Limbo of unbaptized Infants Private Masses the Popes deposing Power c. may it not more pertinently be demanded of the Romanists Where was Popery before Boniface the Third than they can enquire of the Protestants Where was your Church before Luther 6. Since its impossible to find any of the Primitive Fathers or any Christian Writer a thousand years after Christ and more who believed all the Twelve new Articles of Faith which P. Pius the Fourth hath added to the Apostolick Creed may it not be pertinently demanded of the Romanists Where was your Faith to be found intirely before the Council of Trent And is not the Modern Papacy younger by many years than Martin Luther himself 7. Since not one of the Twelve new Articles of the Creed of P. Pius the Fourth is to be found in any ancient Creed or Confession of Faith generally allowed in the Christian Church whence it is evident that they are Innovations destitute of Primitive Authority may we not more pertinently demand of them Where was Papacy when those Confessions were framed than they can enquire of us Where was your Church before Luther 8. Since every true Reformation necessarily pre-supposeth Corruptions and Errors to have been before it what Advantage can the Romanists have in charging our Reformation with Novelty For if a real Reformation be made the thing justifies it self and a Reformation must begin sometime and when ever it begins it is certainly new Besides it ought to be considered that this Objection of Novelty lyes against all Reformation whatsoever tho never so necessary and tho things be never so much amiss So that tho our Reformation was as late as Luther our Religion is as antient as Christianity it self for when the Additions which the Church of Rome hath made to the antient Christian Faith and their Innovations in Practise are par'd off that which remains of their Religion is ours and this they cannot deny to be every tittle of it the antient Christianity And what other Answer I pray could the Iews have given to the like Question if it had been put to them by the Antient Idolaters of the World Where was your Religion before Abraham or Moses Or what other Answer could the Primitive Christians have given to those Pagans who pretended Venerable Antiquity and Universality for their Polytheisme but the very same in substance which we now give to the Church of Rome And if any be so fond as to brand the Protestant Religion with Novelty because of some negative Articles in opposition to the Corruptions of the Roman Church which by accident are become a part of our Faith occasioned by their Errors they may as well tax the Primitive Church with Novelty because the renouncing of the Doctrines of Arianism at the Council of Nice of Macedonianism at the Council of Constantinople of Nestorianism at Ephesus and of Eutychianism at Calcedon came a part of the Catholick Religion after the rise of those Heresies 9. But to shut up this Point if to Pray without Understanding to obey without Reason and to believe against Sense be the surest Evidences of the Antiquity of a Church then I pray where is that Protestant to be found who is so contentious for Priority as not to yield upon these accounts the Precedency to the Church of Rome above all Christian Societies in the World SECT XIX Of the Infallibility of the Pope with his Councils Qu. 1. IF the Pope or Church of Rome be infallible wherefore are they so uncharitable to the World at least to their own Incorporation as not to give an infallible Comment on Scripture but suffers her Doctors to write as fallible Comments and in many things as contrary to each other as any
Protestant Divines do And I cannot imagine what good Infallibility does if an infallible Church has no better means of understanding Scripture than the Comments of fallible Men that is no better means then every fallible Church hath 2. When the Doctors of the Roman Church vye Reasons and Arguments with us Hereticks and dispute from Scripture and Antiquity especially in order to the establishing that beloved Palladium of their Churches Authority and Infallibility which those cross-grain'd Hereticks deny do they not appeal from the Infallibility of the present Church to every Man 's private Reason and Judgment as much as every Protestant does For it s against the very Principles of Philosophy to imagin that the Churches Authority can be a sufficient Topick to prove it self 3. If a visible uninterrupted Succession be the Mark of such a true Church as is the infallible Interpreter of Scripture as some Romanists aver wherefore is not the Greek Church an infallible Interpreter of Scripture since she hath as visible and uninterrupted Succession from Christ and his Apostles to this Day as the Church of Rome has yea if we consult the Catalogues of their Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch we shall not find so many Chasma's occasioned in those Lists by Schisms as in the See of Rome 4. Since P. Zachary deposed Virgilius Bishop of Saltzburge as an Heretick because he truly maintained tho in a very ignorant Age the Doctrine of Antipodes may it not be pertinently demanded may not he who can mistake Truth for Heresie also mistake Heresie for Truth as no doubt P. Liberius Vigilius and Honorius did 5. Since it s confessed by Bellarmine and divers other eminent Champions for that Church that the Popes Canonizations are doubtful and subject to Error may it not be pertinently demanded if his Infallibility should chance at any time to mistake as I am pretty sure he hath done more than once in what a pitiful case are the Members of that Church who are obliged to invocate such mistaken Saints Would not that be Idolatry 6. Since in the first and last Ages of the Church there were many Schisms and Heresies which if we believe Irenaeus who lived