those cruel Opiniators be justly termed Step-fathers of Infants as St. Augustin was named Durus Pater Infantum SECT XI Of Transubstantiation Qu. 1. SInce the most eminent of the Roman School-men such as Scotus Durandus Alphonsus a Castro Suarez Vasquez Alliado Biel Canus Occam Cajetan and Bellarmine himself confess that the Doctrine of Transubstantion cannot be evidently proved from Scripture and that there is no absolute necessity of understanding our Saviour's Words in that Sense may it not be pertinently demanded is there not a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise seeing that strange Sense is so directly repugnant to the Senses of all that are endued with an animal Life 2. Since there be so many parallel places in Scripture which every man understands in a figurative and not in a strictly literal and absurd Sense as where the Lamb is called the Passover Circumcision God's Covenant the Church Christ's Body the Rock which followed the Israelites called Christ Christ calls himself the Door the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumphed in if he had said this is my true Body wherefore may we not also understand these Words This is my Body in a Metaphorical Sense especially considering that it is impossible to make Sense of the whole Words of the Institution without more Figures than one 3. Can it rationally be presumed that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded on these Words This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Eucharist ever have imagined any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in these words but rather that this Bread signifies my Body and this Cup my Blood and this which ye see me now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me Far less would it have entred into any Mans Mind not blinded with gross Error or Prejudice to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and did eat himself and that he gave away himself from himself with his own Hands especially if it be further considered that our Saviour having pronounced these words This is my Body which is broken and my Blood which is shed before his Passion this could not be true in a literal Sense for his Body was then unbroken and his Blood unshed unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered Nor could the Apostles understand these words literally since they both saw and tasted what he gave them to be Bread and Wine and that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given Whence any rational Man may infer that St. Augustin's Phrase in his Enarrations on the Psalms Christus portavit se manibus suis is to be understood figuratively according to his own Rule for interpreting Scripture given Lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. 4. May not the Church of Rome as well conclude from 1 Cor. 10. 17. that all Christians are substantially changed into one Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by the participation of the Sacrament because they are said to be one Bread and one Body as to infer Transubstantiation from the Verse immediately foregoing or from any other place of Scripture 5. Suppose Iustin Martyr who lived An. 150. Ireneus who lived An. 180. Tertullian who lived An. 206. Origen who lived An. 230. St. Cyprian who lived An. 250. Theodoret who lived An. 450. P. Gelasius who also lived in the Fifth Century and Facundus the African Bishop who lived in the Sixth had not written any thing against Transubstantiation as it is simply impossible to make sense of their Writings if they believed that Doctrine and not to speak of many other Testimonies of St. Augustin against Transubstantiation I would demand if any Man in his right Wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered such a Testimony against it as we find lib. 3. de Doctr. Christ. cap. 16. already cited where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If says he the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous Crime or commanding us to do good it is not figurative but if it seem to command any heinous wickedness or to forbid that which is profitable to others its figurative for Example Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no Life in you this seems to command an heinous Wickedness therefore it s a Figure commanding us to Communicate of the Passion of our Lord and with delight and advantage to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucify'd and wounded for us 6. Since Bellarmin in lib. descript Eccles. an 118. tells us that Paschasius Rabertus Abbot of Corbey was the first who did write seriously concerning the Truth of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist it may be demanded very pertinently if any of the Fathers before him wrote in jest concerning such a sublime Mystery 7. Since some of the Fathers have as high Elegies of the Sacrament of Baptism as of the Eucharist notwithstanding the Popish Schoolmen grant there is no substantial Change made in that consecrated Water and yet that the Divine Blessing accompanying the Institution it may be effectual to the washing away of Sin and Spiritual Regeneration what reason can be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not by the same Divine Blessing accompanying this Institution make all the worthy Receivers Partakers of all the Spiritual Comfort designed to us thereby without any substantial Change made in those Elements since our Saviour hath told us that verily the Flesh profiteth nothing 8. If the Canibals be abhorred as Inhuman for eating the Flesh of their Enemies must it not be great Inhumanity to eat the Flesh of a Friend and the best in the World If none can read without horrour the Stories of Tereus Thyestes and Harpagus their eating of their own Children though ignorantly how much more horrible must it be to feed upon the very Body of the Son of God that was Born of the Virgin knowingly Deum suum primo conficiunt deinde devorant said Averrhoes justly deriding that prodigious Doctrine which a little before his time began to be publickly taught in the Roman Church and with what Face could the Primitive Apologists upbraid the Heathen with one of their Gods who did eat his own Children if the Christians had believed at that time that they did Eat their own God and that no such thing being then objected by the Pagans to the Christians is to a Wise Man instead of a Thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrine was then believed for the Impiety and Barbarousness of the thing as it is believed and practised in the Roman Church is not in truth extenuated but only the appearance of it by being done under the Species of Bread and Wine for the thing they acknowledge is really done and they believe they verily
