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
for my part I cannot perceive but that the Canons and Decrees of dead Councils are liable to wresting and misinterpretation as well as the Holy Scripture Methinks the Bishop of Condom's Book is a very strong proof of this and many instances of the like I could give but I shall omit them because it is notorious that the sense of many Canons is exceedingly disputable Thus I plainly perceive upon the whole matter that either Records of Councils are no infallible or sufficient Guide or if they be so the Holy Scripture is much more such Whence it follows that the Protestants are in the right by relying mainly upon the Scripture Certainly if a Writing can afford infallible direction the written Word of God has the best pretence in the World to that office Therefore the Reformed Church hath reason in some respect to thank the French Papists for althô their pretended unerring Director is not sufficient yet it suggests to them where they may find out one that is very sufficient Such will be the consequence of that model of an Infallible Guide which is advanced and defended by the Gallican Church and by others that follow their method But there are yet farther Inconveniences in it enough to dissatisfie any considerative person whatsoever I was content as you have heard to pass by the great Controversie above mentioned between the Italian and French men I could have prevailed with my self to have connived at the many dissentions under which the Gallican Divines do labour concerning the nature and constitution of a General Council Yet after all I perceive it is impossible to get to an end of their Controversies in so much that I am affraid I shall incumber the Reader with a tedious and long account of them The thing that at present I shall consider is their dissention concerning the extent of that Infallibility which they attribute to General Councils For some extend the supposed Infallibility attending the Councils aforesaid to all sorts of Decrees whether they concern Faith or Practice and this was the current sense of the University of Paris 145 years ago as appears by their conclusions concerning this affair publickly agreed upon and declared Anno Dom. 1542. by the Theological Faculty of that University Articulo 22. It is certain say they that General Councils lawfully assembled Certum est Concilium Generale legitime Congregatam universalem representans Ecclesiam in Fidei Morum determinationibus errare non posse and representing the Universal Church cannot err in Decrees concerning Faith and the Church But of late the Gallican Doctors sing a new song they have departed from this Opinion of their Predecessors and restrained their imagined Infallibility of Councils only to matters of Faith. And an account of this one may find p. 9. of the Reflections made upon the first Answer given to the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Besides it is in every bodies mouth that has been educated in France that in matters of Practice Discipline or Government General Councils are not Infallible Thus at one stroke the French Doctors of these last ages have cut off at least in nine or ten parts from the extent of that Infallibility which their Predecessors 145 years ago did ascribe to the Decrees of Councils For most certain it is the Rules of Practice appertaining to Christianity are to speak within compass nine or ten times as many as the matters of Faith. So the modern French Clergy do hold a much less extended Infallibility then what was heretofore held and taught by the Theological Faculty of Paris above mentioned and according to the modern Position or Doctrin we are deserted by the unerring Guide in much the greater part of Christianity and may err and wander in all practical Points and scatter as much as any Hereticks whatever Hereupon some perhaps will say that although the Office of an infallible Conductor be reduced to a very small compass yet notwithstanding it is better to have his help and assistance as little as it is than to want it Truly there was a time when I thought so too but then I considered that most of those Points controverted between Protestants and Papists are matters of practice Therefore if the unerring direction of the Guide does not extend to practical Decrees it follows that most of the points aforesaid have not hitherto been infallibly determined in savour of the Church of Rome The Worship of Images the Adoration of the Gross the Worship of Angels and Saints the half Communion the Adoration of the Host and several other things are points of practice and not properly matters of Faith. If it be said that the Decrees made by the Council of Trent concerning those things do virtually and implicitly contain a point of Faith by obliging us to believe the lawfulness or expediency of doing them I answer that the case of other Decrees about matters of Practice Discipline or Government is just the same In so much that either all practical Decrees must for this reason be reducible to matters of Faith or else the Decrees concerning Image Worship half Communion and the rest abovementioned cannot be reduced to that kind but must be rank'd among matters of Practice and so are not capable of any infallible Determination if the Description of the Guide given by the French Divines be true But if any man will maintain that all practical Decrees are reducible to matters of Faith for the reason aforesaid then the deposing Canon of the Lateran Council is reducible to the same kind and is consequently established in the Roman Church by an infallible Decree which makes it an essential part of the Romish Church Now this is that great inconvenience which the French Clergy do endeavour to avoid by restraining the unerring priviledge of the Councils to matters of Faith alone They are sensible that several Constitutions and Decrees of Councils are prejudicial to Rights of Sovereign Princes and injurious to the Libertis of the Gallican Church they are aware of the great mischief which those Canons and Decrees made for deposing Kings might bring upon them if their potent Monarch should perceive that such Doctrines are judged essential to the Religion of Rome and for that reason they warily restrain the supposed Infallibility of Councils to matters of Faith alone and so give themselves room and scope enough to run down the deposing Canons Doctrines and yet to pretend that they have an infallible Guide still left in store But this design will be quite ruined if practical Decrees are therefore esteemed to be infallible because they include or suppose a speculative Doctrine concerning the lawfulness or expediency of things they enjoyn For if such Decrees and Constitutions are infallible then they are essential parts of the Roman Catholick Religion even the deposing Canons among the rest So that I plainly see the Frenchmen will be necessitated by trusting to the Conduct of their infallible Guide either to own that