in the Second Century were as wild and extravagant as any of later date now if the Fathers who lived in these Primitive Ages believed the Infallibility of the Roman Church at that time may it not be pertinently demanded Was there no Prudence amongst them all in going so far about by their endeavours to bring those Hereticks and Schismaticks to the Touch-stone of the Scripture and next to that to the most Orthodox and Catholick Tradition whereas how short and easie a Decision to all Debates might have been fetched hence had they had the same Apprehension of the Authority and Efficacy thereof by referring all Controversies depending to the determination of the Roman Church the Mother and Mistress of all and that infallible Conduct setled therein But not one word of that which makes it more than probable that such holy and wise men knew no such thing only when they make their Appeals to her after the express word of God it s in common with many other Churches especially those of Apostolical Foundation as is evident from Irenaeus Tertullian and St. Augustin when they had to deal with such Persons 7. How can any rational man imagin that the Popes or Roman Councils which they account General are infallible even when they are confirmed by Popes unless Errors become Truths and Contradictions be reconciled when determined by a Pope and Council Since P. Vigilius not only confirmed the Fifth General Council which formerly he had condemned but General Councils confirmed by Popes have made Definitions and Decrees plainly contradictory one to another Thus the Sixth General Council confirmed by Pope Adrian the First defined that Marriage was dissolved by Heresie And the Council of Trent confirmed by P. Pius the Fourth that it could not be so The Council of Constance confirmed by Pope Martin the Fifth decreed that a General Council was superiour to the Pope The last Lateran Council under P. Leo the Tenth condemned this Decree so did it the Decree of P. Nicholas the Fifth who ratified the Council of Basil as a true General Council 8. How can any doubt that General Councils confirmed by Popes may err since it is so manifest they have actually erred by making Decrees so apparently contradictory to the Plain Words and Sense of Holy Scripture that no impartial Person can any more question it than he can whether Theft be forbidden by the Eighth Commandment So did the Council of Constance confirmed by P. Martin the Fifth and Trent by P. Pius the Fourth the former in the Decree for Laicks Communicating in one kind only notwithstanding as themselves acknowledge that Christ instituted the Sacrament in both kinds and delivered it in both to his Disciples The later in decreeing that Divine Service should not be in the Vulgar Tongue in plain Contradiction to what St. Paul prescribes in 1 Cor. 14. not to speak that the Pope's Confirmation of Doctrinal Definitions is but a meer Ceremony it being impossible for any man to make that become true which is false or that which is false to become true 9. Since from the fitness of an infallible visible Judge for the Militant Church the Romanists are apt to pretend that God hath actually appointed such an one without which God say they had not made sufficient Provisions for the Assurance of Man's Faith and for the Peace and Unity of his Church or as it is with a strange kind of Civility expressed in their Canon Law Aliter Dominus non videretur fuisse discretus otherwise our Lord had not seem'd to be discreet may it not be very pertinently urged from this Topick of Humane Appearance that it had been yet more useful for the Church that not only the first Patriarch but all of them had been infallible yea and all the Bishops and Presbyters of the Church and if all men had been infallible certainly the Church of God should never have been troubled with any Error whatsoever but the experience of the World demonstrates that it is not so 10. If it be a fit Argument always to conclude that God hath done such a thing because the generality of Men judge it expedient to be done may it not be pertinently demanded where is that man who consulting with Flesh and Blood I mean Humane Reason who would not have thought it very fit that our Saviour after his Resurrection should have publickly taught the People of Hierusalem in the Temple as he used to do that all the Inhabitants of that great City yea all the Males throughout the Land being obliged to be there also at the Feast of the Passover might by an ocular Demonstration be convinced that our Saviour was not an Impostor when he said he would rise again the third day yet the infinite Wisdom thought it not fit For his ways are not as
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
far removed from them yet their minds should be at rest because he had already invested St. Peter with a Paternal Authority or Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction over them when he promised to him the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven but since in our Saviour's reproof we find no such Insinuation may it not be pertinently doubted if ever he meant any such matter 11. I would demand how the ensuing particulars can be reconciled to a formal Jurisdiction of S. Peter over the rest of the Apostles 1. The Care of all the Churches being committed to every one of them in solidum 2. St. Peter was sent by the Apostles and Elders at Hierusalem to Samaria he that gave the Commission having rather the Authority than the Person commissionated 3. His being called to an account for conversing with Cornelius the Centurion in Caesaria and other Gentiles by those at Hierusalem velut vehementur infensi as S. Chrysostom phraseth it 4. If St. Peter was then Supreme Governour wherefore did not the controverting Christians at Antioch address first