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
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
France which makes the Bishop of Rome inferiour to a Council and decrees against his Priviledge of not erring in Faith and Manners and contrariwise adjudges it only to the Church and to a Council the Representative thereof Here we have seen this learned Sorbon Doctor directly opposite to the Italian Divines concerning this affair which is under debate It is likewise very well known that Richerius another Doctor of Sorbon and as good a Roman Catholick as the best of them has written his History of General Councils on set purpose therein to run down and demolish the Personal Infallibility and other pretended Priviledges of the Pope But above all Monsieur Maimbourg a most inveterate Enemy to the Protestant Religion has composed a Book designedly to confute the vain pretence of Papal Infallibility and in the sixth Chapter of that Book above-mentioned he alledges all manner of Authorities in order to convince mankind that the Pope is not infallible and he clearly makes out his Allegations i◠10 Chapters of the Book aforesaid concerning the Prerogatives of Rome and her Bishop That which is very pleasant is that Maimbourg finds several Popes who thought their Predecessors fallible and some though but a few who thought themselves so too Among these Adrian VI. like a modest and honest man when he was actually Pope continued to own in general and without exception that the Bishop of Rome might fall into Error Maimbourgs words are these Adrian VI. in his Commentaries upon the 4th of the Sentences says positively and in a most decisive manner That he is certain Cortum est quod Pontifex possit errare etiam in iis quae tangunt fidem Haeresin per suam determinationem aut Decretalem asserendo cap. 15. pag. 183. the Pope may err even in matters belonging to Faith teaching and establishing a Heresie by his Definition or by his Decretal Hence it manifestly appears that the French Catholicks are in this regard opposite to the Italian Papists Therefore Bellarmin will not let this French Doctrine pass it being very prejudicial to the Interest of the papal Chair at Rome but he contradicts it lib. 4. cap. 2. de Romano Pontifice and that very severely saying videtur erronea Haeresi proxima it seems to be wholly erroneous and next in the world to Heresie Here let the Reader consider how those Doctors of the Popish Perswasion disagree and contradict each other about their pretended infallible Judge or Guide in matters of Religion The French Divines and Pope Adrian VI hold that the Pope is not infallible and they say that the diffusive Church and a General Council is so Then comes Cardinal Bellarm with others like him and gives them the lye and then they of the other side not willing to dye in this debt do the like to him and his associates If it be said that both parties had more manners than to tax one another with the lye in express terms that is true indeed but yet they do the same in effect Finding this great discord amongst them I set aside the whole Italian Sect at once and could have been content if the French party had been able to advance a model of an infallible Guide with any concord amongst themselves and without contradicting one another But alas they also are full of Disputes and Dissentions and the best model they devise is liable to very great exceptions As for Disputes and Controversy the matter is thus Some hold that a General Council is the only infallible Guide and Judge in things appertaining to Religion but they allow the Pope many great priviledges in the Council For example a General Council say one party cannot be called but by the Popes Authority or by his Consent And the opinion of these men is to be found in Petrus de Marca the late famous Archbishop of Paris lib. 4. de Concordia Sacerdotii Imperii cap. 5. parag 4. Others affirm again that the Civil Magistrate may call an extraordinary Council which was the Judgment of the University of Paris publickly declared by the Command of King Charles VIII as may be seen in the 4th Book of the History of General Councils set forth by Richerius above mentioned C. 2. and the same was likewise the judgment of the late Famous Archbishop of Paris Lib. 6. C. 17.4 de concordia Sacerdotii Imperii A third sort hold it not to be absolutely necessary that the Pope should have any hand in constituting a General Council or in presiding in it or in ratifying the Decrees of it And this is the Opinion of Monsieur Maimbourg in his Book concerning the Prerogatives of Rome and her Bishop Chap. 16. Pag. 188 189. The same Opinion is likewise maintained by Richerius Historia Concil General lib. 1. c. 5. For in two General Councils that is the second and fifth the Pope neither presided by himself nor by his Delegates and the same Richerius disproves the colours and pretences found out by Baronius and Binius in order to make the World believe that the Pope had some presidency in the Councils above named Hitherto we find nothing in pursuit of this Infallible Guide but uncertainty and confusion everlasting Disputes and endless Quarrels This I considered and was exceedingly troubled to find my self so mightily deceived in my expectation But let us proceed farther and see whether any thing in the World be consistent and credible in this French Doctrin concerning their model of an Infallible Guide I am content to set aside the manifold Disputes concerning the nature and constitution of a Council on condition I may find them well agreed for the rest Notwithstanding if they were perfectly agreed and as harmonious as Musick yet there lies very many exceptions against their Opinion for if a General Council be the only thing incapable of Error then it follows inevitably that there has been no visible Infallible Guide upon earth for these 120 years last past For it is so long since any thing pretending to be a General Council was in being Therefore when the French Papists falsly charge the Protestants for having no certain ground-work or foundation of their Faith they do not consider that the Protestants may return the charge and ask those Papists where their Infallible Directors is since the Council of Trent was dissolved above 120 years ago If it be said that althô there is no Council now sitting yet Records and Writings which contain the Canons and Decrees of Councils are yet extant and may be consulted This makes a Writing capable of being a Guide or Director of our Faith which is a thing the Romanists will not admit of For when the Protestants affirm the written Word of God is only the Infallible Director then they except against all Writings as incapable of being any certain Directors because they may be wrested by Interpretation to bear many Senses And upon this account they call the Holy Scripture a Leaden Rule and a Nose of Wax Now
