MOTIVES OF CONVERSION TO THE CATHOLICK FAITH As it is PROFESSED IN THE REFORMED CHURCH OF ENGLAND By Neal Carolan formerly Parish-Priest of Slane and Stacallan c. in Meath Imprimatur Aug. 8. 1688. Rad. Rule R. R. in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Francisco Archiep. Dublin à sacr domest DVBLIN Printed by Jos Ray for William Norman in Dames-street and Eliphal Dobson at the Stationers Arms in Castle-street 1688. The Preface to the Reader IT is just and reasonable that every man that deserts the Communion of a Church in which he hath been educated and embraceth a Communion distinct from it should render some accompt to the world of the reasons of his change that so he might avoid the imputation of levity and rashness This hath been done by many of the Protestants that have embraced the Roman Faith namely by Dr. Vane Mr. Cressy Mr. Manby and others and by many Romanists that have embraced the Reformed Religion by the Learned Archbishop of Spalato and several others and being my self resolved to forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome and to embrace that of the Reformed Church of Ireland which I think more agreeable to the Word of God and to the Primitive Antiquity I look on my self to be under the same obligations of satisfying others in the Motives of my change As it was my great happiness to be Baptized into the Christian Faith so it was my misfortune to be educated in that which is far distant from it I mean the Roman Faith as it now stands since the determinations of the Council of Trent and I hope the Gentlemen of that Religion will not take it ill that I call it an infelicity since I can entertain no other apprehensions of it whilst I lie under the convictious that are at present upon my Spirit In the Communion of this Church I was admitted into the seven Holy Orders of the Church in a weeks time by Anthony Geoghegan Bishop of Meath in the Year 1662 and in the month of August in the same Year I was sent to Paris where I was instructed in Phylosophy in the College of Grassini and took the Degree of Master in Arts in the University of Paris aforesaid and after Writing my Speculative Divinity in the College of Navar in the said University under Dr. Vinot Dr. Saussoy and Dr. Ligny I finished my course and took up a resolution of returning to my Native Country where I landed about June 1667 and afterwards continued about some two years teaching a private School in the Borders of Meath till in the year 1669 I was instituted into the Parish of Slane and Stacallan by Oliver Desse then Vicar General of the Dioress of Meath where I continued as Parish Priest for four intire years to the no small content and satisfaction of my Parishioners from them in the year 1675 I was removed to the Parishes of Paâ—â—stown and Brownstown and in the year 79. commanded back again to my first charge in Slanâ— During this time I had the opportunity of reading two Bookes that were most especially recommended to the Clergy of the Province of Uâ—ster by the late Primate Oliver Plunket viz. Archdokins Theologia Tripartita and the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel The former of these he distributed amongst us at a certain price when the first imprâ—ssion of it came forth and the latter we were required to purchase as being very proper to confute Protestants out of their own Bibles I was no less forward in procuring the Books then industrious in reading them and for a long time I thought them unanswerable till at length discoursing with some of the Reverend Protestant Clergy of Meath I found by them that the Touchstone was only an old Book new vampt up with a new Title and some few Chapters added and that it had been long ago published under the Title of the Gag for the new Gospel and learnedly been answered by the Reverend Bishop Mountague Whereupon I procured the answer to it and upon perusal found that the Author of the Old Gag ro New Touchstone call it which you please had in many things basely misrepresented the Doctrine of the Protestants propounding it in such crude and indifinite terms as no sober Protestant doth acknowledge it for their sense as in his 2d Proposition he affirms that Protestants say that in matters of Faith We must not relye upon the judgment of the Church and of her Pastors but only on the written word In the 3d that the Scriptures are easily to be understood In the 4th that Apostolical Traditions and ancient customs of the Church not found in the written word are not to to be received nor oblige In the 5th that a man by his own understanding or private Spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture In the 7th that the Church can erre In the 32 that the Saints may not pray for us and so in others None of which Propositions are owned by Protestants as their Doctrines without many previous distinctions and limitations I found also that in other things he had hudled together many Propositions as the general sense of Protestants which if he had consulted their learned Writings he would have found to be no more then School Points and Problematical Questions nay which are still disputed as such by the best learned men in the Church of Rome Such are for Example The Doctrines of Freewill in the 19th Proposition The Impossibility of keeping the Commandements in the 20th Proposition The Inamissibility of Faith in the 23th The Doctrine of Election and Reprobation in the 24th The Doctrine of Assurance of Salvation in the 25th and The Doctrine of every mâ—n having his Guardian Angel in the 26th most of which Points are matter of Controversie between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants amongst the Protestants And between the Jansenists and Jesuits in the Church of Rome This unfair proceeding charging the Protestants with Doctrines which they either totally deny or do not acknowledge without previous distinctions bred a dislike in me to the Book and consequently put me upon an inquiry into those Doctrines of the Protestants which the Author of it had so fouly misrepresented and the more I read in their Writings the better I was reconciled to their Opinions and the worse I liked those of the Church of Rome some of whose Errors I shall briefly touch as the Motives of my Conversion and occasion of my deserting her Communion Motives of Conversion to the Catholick Faith as it is professed in the Reformed Church of England CHAP. I. Of the Vncharitableness of the Church of Rome THE first Motive thereof is her great Uncharitableness not only to Protestants but also to all other Societies of Christians this day in the World except themselves and that in two things First In confining the Catholick Church to themselves Secondly In excluding all others from hope of Salvation that are not in their own Communion It will be unnecessary to prove that these
are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome since there is no Controvertist that doth not affirm them and they are expresly defined in the Council of Trent in her Anathema to every Article And Pope Pius IV. affirms in his Bull That this is the Catholick Faith out of which no one can be saved All the Clergy of Ireland whether Secular or Regular are taught to say so the Priests and Friers affirm it in their Sermons now to the People more than ever And it is one of the most popular Arguments and common Topicks of Conversion that they all use to the Protestants to reconcile them to the Church of Rome That they are all Hereticks That they are out of the Church That there is no hopes of Salvation for them whilest they are so The first of these particulars viz. Confining of the Catholick Church to themselves is a Proposition so hugely unreasonable that I could hardly bring my self to the belief of it It seemed to me a very unreasonable thing that the Church of Rome which is but a Member of the Catholick Church and that none of the foundest should arrogate to it self the Name and Priviledges of the whole Catholick Quia à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter non valet consequentia Nec semper denominatio totius sequitur partes seperatim sumptas And I could find no Text of Scripture for the justification of it nor any sound Reason to prove it nor any promise of our Saviour on which to ground it and I concluded with my self that the affirming it might prove a dangerous prejudice to the perpetuity of the Church and contradict our Saviours promise concerning the Gates of Hell not being able to prevail against it because it was not only possible that the Church of Rome as well as other Churches might err but there are express Cautions given her in that particular by St. Paul Rom 11.18 20. Thou bearest not the root but the root thee Be not high minded but fear and if God spareth not the natural branches take heed least he also spare not thee In the Writings of the Primitive Fathers it appears that they never believed the Church of Rome to be any thing else but a particular Church Ignatius in the Title of his Epistle to the Romans stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Ambrose reckons the Roman Church in the same rank with the Churches of Egypt and Alexandria So that if they were particular or topical Churches the Church of Rome must be so too The same thing doth Pope * Apud Binium in Concil Ephesino Celestine in his Epistle to John Bishop of Antioch where he reckons up the Churches of Rome and Alexandria as Members of the Catholick Church Asseret se Nestorius fidem tenere quam secundum Apostolicam doctrinam Romana Alexandrina Catholica universalis Ecclesia tenet Nay it appears by the Epistle of Pope Innocent III. to John Lib. 2. Epist 200. Patriarch of Constantinople that in the 12th Century the Pope himself did not believe it Dicitur autem universalis Ecclesia quae de universis constet Ecclesiis quae Graeco Verbo Catholica nominatur says he Ecclesia Romana sic non est universalis Ecclesia sed universalis Ecclesiae pars Besides this I find this very Proposition condemned in the Donatists and looked upon by the Fathers as the grand Fundamental Principle of their Schism and Division for they as appears by the Writings of St. Augustine and Optatus did affirm that Christ had no Church on Earth but in the parts of Donatus that the Church was