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
adding Grace Sentent lib. 4. dist 11. dialog 1. c. 8. which Symbols are seen with the title of his Body and Blood. Dialog 2. c. 24. For neither do the mystical Signs recede from their Nature for they abide in their proper substance figure and form and may be seen touched c. And for a Testimony that will be esteemed infallible I alledge the words of Pope Gelasius De Duabus Nat. contra Eutych Nestor videatur Picherel in Dissert de missa expositione verbo rum Institutionis coenae Domini Truly the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive are a divine thing for that by them we are made partakers of the Divine Nature yet ceases not to be the substance or nature of Bread and Wine And truly an image and similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the action of the mysteries If the Patrons of this novelty be not yet satisfied by what is already said in reference thereunto let them see and diligently mark these following Councils Ancyranum anno Domini 314. Can. 2. Neocaesariense anno eodem Can. 13. Nicenum 1. an 325. in act lib. 2. c. 3. Laodicenum ann 364. Can. 25. Carthagiense ann 397. Can. 24. Aurelianense ann 541. Can. 4. Toletanum 4. an 633. Can. 17. Bracarense ann 675 C. 2. Toletanum 16. ann 693. C. 6. Constantinopolitanum in Trullo ann 691. Can. 32. and if there be any shame in them they will never brag of Antiquity to patronize them therein for they are diametrically repugnant unto them in this behalf Now from these premises I am not desirous to infer any odious consequences in reproof of the Church of Rome but I think my self bound in conscience to swerve from it and judge it my duty to give caution and admonition to all other well disposed Christians to do so likewise 1. That they be not abused by the Rhetorical words and high expressions alledged out of the Fathers calling the Sacrament the Body or Flesh of Christ For we all believe it is so and rejoyce in it But the Question is after what manner it is so whether after the manner of Flesh or after the manner of spiritual Grace or sacramental consequence I with the holy Scriptures Jo. 6.36 and primitive Fathers affirm the latter the Church of Rome against the words of Scripture and the Explication of Christ affirm the former 2. That they be careful not to admit such Doctrines under the pretence of being ancient since although the Roman Error had been so long admitted and is ancient in respect of our days yet it is an Innovation in Christianity and brought in by Ignorance Power and Superstition very many ages after Christ 3. I exhort them that they remember the words of Christ when he explicates the Doctrine of giving us his Flesh for Meat and his Blood for Drink that he tells us Ut supra the Flesh profiteth nothing but the Words which I speak are Spirit and they are Life 4. That if these ancient and primitive Doctors above cited say true and that the Symbols still remain the same in their natural substance and properties even after they are blessed and when they are received and that Christs Body and Blood are only present to Faith and Spirit that then whoever attempts to give Divine Honour to these Symbols or Elements as the Church of Rome does attempts to give a Creature the due and incommunicable propriety of God and that then this evil passes further than an error in the understanding for it carrys them to a dangerous practice which cannot reasonably be excused from the crime of Idolatry To conclude this matter of it self is an error so prodigiously great and dangerous that I need not tell of the horrid and blasphemous Questions which are sometimes handled by them of the Church of Rome concerning this divine mystery As if a Priest going by a Bakers Shop and saying with an Intention Hoc est Corpus meum whether all the Bakers Bread be turned to Christs Body whether a Church-mouse does eat her Maker whether a man by eating the consecrated Symbols does break his fast for if it be Bread and Wine he does not and if it be Christs Christs Body and Bloud naturally and properly it is not Bread and Wine Whether it may be said the Priest in some sense is the Creator of God himself whether his Power be greater than the Power of Angels and Archangels For that it is so is expresly affirmed by Cassenaeus Gloria mundi 4. num 6. Whether as a Bohemian Priest said that a Priest before he says his first Mass be the Son of God but afterward he is the Father of God and Creator of his Body But these things are too bad and therefore I love not to rake in so filthy channels but give only general warning to all them whom I wish well to take heed of such persons who from the proper consequences of their new sound Articles grow too bold and extravagant and of such Doctrines from whence these and many other evil Propsitions frequently do issue As the Tree is such must be the Fruit. But I hope it may be sufficient to say that what the Church of Rome teaches of Transubstantiation is absolutely impossible and implies contradictions very