Qu. 1. WHen Nectarius with his Church of Constantinople discharged for ever the Office of Penitentiaries because of a scandalous Deacon can it rationally be presumed that this Office was ever reputed by them a Sacrament but rather at the best an Expedient to prepare men for it for we are bound in Charity to think that neither the Bishop nor that Church would have ever consented to the Abolition of a Sacrament for the sake of such a Scandal as happened in the mis-management of it or if they had done so much less can it be imagined that the greatest part of the Christian Church would have concurred with them in it Moreover since the ancient Church had no Form of Absolution but only the admitting Penitents to the Communion where then shall the Form of that pretended Sacrament be found among the Ancients 2. If the Absolution of a Roman Priest hath the power to convert Attrition that is such a consternation of mind as fell upon Iudas when he went and hanged himself into the Grace of Contrition as divers Popish Casuists aver had it not been an unspeakable happiness to that Betrayer of the best Master that ever was to have rencountred in the way of striving such a Priest when he was seeking after some Instrument to become Felo de se. SECT XV. Of the Sacrament of Marriage with the Clergies restraint therefrom Qu. 1. IF Marriage be a Sacrament and confer Grace as Baptism and the Eucharist wherefore do they restrain their Consecrated Persons from that supernatural Quality since it s only an Ecclesiastical Restraint they pretend unto 2. Since God hath sufficiently declared his Approbation of the Marriage of the Clergy in that the whole World hath been twice by his Appointment Peopled by Two married Priests viz. Adam and Noah and that he tyed the Priesthood under the Law to a Race of married People and that the Scripture hath told us Marriage is honourable in all and placeth it among the Qualifications of a Bishop That he be the Husband of one Wife having faithful Children not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Gangra nor of the Discourse of Paphnutius in the Council of Nice nor of Spiridion S. Hilary Eucherius Lugdunensis and many other Primitive Bishops who were married beside the Apostle S. Peter may it not be pertinently enquired if the Church of Rome borrowed their Doctrine of the unlawfulness of the Marriage of Priests from the Manichees who allowed Marriage to their Hearers as the Church of Rome doth to Laicks but forbad it to their Elect as that Church doth to her Priests 3. Had not Aeneas Sylvius afterwards P. Pius the 2d good reason to write that in consideration of the vile Abuses of the Celibacy of the Clergy whatever reasons the Clergy had at first to restrain them from Marriage now for much better Reasons they ought to be restored to that which God hath made the Privilege of all men who cannot contain SECT XVI Of the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction Quest. SUppose the Administration of Extreme Unction to dying persons as a Sacrament had been the Doctrine and Practice of the Catholick Church in all Ages though for a Thousand years after Christ we find no such thing how can the Practice of the Roman Church be reconciled to the Doctrine of S. Iames or S. Mark for these are their Scripture-pretences who manifestly shew us that the design of that Anointing was the recovery of the Patient the gift of miraculous Healing not being ceased in the days of S. Iames whereas the Romanists do not practise that Ceremony till all hope of Recovery is past SECT XVII Of Tradition Qu. 1. OF those who magnifie the Tradition of the Church so highly as to imagin that the very Credit of the Scripture depends thereon or that it gives the Scripture its Authority which is as much as to say that Man gives Authority to Gods Word it may be demanded What if the Church should have concealed or taught otherwise of those Writings than as of the undoubted Oracles of God would she not have erred damnably in her Tradition 2. Since Tradition in the Roman Church is taken in to supply the Imaginary defect of Scripture and the Authority thereof to supply the defect of Tradition doth it not hence follow that neither Scripture nor Tradition signifie any thing without the Churches Authority And consequently it must needs be the Rule of their Faith that is They believe themselves 3. Since the Doctrine of the Millenaries was unanimously received as an Apostolick Tradition in the 2d and 3d Centuries of the Church meerly upon the Authority and Antiquity of Papias who lived presently after the Apostles and yet by St. Hierom and many of this present Age looked upon as an Imposture and if both Irenaeus for his asserting that our Saviour suffered about the Fiftieth year of his Age and Clem. Alexandrinus that he died for the Sins of the World about the Thirtieth year of his Age are judged exceedingly mistaken and not without good ground notwithstanding they both pretended an Apostolick Tradition as having conversed with Apostolick Men Irenaeus having written An. 180. and Clemens 190. And in fine since in that famous contention about Easter which miserably afflicted the Church in the days of P. Victor Bishop of Rome by dividing the Eastern Christians from the Western one pretending Oral Tradition from S. Iohn and S. Philip and the other from S. Peter and S. Paul may it not be pertinently demanded What stress can be laid upon a pretence of Apostolick Tradition sixteen hundred years after Christ suppose it were now become Universal but especially when it is but the particluar Tradition of a particular Church 4. What greater certainty can be given of the uncertainty of Oral Tradition as it is contradistinguished from the Scripture than this consideration that of all Christ said and no doubt he spoke much in point of Morality which is not expressed in the Gospels nothing is found in any Authentick Record save the Scriptures except that one expression preserved by S. Hierom Be thou never merry unless thou see thy Brother living in Charity for which notable expression we have the sole Authority of S. Hierom 5. Since its evident from the penult of S. Iohn's Gospel at the end as also the close of the last Chapter That our Saviour did many great things which are not recorded in Holy Scripture is it not a great Evidence of the great incertainty of Oral Tradition that none of all those Miracles not found in Scripture are conveyed to us by any warrantable Record the Legends which contain some of those pretended Miracles being rejected as Fabulous by the best Criticks of the Roman Church SECT XVIII Of that Thred-bare question Where was your Church before Luther Qu. 1. OF those who are still harping on that Thred-bare Question Where was your Church before Luther May it not as pertinently be demanded Should a Revolt happen from the
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