perished in all parts of the World except their own Assemblies and that Salvation no where could be had but in their Communion they esteemed the rest of the Christians to be no better than Pagans they broke their Chalices scraped their Altars and washed their Vestments and the Walls of their Churches pretending that all was polluted by their touch of them How much of this Spirit doth reign in our modern Donatists is easily observed by any man that will take the pains to compare their Writings and Practises with those of their Ancestors the antient Donatists in Africk And indeed it is high time for every man to leave the society of that Person that thinks himself alone to have reason and all the rest of mankind to be mad and out of their wits Nor is this Proposition only unreasonable but is also very uncharitable in as much as it condemns not only Protestant Churches but all the Christians in the Eastern parts of the World that are not of the Roman Faith the Greeks and Arminians the Jacobites and Nestorians the Maronites and Abissines and Cophtites or Christians of Egypt and for ever excludes them from hopes of Salvation which is in effect to unchurch the greatest part of Christians and condemn them to everlasting burnings who are more in number and more extend in Territories then the Professors of the present Roman Faith can pretend to be notwithstanding all their brags of Universality It may be perhaps said that the Eastern Christians and Protestants are Hereticks but I think it much easier to say so than make it good and if they were yet the charity of the modern Bomanists is much more streightned than that of St. Augustines was De Baptis contra Don. l. 1. c. 10. l. 5. c. 27. who durst not deny a possibility of Salvation even to Hereticks themselves For when the Donatists did object that Heresio is an Harlot that if Baptism of Hereticks be good then Sons are born to God of Heresie and so of an Harlot His Answer was that the Conventicles of Hereticks do bear Children unto God not in that wherein they are divided but in that wherein they still remain join'd with the True Catholick Church not in that they are Hereticks but as much as they profess and practise that which other Christians do Nay according to the Opinion of the Roman Doctors they have no reason if they stand to their own Principles to judg so severely of Hereticks for they grant that the honour of Martyrdom is only peculiar to the Members of the Catholick Church and they cannot deny but it is possible for an Heritick to suffer for the Christian Religion and lay down his life in the defence of the Faith of Christ From whence it must inevitably follow according to their own confessions that either Hereticks may be saved or else Martyrdom is not proper to the Church and Members of it Nor are the Romanists only unreasonable and uncharitable in confining the Catholick Church to themselves but they are so in excluding also other Christians from the hopes of Salvation that are not of their own Communion This will appear from two Considerations First they are more uncharitable to them then they are to Heathens that never heard of Jesus Christ for * Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civitat Dei. l. 18. c. 47. Andr. id
this Example of Caiphas upon the stage not considering that it is so far from being any way advantagious to the pretence of the Roman Pontiff that it even disgraces the very name of High Priest This Author c. 18. pag 46. speaking of the Grace and Assistance which God in some instances gave to Persons eminent in Office and particularly to Capiphas when he judged it necessary that Christ should be put to death for the conservation of the Nations he says With like helping Grace he doubts not but God generally assists the Pastors of the New Law and more especially the High Priest that is the Pope for the good of the whole Flock And therefore thô he were as wicked as Caiphas yet he is ready to render him all respect due to his Function and to obey him in every thing concerning the exercise of his Charge not for any consideration of his Person but meerly for the Office he bears Let the Reader observe the words of this Author what a notable guide the Bishop of Rome is according to this mans description of him His extraordinary endowments in conducting Souls to Heaven is compared unto the Grace which Caiphas had when he falsly and unjustly condemned our Saviour for a Deceiver and consequently the whole Christian Religion for a deceit Nothing certainly can be more strange unless it be what Cardinal Bellarmine says concerning Papal Infallibilty lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. he maintains that the Pope hath a priviledge of being free from error in making any publick Decree what ever relating to Faith or Practise and he carrys the Assertion so high as to say that If the Pope should err by command ing Vices Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclaesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 5. and forbidding Vertues the Church would be bound to believe that Vices were good and Vertues evil unless it would sin against Conscience Wonderful Doctrine Certainly no man of any reason or honesty but will abhor such a Position and accordingly Bellarmines heart smote him in his old age for having delivered such a thing And therefore in his Recognition upon this passage he minced the matter and partly recalled this wild saying perhaps when he was near death and had no hopes to obtain the Papacy for himself then he was content to speak more soberly concerning the Power and Priviledges of the Pope But above all men commend me to Costerus the Jesuite for a wonderful Teacher of Papal Infallibility He says It may come to pass as we confess that the Successor of St. Fatemur fieri posse ut Petri Successor Idola colat apud se forte de Fide non recte sentiens adeoque Artibus Diabolicis operam navet Sed constanter negamus Vicarios Christi Petrique Successores Romanos Pontifices vel Haeresin alios docere posse vel Errorem proponere Cost Enchirid c. 3. Peter may worship Idols privately perhaps having a wrong Opinion concerning the Faith and may consequently be a Studier of Diabolical Arts. But this we constantly deny that the Popes of Rome Vicars of Christ and Successors of St. Peter can teach Heresie to others or propose an Error Whether Costerus when he delivered this had an eye to those Popes who have been accused of being Magicians and invoking Devils I cannot determin But I appeal to all persons endu'd with Reason and let them judge whether I had not just cause to grow very much dissatisfied with that Communion whose Members do first make it necessary for all Christians to bottom and ground their Faith and Religion upon the credit of an Infallible Guide and then they give the most lewd description of him that ever was heard One that may be an Idolater a Wizard and an Infidel an Heretick in his private capacity one that is notwithstanding to be obeyed if he command Vices and forbid Vertues and if he command so all Christians are bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues evil one that is an Infallible Guide such as Caiphas was one that has as much security and certainty of being in the right as Caiphas had Whence it follows that the Christians who rely on the Pope have just as much certainty of being in the right as the Jews in our Saviours time had of being so by relying on their High Priest yet they notwithstanding the infallible Conduct of Caiphas cryed against Christ crucifie him crucifie him and release unto us Barabbas Doubtless these men who describe and prove the Popes Infallibility after such a manner as you have heard are very blamable Methinks they should have more regard to the Honour of a Prince than to have characterized him as they do I know it was not done out of any ill will but it is usual for too officious Servants sometimes to do their Masters as much hurt as if they were real Enemies Thus the Reader will fully perceive how little satisfaction I found in the pretended unerring Guide or Conductor which the Italian Papists do propose It is manifest there is very little comfort or security in the Conduct of such a Guide But being disappointed in expecting infallible Guidance from any one person such as the Pope is whom the Italian Parasites advance I proceeded to consider another unerrable Guide which the French Divines set up in opposition to the Italians that is a General Council This indeed at first appeared unto me to have the fairest pretension to be the Guide so much talked of I suppose it well known that in France the Personal Infallibility is generally rejected and decryed as an untrue and groundless thing and many large Discourses have been written by the French Divines in order to prove not only that the Pope may be deceived but also that he has been very often actually so even in matters of the greatest importance The Discourses written by Gerson above 250 years ago are abundantly known to all men of Reading Tract An liceat in causis Fidei à summo Pontifice appellare And in later times Launoius a Sorbon Doctor in many places of his Epistles not only declares his own Sense against the Personal Infallibility of the Pope but likewise the Sense or Judgment of the Gallican Church He reproaches one Baro his adversary for holding the Bishop of Rome to be incapable of erring and counts Baro to be a Traytor to the Gallican Church and Nation for it I shall produce one passage out of Launoius to this purpose Thus he inveighs against Baro In Gallicanam grassatur Ecclesiam quae Romanum Pontificem submittit Concilio ei non errandi in fide moribus privilegium abjudicat sed soli adjudicat Ecclesia Ecclesiam figuranti Concilio Launoius Epistolarum parte 5ta Epistola ad Fortinum pag. 43. vide etiam pag. 93. He perniciously destroys the Church of
