l. 3. At alii apud Casail de quadripli justit l. 1. c. 12 Collium de anim pag. l. 1. c. 24. l. 5. c. 7 8 22. many of their own Writers do grant a possibility of Salvation to the Pagans if they live good moral lives and yet the Protestants thô they believe in Christ and profess all the Articles of the Apostles Creed and lead their lives suitable to the Gospel must be damned to Hell only because they cannot believe the Church of Rome to be their Mistress nor call the Pope their Master on Earth It seems that Infidelity is a lesser crime then Non-Communion with Rome that there is more hopes of Pagans then of Protestants to be saved and that it is more pardonable not to believe in Christ Jesus then to deny the authority of the Church of Rome In that many of them make so few things to be necessary to be believed in order to eternal salvation that upon their own Principles they cannot exclude the Protestants from the hopes of it and for those that inlarge the Articles of Belief a little farther they cannot deny Salvation to the Protestants if they believe all that they require as necessary Some men make the Belief of Jesus Christ and submission to his Laws sufficient to bring a man to Heaven and if so it is very uncharitable to exclude Protestants from it that believe so much as well as themselves Others add the knowledge and belief of those things that are contained in the Lords Prayer and the Ten Commandments and Doctrin of the Sacraments Now take the explicite credenda in which of these Notions you will it is hugely uncharitable to exclude the Protestants out of Heaven when they believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God and submit to his Laws and live according to his Religion when they believe all that is contained in the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue and assent to the Doctrin of those Sacraments that are generally necessary for salvation CHAP. II. Of the Infallibility of the Pope THE second Motive is The Doctrine of the Roman Church concerning the Infallibility of the Pope also concerning an Infallible Church and General Council and concerning the Infallible Judg or Guide in Controversies about Religion which the Romanists talk so much of and pretend to have No man certainly that fully considers the various models of an Infallible Guide which the several parties of Papists do describe and defend in opposition to one another will wonder that I have given this Chapter a manifold Title The great uncertainty and confusion of Opinions which I found in the Romish Communion about this affair was not the least cause of my being discontented with that Religion It startled me exceedingly at the beginning of my inquiry to find the main Pillar of the Romish Doctrin that is the Infallible Director above mentioned was only a name without any reality for there is little or nothing set up by one party under this name or title which is not strongly confuted by another of the Roman Catholicks yet they all join to run down the Protestants for having a Religion built upon no secure foundation for all Religion is so insecurely built if we believe the Romanists which is not bottomed upon the Testimony of some visible Infallible director whether that be the unerring guidance or direction of the Pope as some think or of a Pope and General Council together as others do judg or of a Council without the Pope and acting under an assumed President as a third sort imagine Now it is true indeed that our Faith ought to rely upon an Infallible Foundation and the written Word of God is the thing and the vain pretence of a visible unerring Judge or Guide is nothing but mere conceit as I shall hereafter plainly shew Therefore I look upon my self at present as obliged to acquaint the Reader how much I found my self mistaken concerning this Infallible Guide which heretofore I very much relied upon When I entered into an enquiry and would very gladly have consulted him and take his advice immediately I found my self lost in an endless wilderness of Disputes dissentions and inconsistent Opinions concerning him For the writers of the Roman Church are divided into several Sects about this affair and what one party of them sets up another party pulls down and rejects Most Divines that have dependance on the Court of Rome and likewise many others maintain that the Pope is Infallible in his own Person and that he needs not the concurrence of general Councils but can make Infallible Decrees concerning Faith and Manners by himself alone yet they are not well agreed about this neither Albertus Pighius as it is reported by Cardinal Bell. lib. 4. c. 2 de Rom. Pont. was of opinion that the Pope could not become a Heretick neither in his private capacity nor when he acted publickly by his Pontifical Authority Now the Cardinal thô a great Assertor of Papal Priviledges yer condemns this Opinion of Pighius for an extravagance Thus The third Opinion for he had cited two before is in the other extream Tertia sententia est in altero extremo Pontificem non posse ullo modo esse Haereticum nec docere publicè Haeresin etiamsi rem aliquam solus definiat Ita Albertus Pighius lib. 4. c. 8. Hierarch Eccl. that the Pope in no way can become an Heretick nor publickly teach Heresie although he defines some things by himself alone Nevertheless not only this Cardinal but also Cajetan and Baronius most of the order of the Jesuites and