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
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
Primitive Fathers that they all condemned the making of any kind of Image as unlawful much more the placing of them in Churches and most of all the adoring of them 4. Since in the Ierusalem Talmud there is no mention of the Idolatry of Christians tho frequently of that of the Heathen because it was written about Two Hundred Years after Christ But in the Babylonish Talmud which was compiled about Five Hundred Years after Christ's Nativity there is scarce a Page therein wherein they do not inveigh against the Idolatry of Christians and terms their Churches Beth-havora-zada the Houses of Idolatry May we not in consideration of the infinite Malice of the Iews against the Christian Religion most rationally conclude tho it be from a Negative Argument that the placing of Images in Churches began not any where during the Two First Centuries and if we believe both Secular and Ecclesiastical History not till about the End of the Fifth Century tho they were worshiped no where by publick Authority till after the Days of Gregory the Great not to speak of that Canon of the Council of Elliberis and that Epistle of Epiphanius translated by St. Hierom which positively holds forth that in the Fourth Century it was judged simply unlawful to have any Image in a Church whether painted or graven 5. May not Garlick and Onyons the Egyptian Deities be justly accounted Gods right worshipful when compared with the Nails the Thorns the Chips and Shreds and many other Objects of the Roman Adoration 6. Since the Governing Part of the Roman Church teacheth and enjoyneth the People to worship Images with an inferiour kind of Adoration as the Council of Trent phraseth it is it not in some sense charitably done by them not to let them know the Second Commandment by expunging it out of their Chatechisms that the People may not become guilty of sinning against so plain a Law 7. Since the Romish School-men have devised many Distinctions of Religious Worship no where to be found in Sacred Scripture to obviate the Imputation of Idolatry to the Adorers of Images Saints and Angels c. such as Latria Dulia Hyperdulia a Relative and Terminative Worship a Mediate and Immediate a Direct and Indirect a Supreme and Subordinate a Sovereign and Subaltern a Transitive and Final a Proper and Analogical c. May it not justly be demanded if any sober Person can rationally imagine that ignorant Laicks are sufficiently warned by these Beacons to shun the Rocks of Idolatry when their greatest Clerks controvert among themselves about the proper import of those Terms and the due Application of them as is most evident from the contrary Sentiments of Aquinas and Bellarmine Vasquez and Perron concerning them 8. Since Miracles are especially necessary to convince Unbelievers and that many Miracles were Recorded before the Reformation but few or none after it Is it not an Argument sufficient to make a wary Man believe that there were few real Miracles at any time since the settlement of Christianity And that only the Superstitious Credulity of former Ages was apt to be abused with such Pretences well-meaning Ignorance being easily wheedled thereby into a Golden Dream of great Advantages redounding from the Adoration of Images c. in regard that there is far more need of them since the Reformation when so many dis-believe the Roman Religion than was before when all the Nations of the West appeared to be at the Devotion thereof SECT V. The Invocation of Saints and Angels Qu. 1. WHen Romanists pray to Saints departed to pray for them it may be pertinently inquired that these Saints do either hear their Prayers and become acquainted with their Desires or they do not If they do hear all those Prayers that are put up to them at the same time by innumerable persons through all the World what 's this but to ascribe to them that Omnipresence and Omniscience which is peculiar to God alone especially if it be considered that their Devotions are not only Verbal but also Mental Voce vel mente supplicare being decreed by the Council of Trent yea it is necessarily implyed in every Prayer that is made to them that they not only hear it but also know the disposition of the heart from whence it proceeds otherwise the Hypocritical Supplicant must be supposed as likely to obtain their favours as the sincerest Votary if they do not hear their Prayers then it s very absurd and ridiculous and a great abuse of that reason God hath given Men for other ends than to trifle with to pray to them As for that imaginary Glass of the Trinity it may be further demanded if the glorified see all things therein or but some if all then they must share in God's incommunicable Property which is to be the searcher of the Heart if but some what assurance have we that they see those things whereof we stand most in need so that we cannot pray in Faith. 