many to the belief of which no Faith obligeth me and no Reason can endure CHAP. IV. Of the Half Communion THE fourth Motive of my Conversion is another piece of Novelty I was much dissatisfied with and that is the Half Communion And the more I inquired into the Word of God and the Sense of the primitive Church concerning it the more I found cause to dislike it Certainly the common Reason of all men that are Christians cannot but suggest unto them that every Command Order and Institution of Christ ought to be accounted extremely sacred and that whatever he has appointed should be observed most religiously without any deviation from the Rule which he hath delivered Now upon examination I found that the Church of Rome had made a very unwarrantable and a strange alteration in the Administration of the Sacrament by detaining the Cup from the people and therefore I hope no rational man can blame me for rejecting Communion with her and adhering to that Religion of the Reformed Church where I saw the Command of our Saviour carefully observed and his Institution most obsequiously followed And because I do here enter upon an Accusation of the Church of Rome it is reasonable I should in the first place set down what I apprehend to be the Doctrine of that party concerning this matter and then I will endeavour to demonstrate that both the Doctrine and Practice of it are repugnant to the Word of God and to the Doctrine and Practice of the primitive Church It is pretended by the Romanists that they have made no change in any thing material or essential to the Sacrament For they resolutely affirm
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
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
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
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
the man he would not have said it had been seldom if he could have found it in any reasonable degree warranted he might have said and justified it there was no mention at all of this Article in the primitive Church And that it was a meer stranger to Antiquity will not be denyed by any sober person who considers that it was with so much uneasiness entertained even in the corruptest and most degenerate times and argued and unsettled almost 1300 years after Christ And that it was so will but too evidently appear by the stating and resolution of this Question which we find in the Canon Law. For Berengarius was by Pope Nicholaus commanded to recant his Errors in these words and to affirm Cap. Ego Bereng consecr dist 2. Verum Corpus Sanguinem Domini nostri Jesu Christi sensualiter non solum in Sacramento sed in veritate manibus Sâ—cerdotum tractari frangi fidelium dentibus atteri That the true Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ sensually not only in the Sacrament but in truth is handled by the Priests hands and broken and grinded by the teeth of the faithful Now although this was publickly read at Rome before 115 Bishops and by the Pope sent up and down the Churches of Italy France and Germany yet this day it is renounced by the Church of Rome and unless it be well expounded says the Gloss will-lead unto Heresie But however this may be it is plain they understood it not as it is now decreed But as it happened to the Pelagians in the beginning of their Heresie they spake rudely ignorantly and easily to be reproved but being ashamed and disputed into a more sober understanding of their Hypothesis they spake more warily but yet differently from what they spake at first So it was and is in this Question at first they understood it not and it was too unreasonable in any tolerable sense to make any thing of it but experience and necessity hath brought it to what it is But that this Doctrine was not the Doctrine of the first and best ages of the Church these following Testimonies do make evident Advers Marqion l. 4. c. 40. The words of Tertullian are these The Bread being taken and distributed to his Disciples Christ made it his Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body The same is affirmed by Justin Martyr Contra Tryph. Judae The Bread of the Eucharist was a Figure which Christ the Lord commanded to do in remembrance of his Passion In Dialog contra Mar. Collectis ex Maximo tempore Commodi Severi Imper. Origen calls the Bread and the Chalice the Images of the Body and Blood of Christ And again that Bread which is sanctified by the Word of God so far as belongs to the matter or substance of it goes into the belly In Matt. 13. and is cast away in the secession or separation which to affirm of the natural and glorified Body of Christ were greatly blasphemous and therefore the Body of Christ which the Communicants receive is not the Body in a natural sense but in a spiritual which is not capable of any such accident as the Elements are Eusebius says Demonstr Evangel l. 1. c. 1 ult h. 2. that Christ gave to his Disciples the Symbols of Divine Oeconomy commanding the Image and Type of his own Body to be made St. Macarius says that in the