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
she hath authority to impose things on my Belief that thwart my Senses and contradict common Principles of Reason This monstrous and lately framed figment of human invention I mean the Doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the time it began to be owned publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced For all the World knows that by their own Parties by (a) In 4. lib Sentent d. 11. q. 3. Scotus by (b) ibid. q. 6. Ocham (c) Leâ—t 40. in can missae Biel Fisher Bishop (d) Cap. cont captivit Babyl of Rochester and divers others whom (e) De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect 2. dicit Bellarmine calls most acute and learned men It was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of Novelty But further we know that it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Innocent III. 1215 Years after Christ that since that pretended (f) Venere quidem tunc multa in confultationem nec decerni tamen aperte quic quam potuit Platina in vita Innocent III. determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have no more been satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirmed that the Article is not expressed in Scripture (g) apud Suar. tom 3. disp 46. sect 3. loc com lib. 3. fund 2. particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckoned And therefore if it was not expressed in Scripture it will be clear that they made their Article out of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it be there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past Argument and Probability it is certain That as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not taught at all as a Catholick Doctrine or as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now in order to make this appear we have the Confessions of many Authors very much esteemed by the Church of Rome whose authorities have been most exactly collected and examined by the learned Bishop Taylor to whom I own my self much indebted for my Conversion For the further manifestation of the incontroulable truth of this point we need no other proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the great Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says That before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23 Sect. unum tamen Sum. l. 8. c. 20. and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says It was not antient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of Ignorance saying He talked at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to little purpose he had heaped together Rem Transubstantionis Patres nè attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuites in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touched or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation Discurs modest p. 13. And in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confessed He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these L. 4. Senten dist 11 lit a. If it be enquired what kind of Conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or another kind I am not able to define it only I know that it is not formal because the same Accidents remain the same Colour and Tast To some it seems to be substantial saying that the Substance is changed that it is done essentially to which the former authority seems to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things if the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ which before was not the Body then every day some substance is made the Body and Bloud of Christ which was not his Body before And to day something is Christs Body which yesterday was not and every day Christs Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception These are his words which I have remarked not only for Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written about (a) Ad Annum 1160. fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran (b) Ad Annum 1215. Council And therefore it made haste in so short a time to pass from a disputable Question to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council (c) Secund. Buchol An. Dom. 1271. sed secund Volaterranum 1335. in 4. lib. Sen. tent dist 11. q. 1. sect propter tertium Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintained that even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it be Christs Body and yet the matter of Bread remain And if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of Bread does not remain But here his Reason was overcome by Authority and he durst not affirm that which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account of But by this it appears that the Opinion then was but in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain and the Opinion was not determined at Lateran as it is now held at Rome It is also plain that it is a stranger to antiquity De Transubstantiatione â—anis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio De Heraes l. 8. verbo Indulgentia said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of Transubstantiating the Bread into Christs Body I know the modesly and interest of
