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
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
our ways nor his thoughts as our thoughts Isa. 55. 8 9. 11. Since it is no less behoofful for the Purity of the Militant Church to be secured from Vice than from Error by some infallible means and whereas the former is not pretended to by any is it not very reasonable to put the Romanists to it to shew from Scripture who this Infallible Visible Judge is who is invested with that Power or Commission especially when it is considered that our Judge of Controversies in the Church is now become our greatest Controversie Besides that it would puzzle any man to give a good reason why God should take more care to secure men against Errors in Belief than against Sin and Wickedness in their Lives 12. If an infallible visible Judge be such an adequate means to determin all Controversies in matters of Religion which happen in the Militant Church as the Romanists pretend how came it to pass that there were so many Schisms and Heresies too in the Apostles times when those who govern'd the Church were certainly guided by an Infallible Spirit 13. Can the fiercest Bigot of Popery prove from Holy Scripture that the Pope is infallible in the Popish Sense of the World I know that some fly the Absurdity by hiding the Pope in the Church but if the Church be Infallible it is so as its representative in General Councils or diffusive in the whole Body of Christians and then what is Infallibility to the Church of Rome more than to any other particular Church And how shall that which is common to all give power to one over all And what is it to the Pope above another Bishop or Patriarch 14. Since the Council of Trent hath determined that Infants should not be Communicated because they cannot examine themselves nor discern the Lord's Body who can doubt but that Popes with their Councils and Roman Church have erred in their Belief and Practice of the Communion of Infants long ago it being past all doubt that for some Hundreds of Years it was so in the Roman Church 15. Was not the Apostle to blame to say there must be Heresies and Divisions among you and not to tell them there must be also an infallible Judge among you to obviate such pertinacious Errors and Schisms if so be that God had appointed any such infallible visible Judge to be for ever in his Church 16. If the many Dissentions in the Protestant Churches as is pretended make this infallible visible Judge always necessary how is it that this sole Remedy is found so ineffectual against the Divisions in the Roman Church and that there are so many Differences there about Infallibility it self the manner and subject of it so that many Romanists not of the dullest brains being ashamed of it have betaken themselves to Tradition instead thereof SECT XX. Of the Pope's Supremacy Qu. 1. SInce the Reason assigned by the Council of Calcedon giving equal Priviledges to the Patriarch of Constantinople with him of Rome is because old Bizantium was become Nova Roma that is the Emperours had fixed their Habitations there might not Milan and Ravenna have claimed the same Priviledge seeing some Emperours did honour those Cities with their Presence many years 2. Had not the African Churches as good reason to decline the pretended Authority of the Bishops of Rome as the Churches of Cyprus to reject the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch from which liberated at last by the Third General Council since they had still a Primat of their own and were no more within the Roman Patriarchat than Cyprus was within that of Antioch 3. Since all sober Persons hinc inde acknowledg a Primacy of Order in St. Peter either for his Age or his being first called to be an Apostle or for his Zeal or some other reason best known to his Lord and Master it being impossible that any Society should remain long without Confusion far less that it should continue well ordered which hath not one appointed to be the Mouth thereof it may therefore be pertinently demanded if any Romanist can produce any place of Scripture which imports a formal Jurisdiction in St. Peter which was not at some other time vouchsafed on the Catholick Church at least on the rest of the Apostles 4. Dato sed non concesso that St. Peter had a Primacy of Jurisdiction over all the General Members of the Catholick Church wherefore might not this have been a personal Priviledge and intransmissible to any Successor no less than the Gradus Mosaicus was to any other Prophet 5. Upon what Grounds do Bellarmin and others call Christ's Ingemination of these Words Feed my Sheep the peculiar Priviledge of St. Peter above all the rest of the Apostles since St. Augustin and St. Cyril of Alexandria call it the peculiar Penance of St. Peter for denying his Lord and Master which none of the rest had done 6. Since the Primitive Fathers by Rock in the 16th of St. Matthew generally understand either Christ himself or that excellent Confession of St. Peter where then doth his peculiar Prerogative lye in these Words 7. Suppose our Saviour did mean by St. Peter when he said On this Rock will I build my Church alluding to his Name by way of Emphasis not Exclusion I pray where is yet the peculiarity of St. Peter's Priviledge since if we believe either St. Paul or St. Iohn in his Revelation the rest of the Apostles were Foundations as well as he for I hope none will call him the Chief Corner-stone 8. Since the generality of the ancient Fathers look upon Peter both in his Excellent Confession and Promise made to him as personating the Catholick Church and that what our Saviour there promised was after his Resurrection fulfilled as we may read Iohn 20. 21 22 23. Where I pray you is St. Peter's special Priviledge above the rest of the Apostles since our Saviour said to them all alike As my Father sent me so send I you and I suppose S. Peter could not have a Sublimer Mission than our Saviour and breathed upon them all and said Receive ye the Holy Ghost whose Sins ye remit c. 9. But what ever Sense these Words of St. Iohn may have or these of St. Matthew doth it not evidently appear that what our Saviour promised to St. Peter Matth. 16. was given to the Catholick Church at least to the rest of the Apostles as well as Peter in Matth. 18. 18. in the same words of Mat. 16. our Saviour himself having expounded the Power of the Keys by that of Binding and loosing 10. Since after that Promise made to St. Peter Mat. 18. we find the Apostles more than once controverting for Superiority may it not very rationally be presumed that H. Jesus the Wisdom of the Father and Prince of Peace having taken notice of that Ambitious Debate would once have undeceived them by telling them that tho the Despotical Power of the Gentile Kings or Governours should be