Image-worship Invocation of Saints c. neither yet are nor indeed ever can be decreed infallibly or else they must own the Doctrine of deposing Princes to be infallibly decreed which is the thing they endeavour to avoid The latter case makes their Guide mischievous and dangerous and the former makes him in a manner unserviceable Thus we see what a miserable confusion these poor people have brought themselves to by pretending to find a visible Judge of Controversies incapable of Error among mortal men They have made the greatest part of Christianity an uncertain thing as far as in them lay by removing it as far as their Opinions could remove it from its proper and natural basis that is the Word of God and by grounding it upon the testimony of an airy phantome called an infallible Guide but owned by themselves to be liable enough to Error and to have erred most grievously in matters of the greatest importance They say this Guide cannot be mistaken in matters of Faith but in the conclusion they cannot tell what they themselves mean by that term matters of Faith for although that term be of it self clear enough yet they make the signification of it obscure and uncertain by confounding matters of Faith and matters of Practice being not able according to their Principles for as much as I understand to make any clear distinction between them When I was brought to this great uncertainty and did not know on what foundation to ground my Belief or how to understand certainly the Commands of God I remembred what was said Deuteron chap. 30. vers 11 12 13 14. The Commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden from thine eyes nor is it far off It is not in the Heaven above that thou shouldst say who shall go up for us into Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldst say who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it but the Word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it And the same thing is repeated in the New Testament by St. Paul. Rom. c. 10. v. 6 7 8. with an application of it to the Christian Dispensation Having been thus taught of God I understood that it was not necessary for me to seek an infallible Guide either in Rome or France God has provided sufficient means whereby we may know his Will in all Christian Countrys without going beyond the Sea to fetch the knowledge of it from afar off His written Word is a Guide whose Veracity cannot be questioned and there are means to understand the true sense of it which are abundantly sufficient and infinitely better than the Romanists have to understand their pretended infallible Director For that is a thing that no man certainly knows neither what he is nor where he is neither how he is to be consulted nor how far he is to be trusted which doubtless are lamentable defects in a thing called a Guide The Word of God assuredly ought to be our Rule And I am resolved to follow it according to the Direction given me by St. Augustine Let no man say to me O! Nemo mihi dicat O! quid dixit Donatus aut Parmenianus aut Pontius aut aliquis alius illorum quia nec cum Catholicis Episcopis sentiendumest sicubi fortè fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant Aug. de Vnit Ecclesiae c. 10. what said Donatus Parmenianus or Pontius or any other of them for neither ought we to agree with Catholick Bishops if perhaps in some cases they are so much mistaken as to entertain Opinions contrary to the Canonical Scriptures Thus we see St. Augustin prefers the Guidance of Gods Word to the Direction of any one or more Bishops although accounted never so Catholick It seemed strange to me that a matter of such weight and consequence as this is the stay and prop of all Religion as they term it and a thing that tends so much to the preservation of Truth and Peace in the Church should not be taken notice of by the four Evangelists who yet record many things of smaller importance That St. Paul should hint nothing of it to that Church that pretends so mightily to it That in his Epistle to the Corinthians where he takes notice of their Schisms one being of Paul another of Apollos and a third of Cephas he did not tell them that they ought to require Cephas his Judgment for the Determination of their Differences That Peter himself giving all diligence to mind the Christians of what was needful before his departure should forget to tell them of so necessary and so important an Article as this That the Scriptures so frequently warn us of false Teachers and false Prophets that should arise and yet tell us nothing of this infallible Remedy but rather put the cure of the evil upon the pains and diligence of the Christians in trying their Spirits That the Asian Bishops in their opposition against Pope Victor and the African in their opposition to Pope Stephen should either not know of this priviledge of St. Peters Successors or not acknowledge it if they did That St. Augustin and the Council of Carthage should be so ill instructed in the Faith as not to acknowledge it but rather stand out so stifly as they did in the case of Appeals That the Popes in the contest with him should be so ignorant of their own priviledges as not to alledge their Infallibity in the Point which would have put a speedy end to the Dispute but rather take Sanctuary in a pretended Canon of the Council of Nice That so many Councils should be called from distant parts of the world to the expences of the Bishops and the hazard of their Churches when there was a Remedy so near at hand as the consulting of the infallible Bishop of Rome on all occasions And lastly that the Popes themselves should so far disbelieve it as to contradict and rescind the Decrees of one another These things seem to me such mighty prejudices against this infallible Judg that I know not how to answer them To which I shall add that instead of putting an end to Controversies and being a Cure to the evils of Christendom as is pretended it is the most expedient way to promote and continue them by possessing that Church which hath been the great cause of Disputes with an opinion of her own Infallibility and consequently rendring her incurable in her Errors and incapable either of redressing them or satisfying the Consciences of them that dissent from her Consequently St. Augustine expresses the same thing in another place more largely than above in his last mentioned passage shewing nothing to have infallible Authority except the holy Scripture no not a General Council it self Who knows not says he that the holy Canonical Scripture
adding Grace Sentent lib. 4. dist 11. dialog 1. c. 8. which Symbols are seen with the title of his Body and Blood. Dialog 2. c. 24. For neither do the mystical Signs recede from their Nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen touched c. And for a Testimony that will be esteemed infallible I alledge the words of Pope Gelasius De Duabus Nat. contra Eutych Nestor videatur Picherel in Dissert de missa expositione verbo rum Institutionis coenae Domini Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature yet ceases not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine And truly an image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries If the Patrons of this novelty be not yet satisfied by what is already said in reference thereunto let them see and diligently mark these following Councils Ancyranum anno Domini 314. Can. 2. Neocaesariense anno eodem Can. 13. Nicenum 1. an 325. in act lib. 2. c. 3. Laodicenum ann 364. Can. 25. Carthagiense ann 397. Can. 24. Aurelianense ann 541. Can. 4. Toletanum 4. an 633. Can. 17. Bracarense ann 675 C. 2. Toletanum 16. ann 693. C. 6. Constantinopolitanum in Trullo ann 691. Can. 32. and if there be any shame in them they will never brag of Antiquity to patronize them therein for they are diametrically repugnant unto them in this behalf Now from these premises I am not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Church of Rome but I think my self bound in conscience to swerve from it and judge it my duty to give caution and admonition to all other well disposed Christians to do so likewise 1. That they be not abused by the Rhetorical words and high expressions alledged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament the Body or Flesh of Christ For we all believe it is so and rejoyce in it But the Question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of Flesh or after the manner of spiritual Grace or sacramental consequence I with the holy Scriptures Jo. 6.36 and primitive Fathers affirm the latter the Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the Explication of Christ affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under the pretence of being ancient since although the Roman Error had been so long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an Innovation in Christianity and brought in by Ignorance Power and Superstition very many ages after Christ 3. I exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the Doctrine of giving us his Flesh for Meat and his Blood for Drink that he tells us Ut supra the Flesh profiteth nothing but the Words which I speak are Spirit and they are Life 4. That if these ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the Symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are received and that Christs Body and Blood are only present to Faith and Spirit that then whoever attempts to give Divine Honour to these Symbols or Elements as the Church of Rome does attempts to give a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an error in the understanding for it carrys them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excused from the crime of Idolatry To conclude this matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that I need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous Questions which are sometimes handled by them of the Church of Rome concerning this divine mystery As if a Priest going by a Bakers Shop and saying with an Intention Hoc est Corpus meum whether all the Bakers Bread be turned to Christs Body whether a Church-mouse does eat her Maker whether a man by eating the consecrated Symbols does break his fast for if it be Bread and Wine he does not and if it be Christs Christs Body and Bloud naturally and properly it is not Bread and Wine Whether it may be said the Priest in some sense is the Creator of God himself whether his Power be greater than the Power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Gloria mundi 4. num 6. Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he says his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and Creator of his Body But these things are too bad and therefore I love not to rake in so filthy channels but give only general warning to all them whom I wish well to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their new sound Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such Doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propsitions frequently do issue As the Tree is such must be the Fruit. But I hope it may be sufficient to say that what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no Faith obligeth me and no Reason can endure CHAP. IV. Of the Half Communion THE fourth Motive of my Conversion is another piece of Novelty I was much dissatisfied with and that is the Half Communion And the more I inquired into the Word of God and the Sense of the primitive Church concerning it the more I found cause to dislike it Certainly the common Reason of all men that are Christians cannot but suggest unto them that every Command Order and Institution of Christ ought to be accounted extremely sacred and that whatever he has appointed should be observed most religiously without any deviation from the Rule which he hath delivered Now upon examination I found that the Church of Rome had made a very unwarrantable and a strange alteration in the Administration of the Sacrament by detaining the Cup from the people and therefore I hope no rational man can blame me for rejecting Communion with her and adhering to that Religion of the Reformed Church where I saw the Command of our Saviour carefully observed and his Institution most obsequiously followed And because I do here enter upon an Accusation of the Church of Rome it is reasonable I should in the first place set down what I apprehend to be the Doctrine of that party concerning this matter and then I will endeavour to demonstrate that both the Doctrine and Practice of it are repugnant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine and Practice of the primitive Church It is pretended by the Romanists that they have made no change in any thing material or essential to the Sacrament For they resolutely affirm
that the giving of the Cup to the people is an indifferent thing and may be done or omitted as the Rulers of the Church shall judge convenient Some of them proceed farther and pretend that receiving the Bread alone was less or more the practice of all ages since the beginning of Christianity Many conjectures and surmises have been invented by Bellarmin and others in order to make this seem likely and yet all in vain For many learned men of the Roman Catholick party are ashamed of this pretence and ingenuously confess that there never was any such practice approved amongst the Ancients Alphonsus à Castro asserting the lawfulness of the peoples communicating in both kinds hath these words saith he For I have learned from the Writings of many holy men Nam olim per multa saecula sic apud omnes Catholicos usurpatum esse ex multorum sanctorum scriptis didicimus Alphons titul Eucharist Haeres 13. that anciently for many ages it was the custom for all Catholiques to communicate so Lindanus a great maintainer of Popery affirms that both kinds were generally received in the Eucharist even till the year 1260. Panopliae lib. 4. c. 56. in these words I now omit other things says he which make for this purpose to wit Omitto nunc alia quae huc faciunt quod in aetatem usque Divi Thomae 1. ann Domini 1260. utriusque speciei Communio ferè ubique fuerir Laicis administrata sed non ubique periculis fortè effusi Sanguinis Domini scandalis unà cum populis negligentia pietatis detrimento increbescentibus paulatim utriusque speciei Communio in unam degeneravit that till the age of St. Thomas that is till the year of our Lord 1260. the Communion in both kinds was almost every where administred to the Laity but not every where perhaps dangers and scandals arising from spilling the Blood of Christ together with the peoples negligence and the decay of Piety becoming every day greater the Communion of both kinds gradually degenerated into one Albaspinaeus the late learned Bishop of Orleans in France undertakes to confute several of Bellarmins Conjectures about the pretended Antiquity of the Half Communion especially his fancy that the Lay-communion a thing sometimes mentioned by the ancient Writers was a custom of the peoples receiving only in one kind and upon this occasion Albaspinaeus hath these words following But if we grant that which by all means we ought to acknowledge to wit Atqui si detur quod concedi omninò necesse est quo tempore Concilia Patres de Communione Laicâ mentionem fecerunt Laicos sub utraque specie communicâsse sequitur non esse sub una specie Communionem lib. 1. Observat cap. 4. that in those times when the Councils and Fathers made mention of the Lay-Communion the people did partake of both kinds it follows that this i.e. Lay-Communion is not participating of the Sacrament under one kind There are two remarkable places in Cardinal Bona lib. 2 c. 18. de Rebus Liturgicis to prove that the Communion in one kind was not practised till the year 1200. and that all the precedent ages had the contrary practice and gave both kinds to the people publickly He pretends besides but indeed without any considerable ground that the Half Communion was privately practised in those ages These are his sayings It is certain says he that all persons in all places Certum est quippe omnes passim Clericos Laicos viros mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumpsisse cum solemni eorum Celebrationi aderant offerebant de Oblatis participabant Clergy and people men and women did anciently receive the holy mysteries in both kinds when they were present at the publick Celebration when they offered and did partake of the Offerings And a little after For always and every where Semper enim ubique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usque ad saeculum duodecimum sub specii Panis Vini communicârent fideles caepitque paulatim ejus saeculi initio usus calicis obsolescere from the infancy of the Church till the 12th age the faithful received the Communion under both kinds of Bread and Wine and the custom of the Cup in the beginning of that age began by little and little to be disused Thus we see by the Testimonies already produced that detaining the Cup from the people was no ancient practice but began about 460 years ago These Authors here cited being Papists are a sufficient proof of this and many more of the same Perswasion might be brought to confirm the same which at present I omit that I may shun tediousness But the thing which upon examination I found my self obliged principally to consider was not only what had been the ancient practice in this matter but also what the reason ground was which moved the holy Fathers and the primitive Church generally as well Laity as Clergy to believe themselves most strictly bound to receive both kinds For that they had such a Belief the Authorities which I shall hereafter alledge will convincingly demonstrate and the reason and ground of this their Perswasion was the Command and Institution of Christ He had ordered in the Gospel that all should drink of the Cup and they with great Piety and Reverence to his Command accounted themselves all obliged to do what he enjoyned them This certainly is nothing but what ought to be done And I heartily wish the Church of Rome had retained the like veneration and pious regard for the Command of Christ I should then have found no cause to blame her in this particular Now because I have here in effect asserted that the Command of Christ concerning the Sacrament was that which had influence upon the Christians of the eldest ages I shall in the first place produce the Precept and then subjoin immediately the Sense of Antiquity to it which will manifest that they thought the obligation arising from the Divine Precept did extend to all Believers without any discrimination and if this be effectually performed I suppose it will be unnecessary to advertise the Reader that the same apprehensions concerning the necessity of receiving in both kinds ought to take place at all times and in all Christian Societies The consequence of which is that the Roman Church is a notorious transgressor of Divine Law in this respect and that the pretended indifferency of giving the Cup to the people or withholding of it is a false supposition Our Saviour when he first appointed this Sacrament delivered a Command Matt. 26.27 that all should drink of the Cup and after his Resurrection he reinforced all the Precepts which he had given to his Disciples and consequently this amongst the rest Matth. 28.19 20. saying Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all
things whatsoever I have commanded you We see hence how express our Saviours words are that all Nations should be taught to observe whatever he commanded his Disciples who would think if he saw it not before his eyes that any Society of Christians that will needs be called the Catholick Church should avowedly trample under foot this manifest Command of God They are so far from teaching all Nations to observe what Christ commanded his Disciples that they professedly teach the quite contrary Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it No says the Church of Rome all shall not drink of it but a few shall that is consecrating Priests One would imagine that these Texts of holy Scripture above mentioned should make a deep impression upon all men that pretend to have any regard for the Laws of God and they did so till 1200 years after Christ when the practice of detaining the Cup from the people began first to be introduced by a corrupt custom and was long afterwards established by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance So new and late is this Point of Popery that it was not conciliarly decreed till about 272 years ago And yet nothing is more usual with the Roman Catholicks than to brag of the Antiquity of their Religion I shall have an opportunity hereafter of considering this late Decree of Pope Martin when I come to produce the ancient Canon of Pope Gelasius made near 1200 years ago expresly repugnant and contary to this late Decree of Martin For Gelasius declares receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious At present