Church is offered Bread and Wine the Antitype of his Flesh and of his Blood and they that partake of the Bread that appears do spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ By which words the sense of the above cited Fathers is explicated For when they affirm that in this Sacrament is offered the Figure the Image the Antitype of Christs Body and Blood although they speak perfectly against Transubstantiation yet they do not deny the real and spiritual presence of Christs Body and Blood which we all believe as certainly as that it is not transubstantiated or present in a natural and carnal manner The same is also fully explicated by the good St. Ephrem The Body of Christ received by the faithful departs not from the sensible substance De sacris Anti och legibus a pud Photium l. 1. c. 229. and is undivided from a spiritual Grace For even Baptism being wholly made spiritual and being that which is the same and proper of the sensible substance I mean of Water saves and that which is born doth not perish St. Gregory Nazianzen spake so expresly in this Question as if he had undertaken on pupose to consute the Article of Trent Now we shall be partakers of the Paschal Supper Orat. 2. in Pasch but still in figure though more clear than in the old Law. For the legal Passover I will not be afraid to speak it was an obscure Figure of a Figure St. Chrysostom affirms dogmatically Epist ad Caes contr Haeres Apollinarii cit per Damasc Colect Senten Pp. contr Severianos edit per Tunian h. 23. in 1 Cor. that be fore the Bread is sanctified we name it bread but the Divine Grace sanctifying it by the means of the Priest it is freed from the name of Bread but is esteemed worthy to be called the Lords Body although the nature of Bread remains in it To these very many more might be added but instead of them the words of St. Augustin may suffice as being an evident conviction what was the Doctrine of the primitive Church in this Question In Psalm 98. This great Doctor brings in Christ speaking thus to his Disciples You are not to eat this Body which you see or drink that Blood which my Crucifiers shall pour forth I have commended to you a Sacrament which being spiritually understood shall quicken you And again Christ brought them to a Banquet in which he commended to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood for he did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the Sign of his Body and that which is by all men called a Sacrifice is the Sign of the true Sacrifice in which the Flesh of Christ after his Assumption is celebrated by the Sacrament of Remembrance But in this particular the Canon Law it self and the Master of the Sentences are the best Witnesses De Consecrat dist 1. c. qui manducant c. prima quidem c. non hoc corpus c. quid paras in both which Chollections there are divers Testimonies brought especially from St. Ambrose and St. Augustin which whosoever can reconcile with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation may easily put a Civet and Dog a Pidgeon and a Kite into couples and make Fire and Water enter into natural and eternal Friendships Theodoret and Pope Gelasius speak more emphatically even to the nature of things and the Philosophy of the Question Christ honoured the Symbols and Signs saith Theodoret not changing the Nature but to Nature
things whatsoever I have commanded you We see hence how express our Saviours words are that all Nations should be taught to observe whatever he commanded his Disciples who would think if he saw it not before his eyes that any Society of Christians that will needs be called the Catholick Church should avowedly trample under foot this manifest Command of God They are so far from teaching all Nations to observe what Christ commanded his Disciples that they professedly teach the quite contrary Our Saviour said Drink ye all of it No says the Church of Rome all shall not drink of it but a few shall that is consecrating Priests One would imagine that these Texts of holy Scripture above mentioned should make a deep impression upon all men that pretend to have any regard for the Laws of God and they did so till 1200 years after Christ when the practice of detaining the Cup from the people began first to be introduced by a corrupt custom and was long afterwards established by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance So new and late is this Point of Popery that it was not conciliarly decreed till about 272 years ago And yet nothing is more usual with the Roman Catholicks than to brag of the Antiquity of their Religion I shall have an opportunity hereafter of considering this late Decree of Pope Martin when I come to produce the ancient Canon of Pope Gelasius made near 1200 years ago expresly repugnant and contary to this late Decree of Martin For Gelasius declares receiving in one kind to be sacrilegious At present I shall proceed to alledge the Testimonies of the ancient Fathers to shew that they understood our Saviours words Drink ye all of this agreeably