to him in order to the indicting of a Council 5. Wherefore did St. Iames preside therein and by his Verdict determine the Controversie if we believe Eusebius and Epiphanius and not St. Peter on which account and because he was the first Bishop of Hierusalem and of the Christian World Epiphanius positively asserts that St. Iames was invested by our Saviour with a Superiority over all the Apostles 6. Wherefore was not that Decree issued forth in the Name of Peter if he was the Monarch of the Church 7. Why was St. Paul so immethodical to reckon Iames before Cephas or Peter and so arrogant as to say that he was in nothing inferiour to the chiefest Apostles for if St. Peter was his Superiour he came short of him in something which is very material and that is Authority 8. Was not St. Paul a very unmannerly Vassal to rebuke his Lord and Master for Judaizing and so solemnly that both Jews and Gentiles were witness to the Reproof 9. How could St. Cyprian say that the rest of the Apostles were the same that St. Peter was pari consortio praediti honoris potestatis Finally How could Eusebius aver in his Old Editions before they suffered the Index Expurgatorius that Peter Iames and Iohn were appointed Princes of the Apostles and that these three were equal 12. Since P. Leo the Tenth with the consent and approbation of the Lateran Council which they account General declares that our Blessed Saviour did institute St. Peter and his Successors in the Roman See his Vicars to whom by the Testimony of the Book of Kings it was so necessary to yield Obedience that whosoever would not was punished with Death thus Binius Concil Tom. 9. it may be pertinently demanded if they have Five Books of the Kings for in the Vulgar Version which have four of that Name there is not any Syllable which insinuates any such matter 13. If the Bishop of Rome was invested Iure Divino with an universal Jurisdiction over the Catholick Church or if the Roman Church either in its Head or Members severally or in all conjunctly be indued with an infallible Spirit how comes it to pass that all the antient Apologists were guilty of such a Supine Negligence from Iustin Martyr the first of them who lived Anno 150. to Theodoret inclusively who dyed about the middle of the Fifth Century as never to mention that most admirable Prerogative of the Roman Church above all the Societies in the World since some of them descend to many minute Particulars which are long ago obsolete and out of date in all the Churches of Christ 14. If it be a sufficient Answer for the Silence of the Apologists to say that they are so succinct that they had no room for such a matter For though it is easily granted that of Asianus Melito Quadratus and Aristides we have but Shreds in Eusebius and that Athenagoras Tatian Theophilus Antiochenus Minutius Foelix Cyprian ad Demetrianum I. Firmicus Maternus are very brief not to speak of many Orations written by the Fathers against Iulian the Apostate the Jews and Gentiles in general which are also reckoned among the Apologists and are yet briefer yet the two Apologies of Iustin Martyr with his Dialogue with Tryphon the Jew all the Works of Clem. Alexandrinus save his Paedagogus the larger Apologetick of Tertullian with his lesser ad Scapulam and some Books against the Jews and Gentiles the eight Books of Origen against Celsus the seven Books of Arnobius contra Gentes and so many of Lactantius his Institutions Eusebius de demonstratione praeparatione Evangelica S. Augustin his 22 Books de Civitate Dei Theodoret his 12 Books de curandis Graecorum affectibus all these are pretty Voluminous yet ne gru quidem not the least word or insinuation of any such prodigious privilegeof the Roman Church either in its Head or Members 15. What greater Elogy could have been given by any of the Fathers to S. Peter than that which S. Chrysostom applies to S. Paul that he was the Light of all the Churches the Foundation of the Faith the Pillar and Ground of Truth 16. Might not the Bishop of Antioch have claimed by virtue of Succession a Superiority over all the Organical Members of the Catholick Church as well as the Bishop of Rome since it is certain S. Peter resided seven years at Antioch and it cannot be proved from any Authentick Record that he was one year at Rome 17. May not the Bishop of Hierusalem which is the Mother of us all with better reason claim an universal Monarchy over the Church by virtue of Succession since the unquestionable Head of the Church dyed there And S. Iames the Lord's Brother was unquestionably the first Bishop of the Christian World whence Epiphanius concludes that the Principality over the Church was due to him and not to St. Peter 18. Since it s granted by Bellarmin and others that St. Peter's Martyrdom at Rome was but accidental there being no Scripture Promise or Catholick Tradition for it can the Bishop of Rome by virtue of his See pretend to S. Peter's Spirit and Power upon better grounds than Vibius Rufus did to the Genius of the Great Caesar because he bought his Chair 19. Could any of the Fathers have Complemented the Bishop of Rome with an higher Hyperbole than Synesius the Bishop of Cyrene did his Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria none of the best of men for he was a great Persecutor of S. Chrysostom by calling his Advice a Divine Response and an Heavenly Oracle 20. Can any Instance be given of any Bishop of Rome who before the famous Council of Nice presumed to exercise any proper Act of Jurisdiction without the proper Bounds of his own Patriarchat called the Suburbicarian Churches except P. Victor who for attempting to Censure others without his own Precinct was severely reprehended by Irenaeus and P. Stephen who was justly censured by
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