I shall proceed to alledge the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers to shew that they understood our Saviours words Drink ye all of this agreeably to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England that is so as to account all Christians without exception obliged to partake of the Cup. But by the way I cannot but observe that Paschasius Corbeiensis a man of great credit in the Church of Rome for his Invention of Christs corporeal Presence in the Host about the year 830. did expound the words above mentioned contrary to the Sense of the present Church of Rome and in favour of the Protestants His expressions are these It is Christ that breaks this Bread Christus est qui frangit hunc Panem per manus Ministrorum tribuit credentibus Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui Credentes Paschas be Coena Domini cap. 14. and by the hands of the Ministers delivers it to the Believers Likewise he gives them the Cup saying take and drink ye all of this both the Ministers and other Believes Here we see Paschasius makes the Command to extend to all without any difference and it is a wonder to me why the Roman Catholicks do follow this man so zealously in his Invention of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharistical Bread and will not admit of his Interpretation of this Command of Christ that all Believers should drink of the Cup. But there are much more ancient and authentick Authors who understood our Saviours words according to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England whose Testimonies hereafter follow and that in reference of proving that the Members thereof do not expound Scripture according to their own private Judgment as it is falsely imputed to them by the wretched Author of Pax Vobis Mr. Manby and others who as I plainly find never understood any thing of the Doctrine of this Church concerning the Interpretation of Scripture The first ancient Writer whose Authority I intend to make use of is S. Justin Martyr one that lived not long after the Apostolick age and lost his Life for the Profession of the Christian Faith. He in his second Apology gives an account to the Emperor of the method and manner of Divine Service amongst the Christians and coming to give an account of the Lords Supper he does it thus They that are called Deacons among us do distribute to every one present Qai apud nos vocantur Diaconi distribuunt unicuique priesentium ut participent de Pane Vino Aquâ benedictis Justin Apol 2. that they may partake of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water It is remarkable that he says the Deacons gave both kinds to every one present and a little after he tells us they did so because our Saviour in the Gospel commanded them to do so For says he the Apostles in the Books written by them Nam Apostoli in Commentariis à se scriptis quae Evangelia vocantur ita sibi praecepisse Jesum tradiderunt Justin Apol. 2. ubi supra which are called the Gospels have taught us that Jesus commanded them to do so Bellarmin pretends that this last expression of S. Justin concerning the Command of Christ hath only relation to the Gonsecration not to the Administration of the Sacrament But any man by reading the place will sind the Cardinals words to be groundless For the Command of Christ is offered by S. Justin as the reason of the whole procedure in celebrating the Sacrament and not as particularly respecting the Consecration of the Elements The second anâ—ient Author whose Testimony I shall produce as an uncontroulable Evidence in this behall is St. Cyprian who flourished principally about the Yeat 250. and not many Years after was put to death for his Religion This Holy Martyr in his Epistle to Caecilius reprehends the Aquarians that were Hereticks so called because in the Consecration and Administration of this Holy Sacrament of our Lords Supper they made no use of Wine but used Water in stead of it Now Sr. Gyprian reproves these Aquarians upon two accounts First in that they offered to Consecrate without Wine and secondly in that they gave no Wine to the People and in both respects he taxes them with a very great tranfgression of the command and appointment of our Saviour The former miscarriage and irrogularity of the Aquarians doth not concern the Roman Catholicks because they use Wine when they Consecrate But in the second point they are like the Aquarians and therefore do fall under the same censure with them Let us hear what St. Cyprian says concerning this whole affair He begins the Epistle by telling Caecilius That although many Reverend Bishops did exactly observe our Lords Tradition for so calls he the Command or Institution of Christ yet says he because some out of Ignorance or simplicity in consecrating the Cup of our Lord Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in Calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Jesus Christas Dominus Deus noster hujus Sacrificii Auctor Doctor fecit docuit religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere at siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspectâ ad radicem
originem Dominicae Traditionis revertatur◠Cypr. Epist 63. Pamilianae editionis and in administring it to the People do not do that which Jesus Christ our Lord God the Teacher and Author of this Sacrifice did and taught I judged it to be agreeable to good Conscience and necessary to write to you about this matter that if any one be yet possessed with this Error he may by seeing the Light of Truth return to the root and original of our Lords Tradition And thus having establisht his foundation namely that nothing ought to be done contrary to the Institution of Christ in the first part of his Epistle he proves the necessity of using Wine in the Consecration of the Sacrament but in the later part he comes to consider the great inconvenience and mischief to the people that ensued from their being deprived of the Cup. And that which he chiefly takes notice of was a great decay and failure of Christian Courage occasioned as St. Cyprian supposes by this depravation of the Sacrament For in times of Persecution some learned from the Aquarians to abstain from drinking the Consecrated Wine least the smell of it should discover that they have been at the Christian Meetings in the Mornings St. Cyprians Words are these Caeterum omnis Religionis et ve ritatis Disciplina subvertitur nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observetur nisi si sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis ve retur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi sic ergoincipit in persecutionibus a passione Christi fraternitas retardari dum in oblationibus discit de sanguine ejus et cruore confundi Cyp. Ep. 63. ubi supra But the discipline and good order of all Religion and Truth is overthrown unless what was spiritually commanded be faithfully observed But perhaps the case is that some persons in the Morning Sacrifices or Sacraments are afraid least by the savor of Wine they should smell of Christs Blood and so by this means our Christian Brethren in times of Persecution begin to be slack or backward in suffering for Christ while at the Celebration of the Sacrament they learn to be ashamed of Christs Blood. And a little after the same Author says Quomodo autem possumus propter Christem sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere How can we being asham'd to drink the Blood of Christ spill our Blood for Christs sake Besides in another Epistle the same S. Cyp. writing to Cornelius the Bishop of Rome concerning the restoring of certain delinquent Brethren who in times of Persecution had fallen into Idolatry but by Repentance deserved to be reconciled to the Church urges the necessity of their being admitted into Communion because that since new Troubles and Persecutions were coming on it would be necessary to arm and fortifie all Believers with the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and he insists particularly upon the necessiy of giving them the Sacramental Cup. His expressions are these that follow For after what a strange manner do we teach and excite them to lose their Blood in confessing the Name of Christ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis Christi sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Sanguinem Christi denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si eos priùs ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure Communicationit non admittimus Cyp. Ep 54. Edit Pamel if we deny the Blood of Christ to them that are ready to undergo such a warfare And how do we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first by the right of Communion to drink our Lords Cup in the Church It is observable that S. Cyprian here pleads for the peoples receiving the Cup from the right of Communion that is from the right which accrewed to every one by his being made a member of the visible Church By this passage and the rest before cited it appears abundantly what the Judgment of this holy Martyr was that he thought all Christians obliged to receive the consecrated Wine and that the omission of it was a transgression of our Lords Commandment and the destruction of several Christian virtues especially of that courage and resolution wherewith all Believers ought openly to profess the Name of Christ I might produce many more ancient Witnesses of great credit to make good what is here by me affirmed but I shall content my self for brevitys sake with two others whose Authority doubtless ought to be past all exception with the Roman Catholicks because they were Popes or Bishops of Rome for anciently the Title of Pope was given to any eminent Bishop The first of these is Leo the first of that name that was Bishop in Rome but before I produce his Testimony it is necessary to observe that although his words are levelled against the Manichees who superstitiously abhorred Wine and therefore avoided receiving the Sacramental Cup yet Leo's words do abundantly shew what his Judgment was concerning that necessity which as he thought did lye indispensibly upon all Communicants to partake of the mystical Blood of Christ Consequently says he when they venture to be present at our mysteries Cumque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant quod ideò vestram scire volumus sanctitatem ut nobis hujusmodi homines his manifestentur indiciis quorum fuerit deprehensa sacrilegia simulatio notati proditi à Sanctorum societate Sacerdotali Authoritate pellantur Serm. 4. in Quadrages they after such manner do comport themselves in partaking of the Sacraments that sometimes they very safely pass undiscerned with an unprepared mouth they receive the Body but altogether avoid the drinking of the Blood of our Redemption which I would have you holy Brethren therefore to take no tice of that by these indications such men as these may be discovered to us and that they whose sacrilegious dissimulation is sound out by being observed and detected may be driven from the society of the Saints by the Power of the Church Hence it is manifest to any man of reason that St. Leo lookt upon this practice of the Manichees as a most wicked and sacrilegious thing and he decrees no less a penalty for it than Excommunication Now it cannot be their inward and invisible superstition that he would have notice taken of but it must be their external comportment in avoiding the consecrated Wine Moreover if receiving the Cup had been an indifferent thing and esteemed so in Leo's age then the omission or declining of it would have been no distinctive mark to discover the Manichees from the Orthodox or regular Communicants For both might have done the same thing and so