2. Since the learned Men of the Roman Church such as Bellarmin Valentia Horstius and many others conclude their Books with Praise to God the blessed Virgin and Jesus Christ may it not be pertinently demanded if they give her not only an equal part with God in their Praises but by placing her before Christ seem to give somewhat of preheminence above him 3. Since it s acknowledged by the most part of the Popish Schoolmen that the Invocation of Saints and Angels was not enjoyned in the Old Testament because of the Limbo wherein these Fathers were before Christ's Resurrection so that not being admitted to the Beatifical Vision they could not hear those Prayers upon Earth It may be pertinently demanded 1. What should have restrained the Worship of the Angels at that time who since their Creation enjoyed that blessed Vision they being represented in the Old Testament as the constant Attendants and Retinue of God and the great Ministers of his Providence and therefore they were as capable of Divine Worship in the time of the Law as they are now and it may be a little more for the Law it self was given by the Ministry of Angels and their Appearances were more frequent and familiar and the World seemed to be more under the government of Angels then than it is now since Christ is made the Head of the Church and exalted above all Principalities and Powers 2. What Evasion can they find who are of Opinion that the glorified Saints at all times did know the Petitions put up to them from Earth not by the Beatifical Vision but by special Divine Revelation 3. Since the generality of the Fathers of the three first Centuries were of Opinion that the glorified Saints shall not enjoy the Beatifical Vision till the day of Judgment it may be pertinently enquired if these Fathers practised or believed the necessity or expediency of Saint-Invocation no fewer than Eighteen of the Fathers being of this Opinion by the Romanists own confession 4. What is more in
regard to the Intention of the Worshipper doth it not appear from this that this Idolatrous Worship was to be punished with Death Deut. 13 and therefore it must be such external Idolatry as falls under the Recognizance of Humane Judicatures which Intention doth not unless a Man had confessed his Intention 13. When can it be shewn that those Fathers whose Authority is urged by the Church of Rome for the Invocation of Saints do dogmatieally and positively assert the Lawfulness of Praying to Saints and Angels since many Fathers of the same Age do positively deny the Lawfulness of it is it not a plain Argument that it was not the Judgment and Practice of the Church and a good reasonable Presumption that these Fathers in their Apostrophes and Prosopopeia's never intended any such thing in what they said how lyable soever their Words may be to be expounded in such a sense 14. May it not easily be imagin'd wherefore the late Latin Editions in the Church of Rome of the 35th Canon of the Council of Laodicea instead of its prohibiting the Faithful to call on the Name of Angels have put in Angulos corners contrary to all the Greek Copies and Fathers that writ them and so have made nonsense of that excellent Canon but veritas non quaerit Angulos And the mischief of these Prevaricators is that there is no resemblance in the Greek which is the Original Language of the Canon betwixt the words which signifie Angels and Angles SECT VI. The Doctrin of Merit Qu. 1. IF the Doctrine of Merit of good Works as it is taught in the Roman Church by an Analogy or due proportion betwixt the Work and the Reward as if God were unjust if he gave it not but not as it imports a Reward Virtute promissi Divini as the Fathers teach be not perfect nonsense in Divinity Since our Saviour hath expresly said When we have done all that we can do we are but unprofitable Servants we have done nothing but what was our Duty and the Apostle hath told us That the light Afflictions of this Life are not worthy to be compared with that great measure of Glory which shall be revealed besides that other consideration that all we are and have of any goodness are graciously derived from that inexhaustible Fountain so that neither Men nor Angels can properly Merit at the hands of God. 2. Since the Popes pretend that they have thrown into the Treasure of the Church the Superplus of the Merits of some eminent Saints may it not be pertinently doubted if they believe the Foundation of that Treasure I mean the merits of Holy Jesus to be infinit seeing what is really infinit can neither admit of Addition or Diminution at least needs no Addition SECT VII Of Purgatory Qu. 1. IF the Pope hath Power to take all Souls out of that imaginary Purgatory how comes it that he is so unmerciful as not to rid many thousands of Poor Ones from those Flames which are intensively no better than the torments of Hell is it because those tormented Wretches have not Heirs and Executors behind them with Purses so flush as those of the Rich 2. Is it possible to find an account of Indulgences in the Primitive Times in any other sense than that of relaxation of Penances inflicted upon scandalous Persons by the Governours of the Church 3. Since the most Primitive Fathers by a purging Fire for Sinners do generally understand the Fire of Conflagration in the last Day with what face can it