to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England that is so as to account all Christians without exception obliged to partake of the Cup. But by the way I cannot but observe that Paschasius Corbeiensis a man of great credit in the Church of Rome for his Invention of Christs corporeal Presence in the Host about the year 830. did expound the words above mentioned contrary to the Sense of the present Church of Rome and in favour of the Protestants His expressions are these It is Christ that breaks this Bread Christus est qui frangit hunc Panem per manus Ministrorum tribuit credentibus Similiter calicem porrigit eis dicens accipite bibite ex hoc omnes tam Ministri quam reliqui Credentes Paschas be Coena Domini cap. 14. and by the hands of the Ministers delivers it to the Believers Likewise he gives them the Cup saying take and drink ye all of this both the Ministers and other Believes Here we see Paschasius makes the Command to extend to all without any difference and it is a wonder to me why the Roman Catholicks do follow this man so zealously in his Invention of the corporeal Presence of Christ in the Eucharistical Bread and will not admit of his Interpretation of this Command of Christ that all Believers should drink of the Cup. But there are much more ancient and authentick Authors who understood our Saviours words according to the Sense of the Reformed Church of England whose Testimonies hereafter follow and that in reference of proving that the Members thereof do not expound Scripture according to their own private Judgment as it is falsely imputed to them by the wretched Author of Pax Vobis Mr. Manby and others who as I plainly find never understood any thing of the Doctrine of this Church concerning the Interpretation of Scripture The first ancient Writer whose Authority I intend to make use of is S. Justin Martyr one that lived not long after the Apostolick age and lost his Life for the Profession of the Christian Faith. He in his second Apology gives an account to the Emperor of the method and manner of Divine Service amongst the Christians and coming to give an account of the Lords Supper he does it thus They that are called Deacons among us do distribute to every one present Qai apud nos vocantur Diaconi distribuunt unicuique priesentium ut participent de Pane Vino Aquâ benedictis Justin Apol 2. that they may partake of the consecrated Bread and Wine and Water It is remarkable that he says the Deacons gave both kinds to every one present and a little after he tells us they did so because our Saviour in the Gospel commanded them to do so For says he the Apostles in the Books written by them Nam Apostoli in Commentariis à se scriptis quae Evangelia vocantur ita sibi praecepisse Jesum tradiderunt Justin Apol. 2. ubi supra which are called the Gospels have taught us that Jesus commanded them to do so Bellarmin pretends that this last expression of S. Justin concerning the Command of Christ hath only relation to the Gonsecration not to the Administration of the Sacrament But any man by reading the place will sind the Cardinals words to be groundless For the Command of Christ is offered by S. Justin as the reason of the whole procedure in celebrating the Sacrament and not as particularly respecting the Consecration of the Elements The second anâ—ient Author whose Testimony I shall produce as an uncontroulable Evidence in this behall is St. Cyprian who flourished principally about the Yeat 250. and not many Years after was put to death for his Religion This Holy Martyr in his Epistle to Caecilius reprehends the Aquarians that were Hereticks so called because in the Consecration and Administration of this Holy Sacrament of our Lords Supper they made no use of Wine but used Water in stead of it Now Sr. Gyprian reproves these Aquarians upon two accounts First in that they offered to Consecrate without Wine and secondly in that they gave no Wine to the People and in both respects he taxes them with a very great tranfgression of the command and appointment of our Saviour The former miscarriage and irrogularity of the Aquarians doth not concern the Roman Catholicks because they use Wine when they Consecrate But in the second point they are like the Aquarians and therefore do fall under the same censure with them Let us hear what St. Cyprian says concerning this whole affair He begins the Epistle by telling Caecilius That although many Reverend Bishops did exactly observe our Lords Tradition for so calls he the Command or Institution of Christ yet says he because some out of Ignorance or simplicity in consecrating the Cup of our Lord Tamen quoniam quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in Calice Dominico sanctificando plebi ministrando non faciunt quod Jesus Christas Dominus Deus noster hujus Sacrificii Auctor Doctor fecit docuit religiosum pariter ac necessarium duxi de hoc ad vos literas facere at siquis in isto errore adhuc teneatur veritatis luce perspectâ ad radicem
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