the Manichees would have gone undiscovered Hence I could not but conclude that Leo and all Orthodox believers of his time were of the same judgment in this point with the Reformed Church of England since that Reverend Bishop lookt upon receiving the Cup as a certain sign of an Orthodox and true Christian and esteemed the contrary practice an infallible marke of a detestable and sacrilegious Heretick And I am exceedingly confirmed in this Opinion because I find that Pope Gelasius one who sate in the Episcopal Chair of Rome about Thirty years after Leo's death hath in a most publick solemn and authentick manner declared the necessity of Receiving in both kinds and the contrary practice to be sacrilegious For he made a Canon against the corrupt custom of Receiving in one kind which some superstitious people were then endeavouring to introduce And this very Canon is to be found in Gratians Body of the Canon Law. De Consecrat dist 2. c. 12. It is in the Acts of the Councils It is also in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius ad annum 496. But in short there is no doubt of its being the true and genuine Canon of Gelasius and consequently no man can rationally deny this to be a very convincing proof that the judgment and practice of the ancient Bishops of Rome was directly contrary to that of the Modern Bishops and Church thereof I shall here produce the words of the Canon it self that the impertiall Reader may judge whether I had not reason to conclude that the present Roman Church is guilty of Novelties and that the Reformed Church of England does punctually follow the sense of Antiquity But we find says he that some who having received the portion of the Holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the Blood. Comperimus autem quod quidam-sumpta tantummodo Corpus sacri portione â Calice Cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceautur quia divisio vnius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. 12. Let these men without all controversy because they are informed against as persons possest with I know not what superstition either receive the whole Sacrament or abstaine from the whole for a division or parting of the one and the same mistery cannot come to passe without very great sacriledge This ancient Canon I find hath given very strange disturbance to the modern Church of Rome great stir hath been to avoid the force of it if it were possible to be done And because it cannot be denyed that this Canon or Decree was made by Gelasius almost 1200 years ago Therefore many interpretations have been devised to make it reconcilable and consistent with their present practice of detaining the Cup from the People The first device is to imagine and suppose without any manner of ground in the world that this Decree only respects the Priests consecrating the Host Thus we find the Author of the Annotations upon Gratian endeavouring to escape the difficulty But undoubtedly neither the Protestants nor any rational man hath any reason to regard this vain and idle supposition Especially when so eminent a man as Cardinal Baronius hath assured us that this is a senselesse and foolish solution He calls it frigidam solutionem ad annum 496 num 20. 21. And says he rejects it and hath no need of such foolery But there is another evasion which is commonly made use of by the Romanist in order to elude the force of this Canon and because this evasion is most in vogue amongst them therefore particularly I did consider it Many of their controvertists do pretend that the ancient Decree of Gelasius was only temporary and occasional built upon the condition of the times when it was made And therefore say they it might be abrogated without any violation of Divine law when the reason of it by the change of the times was removed Now it is pretended that the reason or cause of it was this In the age of Gelasius say they the Church was exceedingly pestered with a copious number of dissembling Manichees who had a mind to be accounted Catholicks yet out of a superstitious aversion to Wine abstained from the Cup in the Sacrament And this if we believe them was the cause and reason of the Decree against receiving in one kind and not any Divine Precept enjoyning both This I narrowly examined and found it to be more idle and insignificant than the former which Cardinal Baronius called senseless and foolish For whatever the condition of those times was the principal reason of the Canon is incorted into the Canon it self and it is this following Because a parting of one and the same mystery cannot come to pass without very great Sacriledge Now I must beg leave of my old Friends to tell them that this is no temporary or mutable reason certainly not to commit Sacriledge is a thing of unchangeable and perpetual obligation neither has it any dependence upon the condition of any Age or Time For let the Times change never so much it will never be lawsul to commit Sacriledge and such is communicating in one kind alone if Pope Gelasius may be believed Thus it is plain that this ancient Decree is directly contrary to the late constitutions of the Roman Church and these evasions invented in order to make it seem reconciliable have not any plausible colour of reason Therefore I doubt not but the judicious and impartial Reader will be satisfied that it is necessary for all Christians that come to the Lords Supper to partake of it in both kinds and that this necessity arises from the Command of our Saviour enjoining all to drink of the Cup. The ancient Fathers did so believe and teach as the Authorities already cited do clearly and satisfactorily manifest Herein I have Lindanus agreeing with me though he was a great Defender of Popery in these words when he had first shewn what the Opinion of the old Writers was said After this manner the ancient Fathers chiefly St. Leo Hunc igitur in modum illam ve tustissimam planéque Apostolicam utriusque speciei Communionem conservatam atque observatam populo Christiano cupiebant prisci Patres Divus Leo Gelasius Patres in Concilio Turonensi Gelasius and the Fathers in the Council of Tours did desire that that most ancient and altogether Apostolical Communion in both kinds might be preserved and observed by the Christian people Lastly That the Reader may the better compare this ancient Doctrine and Practice with the novel and late Rule set up by the Romanists it is necessary that I produce the Canon made by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance about 272 years ago which forbids administring the Cup to the people Because the Canon is long I shall only produce two clauses of it and any man
Jerusalem and to the several Beds whereon He lay and Ships wherein he wafted from Region to Region because his attingency in and with them was voluntary with the Cross coactive Nay they ought upon the same ground to adore Judas his lips the Officers hands that apprehended and bound Christ the Scourges whereby He was whipt for they were instruments of his passion as well as the Cross If they adore all other Crosses for their resemblance of the original Cross so they ought to adore all Mangers all Launces all Nails Thorns Spittles c. for these have the same resemblance to our Saviours Manger and to those Nails Thorns c. which were the instruments of his Passion They attribute more Honour unto Christs Cross than to his Resurrection by these words We adore thy Cross and commemorate thy Resurrection Crucem tuam adoramus resurrectionem tuam recolimus They ascribe then it seems Adoration to the Cross which is only proper unto the Divine Nature and to the Cross likewise that is to the Wood they attribute the redemption of the world and the reconcilation of mankind unto God the Father vide Bellarmin lib. 2. c. 23. sect Ac primum They also attribute forgiveness of Sins and increase of Righteousness to the Cross they repose their hopes and confidence in the dead Wood of the Cross and beg remission of Sins from it as may be seen in their Hymns extant in the Roman Breviary corrected and revised by the authority of the Council of Trent and set forth by several Popes as may be seen in several Editions of it especially in that Printed at Paris anno 1662 whence I draw this that follows O Crux ave spes unica In hoc Paschali gaudio Auge piis Justitiam Reisque dona veniam That is in English thus Hail O Cross our only hope In this our Paschal joy Increase the Righteousness of the pious And give pardon to the guilty Nothing doubtless can be more prodigious unless it be what follows O Crux splendidior cunctis astris Mundo celebris hominibus multum amabilis Sanctior universis Quae sola fuisse digna portare talentum mundi Dulce Lignum dulces clavos dulcia ferens pondera Salva praesentem catervam In tuis hodie laudibus congregatam Alleluja Alleluja That is in English thus O Cross more bright than all the Stars Famous through the world very lovely to mankind More holy than all other things Which wast alone worthy to carry the Ransom of the world Dear Wood that carriest the dear Nails and the dear Burden Save the present Assembly which is to day gathered together for thy Praise Alleluja Alleluja Great Complements upon my word for a liveless piece of Wood for that they mean the material Cross and not the Passion of our Saviour their words do abundantly declare We see here they repose their hope and considence in the Wood they beg increase of Grace from it and ascribe to it a Power to forgive Sins which Attribute appertaineth to the Godhead only The Humanity of Christ separated from his Divinity is not to be adored with divine Worship as St. Augustin teacheth Homil 38. de Verbis Domini Therefore much less his Cross or any other representative Image of his The Holy Ghost is present in the Sacrament of Baptism yet it is not to be adored with the same Worship due to the Holy Ghost Therefore that Wood whereon Christ suffered and other Blocks or Stumps of Trees resembling it are not to be adored with the same veneration due unto Christ Many consequences that may be inserr'd from the Worship of the Cross and of Images are so prodigiously absurd impious blasphemous and so numerous that if I endeavoured exactly to enumerate and prosecute them I should never come unto an end Therefore I leave them to the upholders of these abuses whence they are emergent and also these upholders to trust to their Images like to like for they that make them Psal 115.8 are like unto them and so is every one that trusteth in them CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue THe Sixth and last Motive or Cause of my Declension from the Church of Rome is its lack of Charity in robbing Christians not only of the superabundant effects of our Lords Supper by dismembring it but also of that other effectual Remedy which Christ left unto them as means whereby they might attain unto Salvation viz. the benefit of Publick Service or Common Prayers by hindring them to make use thereof in the vulgar tongue intended by God and Nature for all peoples edification This Common Service Prayers Liturgy or Mass which in effect are all one the Conventicle of Trent in the 22th Sess and 8th chap. denies plainly to be expedient to use in the vulgar Tongue or Idiom So Stapleton the Jesuit in his English Book written against Bishop Jewel Artic. 3. p. 75. says inconsiderately that Devotion is rather hindred by using it in a known Idiom than promoted Bellarmine in the second Book de Verbo Dei chap. 15. endeavours to prove that anciently Common Prayers were universally practised in the Latin tongue by all Nations and consequently now ought to be so This self-ended and fabulous Natration of Bellarmines I beg his leave for saying it is far from truth and as contrary to Christs Ordinance to the Apostolick Practice and the general Custom of the primitive Church as Fire and Water black and white cold and heat are one to another Which first I prove by the Testimonies of Scripture 2. By the undeniable Authorities of the holy Fathers 3. By the usual Practice of all other Christian Nations 4. I shall endeavour to prove that the Church of Rome hath borrowed this practice from such Authors as it is a shame for her to imitate The Testimonies of Scripture produced to this effect 1. What Christ commanded that ought religiously to be observed in his Church but Christ by the mouth of his Apostle St. Paul commanded Common Prayers to be used in the vulgar Idiom understood by the hearers 1 Cor. 14.9 So likewise you except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak unto the air v. 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful v. 16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at they giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And v. 19. Yea I had rather speak five words with my understanding in the Church that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 2. Whatever is done in the Church that ought to redound to the edification thereof 1 Cor. 14 v. 26. How is it then Brethren when ye come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a Doctrine hath a Tongue hath Revelation hath an Interpretation
let all things be done unto edifying But an unknown tongue edifies none Ibid. v. 6. Now Brethren if I come to you speaking with tongues what shall I profit you except I shall speak to you either by revelation or knowledge or by prophesying or Doctrine v. 9. as above cited 3. If the Minister prayeth in an unknown tongue he is a Barbarian to the people and also the people to him 1 Cor. 14. v. 11. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice I shall be unto him that speaketh a Barbarian and he that speaketh a Barbarian unto me 4. All things ought to be done in the Church with decency and due order 1 Cor. 14. v. 40. Let all things be done decently and in order But the use of Prayers in an unknown tongue is directly against this Rule because when the Minister so prayeth the hearers understand not what he says nor consequently pray nor say Amen to any effect nay the Minister only who understandeth the Divine Service prayeth and so the Prayers which ought to be publick by this means are become private which is as opposite to the Decency and right Order of the Church as Whoremongering to the seventh Commandment 5. As the Prophets Christ the Apostles and their true Successors have solemnly ministred the Rites and publick Office of the Church even so now and perpetually they ought as far as is possible in the same form manner and method without alteration to be ministred But they ministred them in the vulgar Language according to the capacity of their Hearers as St. Paul abundantly witnesseth in the aforegoing 1 Cor. 14. And besides many of the Papists themselves own that Prayers understood are far better and more available as Lyranus on the first Epistle to the Corinthians 14. and Cardinal Cajetan in Comment on the same chap. Therefore the practice of praying in a known tongue being better and more effectual for edifying the people ought still to be retained in the Church whereas she is always to ediâ—ie and not destroy Though the whole stream of all the holy Fathers cannot more convincingly prove the certainty of this truth than St. Paul hath done already yet for the further satisfaction of the Reader I will produce a few Testimonies to the same purpose so pregnant as not to be avoided Basil the Great in Epist 63 has these following words By the dawning of the day says he the Congregation of the Faithful altogether with one voice Illucescente jam die pariter unâ— ore ac corde omnes fideles Confessionis Psalmum Deo offerunt ac suis quisque verbis resipiscentiam profitetur Quae consuetudines omnibus Dei Ecclesis consentientes sunt and one mind offereth a Psalm of Thanksgiving unto the Lord and every one in his own proper speech acknowledgeth his amendment of life Which practices are consented unto in all the Churches of God. How could this custom of using Common Prayers with one voice or language in Basil the Great 's time in all Christian Churches be plausible amongst the faithful if their Liturgies as Bellarmine feigns had been customarily used in Latin For it cannot be properly said that they offered unâ voce Thanksgiving unto the Lord if they practised diversity of Languages Saint Augustine affirms the same l. 2. in Gen. c. 8. in these words None can be edified by hearing that which he understands not Nemo inquit aedificatur audiendo quod non intelligit And on Psalm 99. he says again Blessed be they who understand the magnificient Praise of the Lord Beatus populus qui intelligit jubilationem curramus ad hanc Beatitudinem intelligamus jubilationem non eam sine intellectu sundamus let us hasten to this Blessedness let us understand it let us not pour it out unless we understand it Hence follows that few in the Church of Rome can attain unto this blessedness of understanding the Lords Praise because it cannot be compassed without perfect knowledge of the Latine tongue which cannot be acquired without a tedious progress in the study of it which progress is morally impossble for the Commonalty who make up the greatest number in that Communion Yet they are uncharitably and that contrary to S. Augustines Admonition excluded from this Blessedness by a new Commandment and Article of Faith lately sabricated in the Conventicle of Trent to their utter destruction For what profit can they receive that hear a sound and are strangers to the meaning of it it were as good that they were absent as present and therefore Solomon calls this doting kind of serving God Sacrificium stultorum a Sacrifice of Fools and so really it is For they that hear it are no further benefited thereby than they have capacity to apprehend it as Azorius learnedly affirms in these words Devotion springs from understanding Affectus consequitur intellectum ubi autem earum rerum quae petuntur aut dicuntur nullus habetur intellectus ibi exiguus assurgit affectus consequenter valdè exiguus fructus when there is no understanding of things that are sought or said there is but little Devotion and consequently very little benefit reapt by the hearer Indeed according to this grave Doctors opinion it were as advantagious to them that are not Latinists to have a speechless Priest so say Mass mentally as one that hath the freedom of speaking to say it loudly for he that cannot speak and hath no speech and he that hath none to be understood is all alike unto the ignorant in regard of profiting them which is a thing rarely well confirmed by St. Augustine in the 4th Book of his Christian Doctrine the 10th chap. exciting the people with a great deal of vehemency to refrain from the perverse custom of praying in an unknown Language which in no way says he tends to edification There is no cause says he why a man should speak at all if they for whose sake he speaks understand him not Quid prodest locutionum integritas quam non sequitur intellectus audientis Cum loquendi nulla causa si quod loquimur non intelligunt propter quos ut intelligant loquimur For God hears the Priests thoughts when he speaks not as well as when he speaks he hears the Prayers of the Heart and sees the Word of the Mind and a speechless Priest can do all the Ceremonies and make the Signs and he that speaks aloud to them that understand him not does no more So the Author of the Exposition upon the first Epistle to the Corinthians by some thought to be St. Ambrose chap. 14. says If ye be convened to edifie the Church Si ad Ecclesiam aedificandam convenitis ea dici debent quae intelligunt auditores things ought to be spoken which the hearers understand Which Doctrine is plainly seconded by Cassiodore upon Psal 46. in these words We ought not only says he to sing Non solum inquit cantantes sed
intelligentes psallere debemus nemo enim quidquam facit sapienter quod non intelligit but also to know and understand the sense meaning of our singing for none can do any thing rationally except he knoweth the meaning of it And likewise by Jacobus Faber Stapul in his Comment on 1 Cor. 14. who affirms rebuking the people for their Lewdness touch-this particular That a great part of the world now a days prayeth Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat nescio si Spiritu scio tamen quod non mente orat nam linguâ orat quam non intelligit but whether their Prayers proceed from the Spirit of God I know not but I know they pray not from the heart nor to any effect because they pray in an unknown tongue If the aforegoing incontroulable Authorities of these holy Fathers be not sufficient to confute Bellarmines groundless Surmise and imaginary Comment by saying that in the former ages of the primitive Church Common Prayers were generally practised in Latin amongst the Faithful and Professors of Christianity for his and his Sticklers Disgrace and Shame I add Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 14. Lyra ibid. and Cassander Liturg. cap. 28. who siding with St. Paul do frequently tell us that Divine Service or publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue do not edifie and consequently were forbidden as I have shewn evidently already To this effect I might produce the torrent of the holy Fathers who flourished in the succeeding ages of the Church but that I am willing to shun prolixity And so I go on to the proof of the third part of my Assertion which is That the Practical Custom of all Christian Nations anciently was to pray in their own native Languages and it is to this very day Here Origen in his 8th Book against Celsus may come in as an impartial Witness testifying that the Grecians in their Prayers use Greek and the Romans the Roman Language and so every Nation according to his Idiom prayeth to God and praiseth him as they were able And Lyra seconds him thus on 1 Cor. c. 14. affirming that in the primitive Church Blessings our Lords Prayer and all other things were done in the vulgar tongue nay not only Common Prayers but the whole Bible was anciently by many Translations made fit for the peoples use as St. Hierom. Epist ad Sophr. affirms that himself translated the Bible into the Dalmatian tongue And Vlphilas Sozom lib. 6. Hist c. 37. a Bishop among the Goths translated it into the Gotick tongue And that it was translated into all other Languages we are told by St. Chrysost Homil. 1. in 8. S. Joannis By S. August l. 2. c. 5. de Doctrinâ Christianâ And Theodoret Serm. 5. de Graecar Affect Curat Besides all these authentick Testimonies of the aforementioned renowned Doctors who indifferently acquaint all Christians that in the primitive Church the Priest and the People joined together in their Prayers and understood each other and prayed in their mother-tongue I will produce for a further and more palpable conviction of this Foppery the words of the Civil and Canon Law. Justinian the Emperour made a Law in these words Our Will and Command is that all the Bishops and Priests do celebrate the Sacrament of Oblation and the Prayers thereunto added in the holy Baptism with a loud and clear voice which may be understood by the faithful that thereby the minds of the Hearers may be raised up with greater Devotion to set forth the Praise of the Lord God for so the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 14. And Innocent III. is most express herein in the great General Council of Lateran as themselves esteem held anno 1215. Can. 9. where he hath these words Because saith he in many places within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixt together having under one and the same Faith divers Ceremonies and Rites We strictly charge and command that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses provide men fit who may celebrate the Divine Office according to the diversity of their Languages c. If you will inquire why are they not as stedfast followers of Pope Innocent in this point as in that of Transubstantiation I can give you no other reason but that I am afraid they will be called Libertines by their ill-wishers for making use of the Laws of God and Man as they please to the advancement of their Self-ended Errors and for impudently rejecting what is contrary thereunto Now if the usual Custom of the Prophets Christs Institution and exemplary manner of preaching and teaching to say Prayers in an understood Language if the Words of the Apostle the Practice of the primitive Church the Sayings of the holy Fathers and Concessions of impartial men of their own Communion if the Consent of all other Christian Nations and the Piety of our Forefathers if right Reason and the nature of publick Service it self if the Needs of the Ignorant and Condition of the holy Prayers if the Laws of Princes and the Laws of the Church which require all our Prayers to be said according to the Understanding of our Auditors if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the poor ignorant peoples Souls as to consent they should understand what in particular they ask of God assuredly there is great pertinacy of Opinion and very little Charity to those procious Souls for whom Christ suffer'd and for whom they must give a strict account And the Papists themselves own that at this very instant of time the Egyptians Moscovians Sclavonians Armenians Ethiopians Moravians Bohemians Hungarians the Jacobites Abassines and all other Christian Nations have in and throughout the whole Universe their Liturgies in their own native Languages And Eckius affirms that the same practice and no other is observed in the Indies in Asia in Africa or any other part of the world amongst Christians And that being so it is strange that the Protestants should not have the same priviledge without any peremptory Censure from the See of Rome of being Hereticks and damned for doing nothing else but what other Christians do As to the proof of the fourth part of this Assertion This prophane custom of Prayers in an unknown Language which the Church of Rome so closely sticks unto is derived 1. From the Osseni Hereticks as Epiphanius affirms Haeres 19. 2. From the Heracleonites of whom St. Augustine gives an account saying That they taught to pray with obscure words supposing that words in a barbarous and unknown tongue might be more powerful 3. If we may give credit to famous Historians both ancient and modern From the Jews who in their Synagogues not only formerly but at this very day read Hebrew which the people rarely understand And besides from the Turks who in their Mosques read Arabick of which the people know nothing The very consideration of these leading Patterns which the Church of Rome does so pertinatiously imitate herein have been so prevailing with me as to forsake her Communion and to embrace that of the Reformed Church wherein surer Guides unto Eternity can be demonstrated And now having given an account of the Motives of my Change I have one only Request to make to the candid Protestants that they would not treat a new Convert as the Christians did St. Paul on his first Change Act. 9.26 by being afraid of me and not believing me to be a sincere Proselyte for as I never persecuted any of them in my life but rather did them all good offices that lay in my power so I hope it will be some motive to them to believe my Conversion real when it is done at a time when they themselves are not without fears and apprehensions of Disadvantage FINIS ADVERTISEMENT BEcause that I the Writer of the foregoing Book am in some degree a stranger to the English Tongue I desire the Reader ingeniously to pardon my unskilfulness in it and not to be disgusted if he meet with some improprieties in the Language for although by the advice and direction of my Friends many improper expressions were corrected yet I suppose that some Errors of that nature do still remain ERRATA PAge 3. line 22. read Armenians p. 4. in the margin r. Andradius lib. 3. Orthodoxarum Explicationum Resp ad Axiom 6. alii apud Casalium lib. 1. c. 12. prim part de quadripert justit p. 6. l. 20. r. taken p. 7. l. 25. and afterwards r. Cataphas ib. l. 30. r. de Conciliorum Authoritate p. 8. l. 4. r. Nation ib. in the Latin citation r. Ecclesia p. 15. l. 18. r. Faith and Duties ib. l. 28. r. nine parts in ten p. 16. l. 33. r. Romish Religion p. 17. l. 1. r. to the rights ib. l. 2. r. liberties p. 30. l. 5. r. yet it ceases not ib. l. 18. r. for itu p. 31. l. 28. r. he does p. 33 in the latin citation of Lindanus r. id est anno Domini p 35. in the latin citation of Card. Bona r. sub specie ib. r. communicarunt p. 41. l. 8. r. necessity p. 42. l. 13. of the latin citation r. sacrilega p. 43. l. 31. r. impartial ib. l. ult r. corporis p. 44. l. 11. r. parting of one p. 45. l. 25. r. reconcilable ib. l. 32. r. Lindanus who agreeing p. 47. l. 7. r. erroneous p. 51. l. 14. r. therefore p. 54. l. 13. r. Haeres p. 57. l. 3. r. Bell. lib. 2. c. 23. de Reliquiis sanctis Books Printed for and Sold by William Norman and Eliphal Dobson BIbles and Common Prayers in all volumes Book of Homilies Boltons Statutes Boltons Justice of Peace Book of Rates Plurality of Worlds Prayers and Meditations Gawens Logicks Mortons Devotions Dr. Lakes Officium Eucharisticum Dr. Burnets Life of the Earl of Rochester Tillotson against Transubstantiation Bishop of Corks Sermons Silvius de Febribus Mullineux's Sciothericum Telescopicum Discourse against Purgatory Discourse against Auricular Confession The Interest of Ireland