be pretended that they believed the Romish Purgatory where poor Creatures suffer the Torments of Hell for a time 4. Since the Greek Church never believed the Roman Purgatory how can it be said with any colour of Truth that it is a Catholick Tradition of the Universal Church seeing the extent of the Greek Church is nothing inferiour to that of the Roman The same Question may be proposed concerning the Pope's Supremacy the Mutilation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Service in an unknown Tongue the Celibacy of the Clergy and many other particulars in Controversie at this time 5. If we were to understand 1 Cor. 3. of Purgatory I would demand of those Glossators how they reconcile the Doctrine of their Prophets and Apostles Confessours and Martyrs the Blessed Virgin with the Thief on the Cross that they went immediately to Heaven or Paradice at least since the Apostle tells us there that every man's Work must be tryed by Fire of what sort it is which note of Universality in the Eyes of a Puny Logician comprehends the whole Race of Adam 6. With what Confidence can the Roman Church boast of Antiquity in Behalf of Purgatory or Indulgences seeing it is not able to produce any one Prayer publick or private nor one Indulgence for the Delivery of any Soul out of Purgatory in all the Primitive times or out of their own ancient Missals or Records SECT VIII Their Seven Sacraments Quest. SInce before Peter Lombard's time the number of Sacraments was indefinit in the Church of Rome it self if so be they have gathered the number of Seven from the Fathers Writings as they pretend for I am sure in Scripture they find them not it may be pertinently demanded wherefore not seventy seven seeing the Fathers call many other things Sacraments yea if that general Rule assigned by St. Augustin be observed in the Computation viz. that all Signs when they belong to Divine things are called Sacraments they would be found no ways short of the greatest number SECT IX The Priest's Intention in Baptism Quest. WHat can in reason be answered to that objection of the Bishop of Minori in the Council of Trent who said that if they should ratifie as afterwards they most unhappily did the Decree of the Florintin Council concerning the necessity of a right Intention of the Priest in the Administration of Sacraments especially of Baptism it would evidently follow that it were in the Power of one single Priest who came to be old in Wickedness to damn his whole Parish Yea suppose that Hellish Paroxism did but once overtake him that Child not rightly Baptized by him might afterwards become a Bishop so that not only his own Ordination but also all the Orders conferred by him would become invalid which might occasion a world of Mischief SECT X. The Limbo of Vnbaptized Infants Quest. SInce many Infants are still-born and some dye in their Mothers Womb all which because unbaptized must go to that Limbo of Infants according to the Doctrine of the Roman Church where they are for ever to be deprived of the beatifical Vision which is the greatest of the Plagues of the Damned Poena Damni being in the Opinion of the School-men and Fathers much greater than Poena Sensus how can that rigid Opinion be reconciled to the infinit Goodness and Wisdom of God to appoint a means indispensably necessary to Salvation which in some circumstances cannot possibly be administred and may not
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
S. Cyprian 21. Since to be the ultimate Object of Appeals or dernier besort as the French phrase it is the Essential Privilege of all Monarchs is it accountable that the Council of Nice believed the Bishop of Rome's Supremacy over the Catholick Church when it determined that all Appeals during the Intervals of general Councils should be determined in the Provincial Synods or by the respective Patriarchs and that there should be no Appeal from the one to the other 22. If the Churches of Africa believed the Popes Supremacy to be jure divino how could 217 Bishops in the 6th Council of Carthage whereof S. Austin was one have opposed Three Popes successively in the matter of Appeals to Rome and condemned all those as Schismaticks who did thus Appeal and made a formal Separation of their Churches from the Roman upon the account of its Illegal and Uncharitable Incroachments 23. If that Separation was unjust how comes S. Augustin to be reputed over all the Christian World and at Rome too an eminent Saint since he died as the Romanists think in actual and unrepented Schism since S. Augustin denied the Popes Supremacy in matter of Appeals to Rome no less than Henry the Eighth of England might not P. Coelestin as justly have Excommunicated S. Augustin as P. Paul the Third did Henry the Eighth of England 24. Since by many of the Epistles of Gregory the Great to the Emperour Mauricius and Iohn the Patriarch of Constantinople its apparent that he declares all those Prelates who usurp the Titles of Oecumenical Patriarch Universal Bishop and Head of the Catholick Church to be the Forerunners or Harbangers of Antichrist may it not be pertinently demanded if all those