in short all the Divines of the Italian Faction do stifly maintain the personal Infallibility of the Pope In some sense indeed more moderatly and in some sense more extravagantly then Pighius for they are more moderate in acknowledging that the Pope in his private capacity may become a Heretick and much worse Yet they constantly affirm that in his publick capacity and when he makes use of his Pontifical Authority then he cannot possibly be in the wrong nor teach any false Doctrin And this Position they endeavor to make good by the best Arguments they can get Every little shadow of proof that occurrs either in the holy Scripture or in the Fathers is setched out in order to confirm this pretended unerring priviledg of the Roman Prelate Amongst other things the Example of the Jewish high Priest is thought to have some weight in it thô some of those were Idolaters and one that is Caiphas by the same sentence condemned Christ for a Deceiver and the whole Christian Religion for an Imposture Now the Romish Doctors being urged with this mighty Scandal and shame to Pontifical Infallibility do some of them give this answer that Caiphas mistook the matter of Fact but not the matter of Faith. See Bell. Tom. 2. lib. 2. c. 8. Concil de Authoritate Rom. Pont. And the wise Author of the Papist Misrepresented pag. 46. brings
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
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
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
Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam veteris quam novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum Literis ita praeponi ut de illà omninò dubitari an t disceptari non possit utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in eâ scriptum esse constiterit Aug. lib. 2. contra Donat. cap. 3. both of the old and new Testament is comprehended within its own determined limits and that it is so far preferred before the more modern Writings of Bishops as that it is unlawful to doubt or to dispute about it or to question whether any thing manifestly written in it be true or right But he then immediately after tells us that the case of Ecclesiastical Writers of National Synods and General Councils is quite otherwise Who knows not that the Writings of Bishops Quis autem nesciat Episcoporum Literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cujuslibet in eâ re peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem Authoritatem doctiorúmque Prudentiam per Concilia licere reprehendi si quid in eis forsan à veritate deviatum est ipsa Concilia quae per singulas Provincias vel Regiones fiant plenariorum Conciliorum Authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria priora saepe posterioribus emendani Aug. ubi supra which either heretofore have been written or are at present in composing since the Canon of Scripture is established may lawfully be reprehended by a more ingenious Discourse proceeding it may be from a person skilfuller in that affair or by the more grave Authority of other Bishops or the Prudence of the more learned or also by Councils Moreover who knows not that Provincial or National Synods do yield without delay to the Authority of General Councils which are gathered out of all the Christian world and that General Councils precedent in time are often corrected by them that are subsequent Here we see that according to St. Augustine nothing but the Word of God is esteemed incorrigible or infallible not so much as a General Council Therefore I am resolved to follow this Doctrine and to adhere to the Word of God as my only Rule And because I find that the Church of England in this particular agrees most exactly with St. Augustine for that reason I will henceforth embrace the Communion of that Church CHAP. III. Of Transubstantiation THE third Motive of my Conversion is my dislike to the modern Doctrine of Transubstantiation and I may well call it so because it was disliked by the antient Fathers and was full 1215 Years before it could obtain the credit to be defined as an Article of Faith for it was not defined such till the Council of Lateran held the above mentioned Year under Innocent III. and the Testimonies of the Fathers Councils as hereafter you shall see are so decretory against it that the learned Arch-Bishop of Paris doth ingeniously acknowledg it Petr. Mar. Tract de Eucharist And for the justification of it they have been forced to corrupt their Logick and their Natural Philosophy the better to season Young Novices for the reception of it in Divinity and maintain such Paradoxes in them both that if the Protestants had the ill Fate to take them up they long ago had been hissed out of the Schools for defending them Such are the proposition of accidents existing without a subject and the possibility of one Body being in divers places at the same time they have destroyed the nature of a Sacrament by taking away the Visible Sign and have stretched the words of Institution to a sense that many of their own Writers did not believe before it was defined and some have since been so candid as to confess that they could not see the meaning of Transubstantiation in the Text if it were not for the authority of the church They are forced to tell all men loudly to their faces that four of their Senses are mistaken about their proper Object when neither the Medium nor the Organ are indisposed That there