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
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
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
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
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
against Image worship The sact of Epiphanius rending the Veil that hung in the Church of Anablatha is effectual to demonstrate what an abomination it was in his days and in his opinion to worship Images which himself in his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem translated by St. Hierom out of Greek into Latin does thus explain I found there says he a Veil hanging at the door of the Church dyed Inveni ibi Velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens Imaginem quast Christi vel Sancti cujusdam non enim satis memini cujus Image fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra Auctoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imagi nem scidi idud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperom mortuum eo obvelverent efferrent Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym Tom. 2. Oper Hieron Ep. 60. and painted and having the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I do not well remember whose Image it was When therefore I saw this that contrary to the Athority of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged up in the Church of Christ I cut it and gave counsel to the Keepers of the place that they should wrap and bury some poor dead man in it And afterwards he intreated the Bishop of Jerusalem under whose Government this Church was To give charge thereafter Praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi Vela quae contra nostram Religionem veniunt non appendi Epist Epiphanii ubi supra that such Veils as these which are repugnant to our Religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ Had this holy Father now been arised from the dead and had seen the great number of Images not only hung in Churches and Oratories of them of the Communion of Rome but also worshiped and adored relatively as their Disputants term it how much Christian Reader think you would he be amazed and astonished hereat would he not rather judge them to be the Churches of Baal than of Christ And yet these people brag of Antiquity after this and pretend to rely on the Authority of ancient Writers in asserting the Lawfulness of Image-worship Let us hear in the next place what Lactantius says Imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines serviunt omni Sensu carent quia terra sunt Quis autem non intelligat nefas esse rectum animal curvari ut adoret torram quae ideo subjecta est ut calcanda à nobis non adoranda sit Quare non esse dubium quin Religio nulla fit ubicunque simulachrum est Divini autem nibil est nisi in caelestibus rebus carent ergo Religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse caeleste in ea re quae fit ex terrâ Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 17 18. Those consecrated Images says he which vain men do serve want all Sense because they are earth Now who is there that understands not that it is unfit for an upright creature to be bowed down that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feet that it may be trodden upon not worshiped by us Wherefore there is no doubt but that there is no Religion wherever there is an Image There is nothing that is godly but consists in heavenly things Therfore Images are things that have nothing to do with Religion or they are void of Religion because nothing that is heavenly can be in that thing which is made of earth St. Ambrose affirms that in his days the Church was an utter stranger to any thing like Images He tells us That the Church acknowledged no vain resemblances Ecclesia inanes ideas vanas nescit simulachrorum figuras sed veram novit Trinitatis substautiam Lib. de Jacob Vitâ beata nor any vain Figures of Images but that it acknowledged the true Substance of the Trinity When Adrian the Emperor had commanded that the Temples should be in all Cities rendred clear of Images it was immediately apprehended that he had provided these Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteth in the Life of Alexander Severus Which is a convincing Argument that it was not in use with Christians in those days to have any Images in their Churches This I suppose is enough to demonstrate that the ancient and primitive Church was as great a Stranger to Images and that it abhorr'd them as much as the Church of England does at present Many and large Collections have been made by Protestant Writers of the Sense and Opinions of antient Writers concerning this particular unto whom I must refer the Reader because the present occasion will not permit me to be prolix or tedious in reciting them I have examined several of these Collections and find them to be accurate and this is one principal motive of my Conversion We see by what has been already alledged of what account the use of Images was in the ancient and best times Christians then would by no means permit them to be brought into their Churches Nay some of them would not so much as admit the Art it self of making them so jealous were they of the danger and careful to prevent the deceit whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to adore them Now the Church of Rome does own that it is very abominable to worship an Image absolutely that is to make it the principal or sole object of Adoration But their evasion here in is that a relative Worship is not forbidden nor falleth under the compass of Idolatry that is to say to worship an Image in regard of him whose Image it is and by reason of the relation it has to him it is not against the Commandment To this I answer that the Worship of it after that manner doth not excuse the Worshippers from Idolatry since the Commandment is delivered in general expressions and has no limitation or restriction but it forbids without exception all bowing down to them and worshipping of them of what kind soever the Worship be Had a relative Worship of Images been accounted lawful in the primitive ages certainly the holy Fathers and Councils would not have omitted to acquaint us therewith But we find the quite contrary for when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no known Images they did not say we have Images to be relatively worshipped But Minutius Felix returned them this for answer Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam cùm ipse Homo si recte existimes sit Dei simulachrum Mi nut in Octav. What Image shall I make of God when Man himself if you rightly judge is Gods Image St. Augustine discoursing about the Duties that arise from the first Table of the Decalogue has this following passage It is forbidden that any similitude of God should be worshipped in things contrived by humane invention Prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominem
Jerusalem and to the several Beds whereon He lay and Ships wherein he wafted from Region to Region because his attingency in and with them was voluntary with the Cross coactive Nay they ought upon the same ground to adore Judas his lips the Officers hands that apprehended and bound Christ the Scourges whereby He was whipt for they were instruments of his passion as well as the Cross If they adore all other Crosses for their resemblance of the original Cross so they ought to adore all Mangers all Launces all Nails Thorns Spittles c. for these have the same resemblance to our Saviours Manger and to those Nails Thorns c. which were the instruments of his Passion They attribute more Honour unto Christs Cross than to his Resurrection by these words We adore thy Cross and commemorate thy Resurrection Crucem tuam adoramus resurrectionem tuam recolimus They ascribe then it seems Adoration to the Cross which is only proper unto the Divine Nature and to the Cross likewise that is to the Wood they attribute the redemption of the world and the reconcilation of mankind unto God the Father vide Bellarmin lib. 2. c. 23. sect Ac primum They also attribute forgiveness of Sins and increase of Righteousness to the Cross they repose their hopes and confidence in the dead Wood of the Cross and beg remission of Sins from it as may be seen in their Hymns extant in the Roman Breviary corrected and revised by the authority of the Council of Trent and set forth by several Popes as may be seen in several Editions of it especially in that Printed at Paris anno 1662 whence I draw this that follows O Crux ave spes unica In hoc Paschali gaudio Auge piis Justitiam Reisque dona veniam That is in English thus Hail O Cross our only hope In this our Paschal joy Increase the Righteousness of the pious And give pardon to the guilty Nothing doubtless can be more prodigious unless it be what follows O Crux splendidior cunctis astris Mundo celebris hominibus multum amabilis Sanctior universis Quae sola fuisse digna portare talentum mundi Dulce Lignum dulces clavos dulcia ferens pondera Salva praesentem catervam In tuis hodie laudibus congregatam Alleluja Alleluja That is in English thus O Cross more bright than all the Stars Famous through the world very lovely to mankind More holy than all other things Which wast alone worthy to carry the Ransom of the world Dear Wood that carriest the dear Nails and the dear Burden Save the present Assembly which is to day gathered together for thy Praise Alleluja Alleluja Great Complements upon my word for a liveless piece of Wood for that they mean the material Cross and not the Passion of our Saviour their words do abundantly declare We see here they repose their hope and considence in the Wood they beg increase of Grace from it and ascribe to it a Power to forgive Sins which Attribute appertaineth to the Godhead only The Humanity of Christ separated from his Divinity is not to be adored with divine Worship as St. Augustin teacheth Homil 38. de Verbis Domini Therefore much less his Cross or any other representative Image of his The Holy Ghost is present in the Sacrament of Baptism yet it is not to be adored with the same Worship due to the Holy Ghost Therefore that Wood whereon Christ suffered and other Blocks or Stumps of Trees resembling it are not to be adored with the same veneration due unto Christ Many consequences that may be inserr'd from the Worship of the Cross and of Images are so prodigiously absurd impious blasphemous and so numerous that if I endeavoured exactly to enumerate and prosecute them I should never come unto an end Therefore I leave them to the upholders of these abuses whence they are emergent and also these upholders to trust to their Images like to like for they that make them Psal 115.8 are like unto them and so is every one that trusteth in them CHAP. VI. Of Prayers in an unknown Tongue THe Sixth and last Motive or Cause of my Declension from the Church of Rome is its lack of Charity in robbing Christians not only of the superabundant effects of our Lords Supper by dismembring it but also of that other effectual Remedy which Christ left unto them as means whereby they might attain unto Salvation viz. the benefit of Publick Service or Common Prayers by hindring them to make use thereof in the vulgar tongue intended by God and Nature for all peoples edification This Common Service Prayers Liturgy or Mass which in effect are all one the Conventicle of Trent in the 22th Sess and 8th chap. denies plainly to be expedient to use in the vulgar Tongue or Idiom So Stapleton the Jesuit in his English Book written against Bishop Jewel Artic. 3. p. 75. says inconsiderately that Devotion is rather hindred by using it in a known Idiom than promoted Bellarmine in the second Book de Verbo Dei chap. 15. endeavours to prove that anciently Common Prayers were universally practised in the Latin tongue by all Nations and consequently now ought to be so This self-ended and fabulous Natration of Bellarmines I beg his leave for saying it is far from truth and as contrary to Christs Ordinance to the Apostolick Practice and the general Custom of the primitive Church as Fire and Water black and white cold and heat are one to another Which first I prove by the Testimonies of Scripture 2. By the undeniable Authorities of the holy Fathers 3. By the usual Practice of all other Christian Nations 4. I shall endeavour to prove that the Church of Rome hath borrowed this practice from such Authors as it is a shame for her to imitate The Testimonies of Scripture produced to this effect 1. What Christ commanded that ought religiously to be observed in his Church but Christ by the mouth of his Apostle St. Paul commanded Common Prayers to be used in the vulgar Idiom understood by the hearers 1 Cor. 14.9 So likewise you except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood how shall it be known what is spoken for ye shall speak unto the air v. 14. For if I pray in an unknown tongue my Spirit prayeth but my understanding is unfruitful v. 16. Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at they giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest And v. 19. Yea I had rather speak five words with my understanding in the Church that by my voice I might teach others also then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue 2. Whatever is done in the Church that ought to redound to the edification thereof 1 Cor. 14 v. 26. How is it then Brethren when ye come together every one of you hath a Psalm hath a Doctrine hath a Tongue hath Revelation hath an Interpretation