Popes who from Boniface the Third inclusively have affected those Titles do not stand condemned by the Judgment of their Predecessour as Antichristian 25. If it be the Popes Prerogative as the Romanists pretend to assemble all the general Councils how did it chance that during a Thousand years after Christ and more there was not an Oecumenical Synod in Italy no not in all the West unless that of Frankford be accounted one which was indicted by Charlemain against the Conventicle at Nice and that they were very desirous to have one in Italy is most evident from the Letters of P. Leo the First none of the meanest spirited Popes to Theodosius the Younger his Sister Pulcheria the Emperour Marcianus Valentinian the Third with Eudoxia the Empress whom he did Supplicate on his Knees with many Tears thus he phraseth it for a Council to be holden in Italy against the Eutychians but could never obtain his desire as to that Circumstance 26. If the Emperours were nothing else but the Popes Mandatarij in the indicting of Councils as some term them what could be the reason that P. Vigilius being personally in Constantinople would not Countenance the 5th general Council assembled there by Iustinian the Great till he was haled thereto by the Authority of the Emperour and forced to obey the Mandat of his pretended Mandatarius in condemning the tria Capitula which by a former Constitution he had approved 27. If the Confirmation of a general Council by the Pope be so necessary that all its acts are invalid without it as some Romanists pretend how could the Patriarchs of Constantinople be so irregular as to possess the place in all succeeding Councils where they were present which the 2d and 4th general Councils had allotted to them notwithstanding of all the Protestations of P. Leo the First and his Successors against those Council Acts 28. Since the Bishops of the Primitive Church were promiscuously termed Popes from the old Greek word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a Father their Episcopal Sees Thrones and Empires and themselves how small soever their Diocess were were also called Princes if we believe S. Gregory Nazianzen and S. Hilary of Poictiers all were termed the Successors of the Apostles and equal as to the intrinsi Power of Bishops whether it were the little Bishoprick of Eugubium compared with that of Rome Rhegium with that of Constantinople Tanis with Alexandria if we give Faith to S. Hierom therefore it may pertinently be demanded What solid Grounds had Hildebrand to Monopolize those Titles to the Bishop of Rome 29. If the Romanists can produce any Authentick Author for the Decretal Epistles of all the Popes from Clemens to P. Sirvius that is to the middle at the least of the 4th Century though they have made up a considerable part of the Canon Law before Riculfus Archbishop of Mentz who lived 500 years after those Popes were dead 30. Since the Belief of an Infallible Headship in the Bishop of Rome is with many Romanists the reason why they receive their Articles of Faith must it not then be the fundamental Article of all others And ought it not to be the best attested by some plain places of Scripture and not leave by its silence this sole visible Vicegerent of Christ to the Suspicion of bearing witness to himself 31. Since the Pope receives his Office with an Oath to observe the Apostolick Canons as they are termed with the Canons of the Eight first general Councils and notwithstanding it is evident from the 35 and 36 Canons of the Apostles or the 33 and 34 Canons as Binius hath them that these are directly against the Popes Supremacy as also the 6 and 7 Canons of the First general Council the 9 17 and 28 Canons of the Fourth general Council the Fifth in condemning the Sentence of P. Vigilius in favour of the tria Capitula tho he was very vehement in the cause the Sixth and Seventh in Condemning P. Honorius of Heresie the Eighth and last by imposing a Canon upon the Church of Rome and challenging Obedience thereunto viz. its Condemning a Custom of the Sabbath Fast in Lent may we not very rationally hence conclude that the Fathers during eight hundred and seventy years after Christ knew no such thing as the Popes Supremacy by Divine Right or any Right at all seeing they opposed it And that they did not believe the Infallibility of the Church of Rome that they had no Tradition of either that Supremacy or Infallibility that it is in vain to plead Antiquity in the Fathers or Councils or Primitive Church for either and that the Canons of these eight general Councils being the sense both of the ancient and the professed Faith of the present Church of Rome the Popes Authority must needs stand Condemned by the Catholick Church at this day by the ancient Church and the present Church of Rome her self as she holds Communion at least in Profession with the ancient And in fine how can the Church of Rome escape the charge of Heresie for he who believes the Popes Supremacy denies in effect the eight first general Councils at least in that point and that 's Heresie and he who believes the Council of Trent believes the Article of the Popes