is no Bread there at all thô they see feel smell and taste Bread. That the Senses of this or that man are not only mistaken which is somewhat pardonable but the Senses of all mankind at all times and in all places whensoever they receive the Eucharist nay that they are engaged so fatally in the mistake that they are never like to be retrieved out of it thô they use their utmost care to detect the fallacy They are forced to contradict the common reason of mankind and maintain Propositions that sound Reason doth abhor in all other instances Sound Reason tells us that one Body can be but in one place at one time that it must have partes extra partes distant in situation and impenetrable that it must have a quantity and extension that Accident cannot subsist without a Subject that conversion of one Substance into another cannot be without a change in the Accidents But in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation we are taught to disbelieve all these Principles The Body of Christ is at the same time in many places far distant from one another it is glorious in Heaven and on Earth subject to a thousand dishonours it occupies a certain place there but in the Host it takes up none but is in manner like a Spirit in an indivisible point it moves in one place and rests in another it is elevated in one place and depressed in another and all at the same time and season That the Body of Christ is without quantity and extension that there is length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad roundness and nothing round thickness and yet nothing thick That the Body of Christ doth exist without its accidents and essential properties and the accidents of Bread and Wine without a subject and yet these accidents shall do still the same seats and serve a man to as usuall purposes as if the substance were with them a man may seed upon them and be nourished with them and have his Spirit cheered and refreshed with the colour and smell of Wine thô he drink not a drop of it Lo these are the paradoxes which the defenders of Transubstantiation must be forced to take up for the justification of it and they must still seem so to me till I meet with a clear and satisfactory answer to them There was a time when I was content to swallow them as well as others the prejudice of Education and Authority of the Church had so great an influence upon me that I did not consider them as I ought but as by the blessing of God I have shaked off the prejudice of the one so I am still willing to pay a deference to the authority of the other if it can be made good that
MOTIVES OF CONVERSION TO THE CATHOLICK FAITH As it is PROFESSED IN THE REFORMED CHURCH OF ENGLAND By Neal Carolan formerly Parish-Priest of Slane and Stacallan c. in Meath Imprimatur Aug. 8. 1688. Rad. Rule R. R. in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Francisco Archiep. Dublin à sacr domest DVBLIN Printed by Jos Ray for William Norman in Dames-street and Eliphal Dobson at the Stationers Arms in Castle-street 1688. The Preface to the Reader IT is just and reasonable that every man that deserts the Communion of a Church in which he hath been educated and embraceth a Communion distinct from it should render some accompt to the world of the reasons of his change that so he might avoid the imputation of levity and rashness This hath been done by many of the Protestants that have embraced the Roman Faith namely by Dr. Vane Mr. Cressy Mr. Manby and others and by many Romanists that have embraced the Reformed Religion by the Learned Archbishop of Spalato and several others and being my self resolved to forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome and to embrace that of the Reformed Church of Ireland which I think more agreeable to the Word of God and to the Primitive Antiquity I look on my self to be under the same obligations of satisfying others in the Motives of my change As it was my great happiness to be Baptized into the Christian Faith so it was my misfortune to be educated in that which is far distant from it I mean the Roman Faith as it now stands since the determinations of the Council of Trent and I hope the Gentlemen of that Religion will not take it ill that I call it an infelicity since I can entertain no other apprehensions of it whilst I lie under the convictious that are at present upon my Spirit In the Communion of this Church I was admitted into the seven Holy Orders of the Church in a weeks time by Anthony Geoghegan Bishop of Meath in the Year 1662 and in the month of August in the same Year I was sent to Paris where I was instructed in Phylosophy in the College of Grassini and took the Degree of Master in Arts in the University of Paris aforesaid and after Writing my Speculative Divinity in the College of Navar in the said University under Dr. Vinot Dr. Saussoy and Dr. Ligny I finished my course and took up a resolution of returning to my Native Country where I landed about June 1667 and afterwards continued about some two years teaching a private School in the Borders of Meath till in the year 1669 I was instituted into the Parish of Slane and Stacallan by Oliver Desse then Vicar General of the Dioress of Meath where I continued as Parish Priest for four intire years to the no small content and satisfaction of my Parishioners from them in the year 1675 I was removed to the Parishes of Paâ—â—stown and Brownstown and in