that pleases may consult the whole and judge whether I do any wrong I am sure I intend to deliver nothing but what is truth After a Preface containing the reasons of their proceedings it is said The holy General Council of Constance defines Concilium sacrum generale Constantiense definit quod licet Christus post Caenam instituerit suis Discipulis administraverit sub utraque Panis Vini specie venerabile hoc Sacramentum tamen hoc non obstante c. Acta Conc. Constant edit Labb that altho' Christ did institute this venerable Sacrament after Supper and administer it under both kinds of Bread and Wine to his Disciples yet hoc non obstante notwithstanding this it is first decreed that the Sacrament should not be celebrated after Supper And then some things being brought in by way of Preamble to put a blind upon the matter It is also decreed that the custom of giving only one kind to the people tho' contrary to Christs Institution and the Practice of the primitive Church should thenceforth be accounted Law. In the latter part of the Canon there is a clause directly opposite to the Decree of Gelasius above mentioned For whereas that ancient Pope had declared that receiving in one kind could not be without Sacriledge the Canon of Constance contradicts him after this manner Therefore to say the observation of this custom or Law Quapropter dicere quod hanc consuetudinem vel legem observare sit sacrilegum censeri debet erroneum is sacrilegious ought to be judged erroneous Then it seems the Decree of Gelasius ought to be judged erroneus For that Decree affirms the custom or law about receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious as has heretofore been abundantly shewn Thus having found the Practice and Doctrine of the present Church of Rome contrary and repugnant to the Word of God and to the Judgment of ancient Authors of which some were Popes publickly enacting the direct opposite to what was lately decreed at Constance I could not but conclude that I was in no right way And therefore took up a resolution to adjoin my self to the Protestant Church where I saw the Command of Christ carefully observed and the Sacrament in both kinds given to the people according to his Institution CHAP. V. Of Image-Worship THe fifth Motive of my Conversion is the Use or rather the Abuse of Images There is none that pretends to the least knowledge of Antiquity but knows that the Worship of Graven Images is far from being either a Christian Apostolick Primitive or Catholick Practice and yet the Papists give to graven Images the Worship due to God to Christ and his Saints tho they pretend otherwise We need not enquire what actions they suppose fit to be used in their Image-Worship For these appear in their publick Processions their Incensings and Pilgrimages their Prayers and Vows made unto them Certainly the Worship of a graven Image is plainly and frequently forbidden in the Old Testament as you may read in the Commandments uttered with Gods own Mouth with Thundring and Lightning on Mount Sinai viz. Thou shalt not make to thy self any graven Image nor the likeness of any thing that is in Heaven above or in the Earth beneath or in the Water under the Earth thou shalt not how down to them nor worship them Which Thunder from Heaven the Guides of the Romish Church discerning to threaten vehemently their dreadful Idolatry which daily they commit thought fit in wisdom to conceal the knowledge of the second Commandment from the people by excluding it from the Decalogue and dividing the tenth into two And notwithstanding their Image-Worship is so infinite a Scandal to the Jews and Turks and a Reproach to Christianity it self among all strangers that live with them and observe their Rites and that it cannot in the least be pretended to be lawful but with the laborious artifices of many Airy and Metaphysical Distinctions which the people who most need them do least understand yet they use these and many other miserable shifts and silly evasions whereby they labour to darken the Light of the true Catholick Doctrine in this point as has been manifested by many of great capacity to the full in their Comments on Deut. 4.15 16. and other places of Scripture where you may see that the adoring of the very true God himself in or by an Image cometh within the compass of Idolatry which the Word of God condemneth and therefore that this whole Doctrine and Practice is contrary to the Law of God I need not tell you Let us hear what the primitive Christians held concerning Images first in their Councils secondly in the Writings of the primitive Fathers First then as to their Councils For keeping of Pictures out of the Churches the Canon of the Eliberine Council held in Spain about the time of Constantine the Great gives this direction It is our Will that Pictures ought not to be in the Church lest that which is worshiped or adored should be painted on the Walls Which words have so troubled the Wits of the late Church of Rome that Melchior Canus scrupleth not only to accuse the Council of Impudency but also of Impiety for making such a Law. In a Council of several Bishops in the year of our Lord 730. under Leo the Emperor titled Iconomachus Images were solemnly condemned And in another Council held at Constantinople ann 755. or thereabouts under the Reign of Constantine Copronymus with great solemnity they were also condemned Notwithstanding the several Decrees of these Councils enacted against the Idolatrous Worship of Images the second Council of Nice advanced Image-Worship And that indeed was very likely to be the product of a Council assembled by that most wicked Empress Irene who was bred and educated in Heathenism and probably continued a Heathen in her heart all the days of her life if we may judge of her Religion by her actions Certainly no person that had any sense of Christianity would ever do the things that she did Now by the Authority and Interest of this impious Woman and by the procurement of Pope Adrian I. this Decree for Image-worship was obtained But this Decree altho' it was not by many degrees so gross as what was afterwards invented by the Schoolmen of the Popish Communion yet was rejected as repugnant to the Doctrine of the Church of God by the Princes and Bishops of England about the year 792. and afterwards by Charles the Great and the Bishops of Italy France and Germany which by his appointment were gathered together in the Council of Frankford in the year 794. Thus much I thought needful to be alledged against the Worship of Images from the Authority of Councils some of which have better pretences to be accounted General than either the second of Nice or that of Trent can pretend to But then in the second place if we consider the Testimonies of the Fathers we shall find them plain
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 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