the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it there was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be denyed by any sober person who considers that it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerate times and argued and unsettled almost 1300 years after Christ And that it was so will but too evidently appear by the stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law. For Berengarius was by Pope Nicholaus commanded to recant his Errors in these words and to affirm Cap. Ego Bereng consecr dist 2. Verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum in Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sâ—cerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in the Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before 115 Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet this day it is renounced by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded says the Gloss will-lead unto Heresie But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reproved but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their Hypothesis they spake more warily but yet differently from what they spake at first So it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not and it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church these following Testimonies do make evident Advers Marqion l. 4. c. 40. The words of Tertullian are these The Bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body The same is affirmed by Justin Martyr Contra Tryph. Judae The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion In Dialog contra Mar. Collectis ex Maximo tempore Commodi Severi Imper. Origen calls the Bread and the Chalice the Images of the Body and Blood of Christ And again that Bread which is sanctified by the Word of God so far as belongs to the matter or substance of it goes into the belly In Matt. 13. and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural and glorified Body of Christ were greatly blasphemous and therefore the Body of Christ which the Communicants receive is not the Body in a natural sense but in a spiritual which is not capable of any such accident as the Elements are Eusebius says Demonstr Evangel l. 1. c. 1 ult h. 2. that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Oeconomy commanding the Image and Type of his own Body to be made St. Macarius says that in the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood and they that partake of the Bread that appears do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explicated For when they affirm that in this Sacrament is offered the Figure the Image the Antitype of Christs Body and Blood although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christs Body and Blood which we all believe as certainly as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner The same is also fully explicated by the good St. Ephrem The Body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from the sensible substance De sacris Anti och legibus a pud Photium l. 1. c. 229. and is undivided from a spiritual Grace For even Baptism being wholly made spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of Water saves and that which is born doth not perish St. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expresly in this Question as if he had undertaken on pupose to consute the Article of Trent Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal Supper Orat. 2. in Pasch but still in figure though more clear than in the old Law. For the legal Passover I will not be afraid to speak it was an obscure Figure of a Figure St. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically Epist ad Caes contr Haeres Apollinarii cit per Damasc Colect Senten Pp. contr Severianos edit per Tunian h. 23. in 1 Cor. that be fore the Bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it To these very many more might be added but instead of them the words of St. Augustin may suffice as being an evident conviction what was the Doctrine of the primitive Church in this Question In Psalm 98. This great Doctor brings in Christ speaking thus to his Disciples You are not to eat this Body which you see or drink that Blood which my Crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you And again Christ brought them to a Banquet in which he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood for he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body and that which is by all men called a Sacrifice is the Sign of the true Sacrifice in which the Flesh of Christ after his Assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance But in this particular the Canon Law it self and the Master of the Sentences are the best Witnesses De Consecrat dist 1. c. qui manducant c. prima quidem c. non hoc corpus c. quid paras in both which Chollections there are divers Testimonies brought especially from St. Ambrose and St. Augustin which whosoever can reconcile with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may easily put a Civet and Dog a Pidgeon and a Kite into couples and make Fire and Water enter into natural and eternal Friendships Theodoret and Pope Gelasius speak more emphatically even to the nature of things and the Philosophy of the Question Christ honoured the Symbols and Signs saith Theodoret not changing the Nature but to Nature
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