the year 79. commanded back again to my first charge in Slanâ— During this time I had the opportunity of reading two Bookes that were most especially recommended to the Clergy of the Province of Uâ—ster by the late Primate Oliver Plunket viz. Archdokins Theologia Tripartita and the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel The former of these he distributed amongst us at a certain price when the first imprâ—ssion of it came forth and the latter we were required to purchase as being very proper to confute Protestants out of their own Bibles I was no less forward in procuring the Books then industrious in reading them and for a long time I thought them unanswerable till at length discoursing with some of the Reverend Protestant Clergy of Meath I found by them that the Touchstone was only an old Book new vampt up with a new Title and some few Chapters added and that it had been long ago published under the Title of the Gag for the new Gospel and learnedly been answered by the Reverend Bishop Mountague Whereupon I procured the answer to it and upon perusal found that the Author of the Old Gag ro New Touchstone call it which you please had in many things basely misrepresented the Doctrine of the Protestants propounding it in such crude and indifinite terms as no sober Protestant doth acknowledge it for their sense as in his 2d Proposition he affirms that Protestants say that in matters of Faith We must not relye upon the judgment of the Church and of her Pastors but only on the written word In the 3d that the Scriptures are easily to be understood In the 4th that Apostolical Traditions and ancient customs of the Church not found in the written word are not to to be received nor oblige In the 5th that a man by his own understanding or private Spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture In the 7th that the Church can erre In the 32 that the Saints may not pray for us and so in others None of which Propositions are owned by Protestants as their Doctrines without many previous distinctions and limitations I found also that in other things he had hudled together many Propositions as the general sense of Protestants which if he had consulted their learned Writings he would have found to be no more then School Points and Problematical Questions nay which are still disputed as such by the best learned men in the Church of Rome Such are for Example The Doctrines of Freewill in the 19th Proposition The Impossibility of keeping the Commandements in the 20th Proposition The Inamissibility of Faith in the 23th The Doctrine of Election and Reprobation in the 24th The Doctrine of Assurance of Salvation in the 25th and The Doctrine of every mâ—n having his Guardian Angel in the 26th most of which Points are matter of Controversie between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants amongst the Protestants And between the Jansenists and Jesuits in the Church of Rome This unfair proceeding charging the Protestants with Doctrines which they either totally deny or do not acknowledge without previous distinctions bred a dislike in me to the Book and consequently put me upon an inquiry into those Doctrines of the Protestants which the Author of it had so fouly misrepresented and the more I read in their Writings the better I was reconciled to their Opinions and the worse I liked those of the Church of Rome some of whose Errors I shall briefly touch as the Motives of my Conversion and occasion of my deserting her Communion Motives of Conversion to the Catholick Faith as it is professed in the Reformed Church of England CHAP. I. Of the Vncharitableness of the Church of Rome THE first Motive thereof is her great Uncharitableness not only to Protestants but also to all other Societies of Christians this day in the World except themselves and that in two things First In confining the Catholick Church to themselves Secondly In excluding all others from hope of Salvation that are not in their own Communion It will be unnecessary to prove that these
are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome since there is no Controvertist that doth not affirm them and they are expresly defined in the Council of Trent in her Anathema to every Article And Pope Pius IV. affirms in his Bull That this is the Catholick Faith out of which no one can be saved All the Clergy of Ireland whether Secular or Regular are taught to say so the Priests and Friers affirm it in their Sermons now to the People more than ever And it is one of the most popular Arguments and common Topicks of Conversion that they all use to the Protestants to reconcile them to the Church of Rome That they are all Hereticks That they are out of the Church That there is no hopes of Salvation for them whilest they are so The first of these particulars viz. Confining of the Catholick Church to themselves is a Proposition so hugely unreasonable that I could hardly bring my self to the belief of it It seemed to me a very unreasonable thing that the Church of Rome which is but a Member of the Catholick Church and that none of the foundest should arrogate to it self the Name and Priviledges of the whole Catholick Quia à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter non valet consequentia Nec semper denominatio totius sequitur partes seperatim sumptas And I could find no Text of Scripture for the justification of it nor any sound Reason to prove it nor any promise of our Saviour on which to ground it and I concluded with my self that the affirming it might prove a dangerous prejudice to the perpetuity of the Church and contradict our Saviours promise concerning the Gates of Hell not being able to prevail against it because it was not only possible that the Church of Rome as well as other Churches might err but there are express Cautions given her in that particular by St. Paul Rom 11.18 20. Thou bearest not the root but the root thee Be not high minded but fear and if God spareth not the natural branches take heed least he also spare not thee In the Writings of the Primitive Fathers it appears that they never believed the Church of Rome to be any thing else but a particular Church Ignatius in the Title of his Epistle to the Romans stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Ambrose reckons the Roman Church in the same rank with the Churches of Egypt and Alexandria So that if they were particular or topical Churches the Church of Rome must be so too The same thing doth Pope * Apud Binium in Concil Ephesino Celestine in his Epistle to John Bishop of Antioch where he reckons up the Churches of Rome and Alexandria as Members of the Catholick Church Asseret se Nestorius fidem tenere quam secundum Apostolicam doctrinam Romana Alexandrina Catholica universalis Ecclesia tenet Nay it appears by the Epistle of Pope Innocent III. to John Lib. 2. Epist 200. Patriarch of Constantinople that in the 12th Century the Pope himself did not believe it Dicitur autem universalis Ecclesia quae de universis constet Ecclesiis quae Graeco Verbo Catholica nominatur says he Ecclesia Romana sic non est universalis Ecclesia sed universalis Ecclesiae pars Besides this I find this very Proposition condemned in the Donatists and looked upon by the Fathers as the grand Fundamental Principle of their Schism and Division for they as appears by the Writings of St. Augustine and Optatus did affirm that Christ had no Church on Earth but in the parts of Donatus that the Church was perished in all parts of the World except their own Assemblies and that Salvation no where could be had but in their Communion they esteemed the rest of the Christians to be no better than Pagans they broke their Chalices scraped their Altars and washed their Vestments and the Walls of their Churches pretending that all was polluted by their touch of them How much of this Spirit doth reign in our modern Donatists is easily observed by any man that will take the pains to compare their Writings and Practises with those of their Ancestors the antient Donatists in Africk And indeed it is high time for every man to leave the society of that Person that thinks himself alone to have reason and all the rest of mankind to be mad and out of their wits Nor is this Proposition only unreasonable but is also very uncharitable in as much as it condemns not only Protestant Churches but all the Christians in the Eastern parts of the World that are not of the Roman Faith the Greeks and Arminians the Jacobites and Nestorians the Maronites and Abissines and Cophtites or Christians of Egypt and for ever excludes them from hopes of Salvation which is in effect to unchurch the greatest part of Christians and condemn them to everlasting burnings who are more in number and more extend in Territories then the Professors of the present Roman Faith can pretend to be notwithstanding all their brags of Universality It may be perhaps said that the Eastern Christians and Protestants are Hereticks but I think it much easier to say so than make it good and if they were yet the charity of the modern Bomanists is much more streightned than that of St. Augustines was De Baptis contra Don. l. 1. c. 10. l. 5. c. 27. who durst not deny a possibility of Salvation even to Hereticks themselves For when the Donatists did object that Heresio is an Harlot that if Baptism of Hereticks be good then Sons are born to God of Heresie and so of an Harlot His Answer was that the Conventicles of Hereticks do bear Children unto God not in that wherein they are divided but in that wherein they still remain join'd with the True Catholick Church not in that they are Hereticks but as much as they profess and practise that which other Christians do Nay according to the Opinion of the Roman Doctors they have no reason if they stand to their own Principles to judg so severely of Hereticks for they grant that the honour of Martyrdom is only peculiar to the Members of the Catholick Church and they cannot deny but it is possible for an Heritick to suffer for the Christian Religion and lay down his life in the defence of the Faith of Christ From whence it must inevitably follow according to their own confessions that either Hereticks may be saved or else Martyrdom is not proper to the Church and Members of it Nor are the Romanists only unreasonable and uncharitable in confining the Catholick Church to themselves but they are so in excluding also other Christians from the hopes of Salvation that are not of their own Communion This will appear from two Considerations First they are more uncharitable to them then they are to Heathens that never heard of Jesus Christ for * Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civitat Dei. l. 18. c. 47. Andr. id
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
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