against Image worship The sact of Epiphanius rending the Veil that hung in the Church of Anablatha is effectual to demonstrate what an abomination it was in his days and in his opinion to worship Images which himself in his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem translated by St. Hierom out of Greek into Latin does thus explain I found there says he a Veil hanging at the door of the Church dyed Inveni ibi Velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens Imaginem quast Christi vel Sancti cujusdam non enim satis memini cujus Image fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra Auctoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imagi nem scidi idud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperom mortuum eo obvelverent efferrent Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym Tom. 2. Oper Hieron Ep. 60. and painted and having the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I do not well remember whose Image it was When therefore I saw this that contrary to the Athority of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged up in the Church of Christ I cut it and gave counsel to the Keepers of the place that they should wrap and bury some poor dead man in it And afterwards he intreated the Bishop of Jerusalem under whose Government this Church was To give charge thereafter Praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi Vela quae contra nostram Religionem veniunt non appendi Epist Epiphanii ubi supra that such Veils as these which are repugnant to our Religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ Had this holy Father now been arised from the dead and had seen the great number of Images not only hung in Churches and Oratories of them of the Communion of Rome but also worshiped and adored relatively as their Disputants term it how much Christian Reader think you would he be amazed and astonished hereat would he not rather judge them to be the Churches of Baal than of Christ And yet these people brag of Antiquity after this and pretend to rely on the Authority of ancient Writers in asserting the Lawfulness of Image-worship Let us hear in the next place what Lactantius says Imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines serviunt omni Sensu carent quia terra sunt Quis autem non intelligat nefas esse rectum animal curvari ut adoret torram quae ideo subjecta est ut calcanda à nobis non adoranda sit Quare non esse dubium quin Religio nulla fit ubicunque simulachrum est Divini autem nibil est nisi in caelestibus rebus carent ergo Religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse caeleste in ea re quae fit ex terrâ Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 17 18. Those consecrated Images says he which vain men do serve want all Sense because they are earth Now who is there that understands not that it is unfit for an upright creature to be bowed down that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feet that it may be trodden upon not worshiped by us Wherefore there is no doubt but that there is no Religion wherever there is an Image There is nothing that is godly but consists in heavenly things Therfore Images are things that have nothing to do with Religion or they are void of Religion because nothing that is heavenly can be in that thing which is made of earth St. Ambrose affirms that in his days the Church was an utter stranger to any thing like Images He tells us That the Church acknowledged no vain resemblances Ecclesia inanes ideas vanas nescit simulachrorum figuras sed veram novit Trinitatis substautiam Lib. de Jacob Vitâ beata nor any vain Figures of Images but that it acknowledged the true Substance of the Trinity When Adrian the Emperor had commanded that the Temples should be in all Cities rendred clear of Images it was immediately apprehended that he had provided these Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteth in the Life of Alexander Severus Which is a convincing Argument that it was not in use with Christians in those days to have any Images in their Churches This I suppose is enough to demonstrate that the ancient and primitive Church was as great a Stranger to Images and that it abhorr'd them as much as the Church of England does at present Many and large Collections have been made by Protestant Writers of the Sense and Opinions of antient Writers concerning this particular unto whom I must refer the Reader because the present occasion will not permit me to be prolix or tedious in reciting them I have examined several of these Collections and find them to be accurate and this is one principal motive of my Conversion We see by what has been already alledged of what account the use of Images was in the ancient and best times Christians then would by no means permit them to be brought into their Churches Nay some of them would not so much as admit the Art it self of making them so jealous were they of the danger and careful to prevent the deceit whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to adore them Now the Church of Rome does own that it is very abominable to worship an Image absolutely that is to make it the principal or sole object of Adoration But their evasion here in is that a relative Worship is not forbidden nor falleth under the compass of Idolatry that is to say to worship an Image in regard of him whose Image it is and by reason of the relation it has to him it is not against the Commandment To this I answer that the Worship of it after that manner doth not excuse the Worshippers from Idolatry since the Commandment is delivered in general expressions and has no limitation or restriction but it forbids without exception all bowing down to them and worshipping of them of what kind soever the Worship be Had a relative Worship of Images been accounted lawful in the primitive ages certainly the holy Fathers and Councils would not have omitted to acquaint us therewith But we find the quite contrary for when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no known Images they did not say we have Images to be relatively worshipped But Minutius Felix returned them this for answer Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam cùm ipse Homo si recte existimes sit Dei simulachrum Mi nut in Octav. What Image shall I make of God when Man himself if you rightly judge is Gods Image St. Augustine discoursing about the Duties that arise from the first Table of the Decalogue has this following passage It is forbidden that any similitude of God should be worshipped in things contrived by humane invention Prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominem