for my part I cannot perceive but that the Canons and Decrees of dead Councils are liable to wresting and misinterpretation as well as the Holy Scripture Methinks the Bishop of Condom's Book is a very strong proof of this and many instances of the like I could give but I shall omit them because it is notorious that the sense of many Canons is exceedingly disputable Thus I plainly perceive upon the whole matter that either Records of Councils are no infallible or sufficient Guide or if they be so the Holy Scripture is much more such Whence it follows that the Protestants are in the right by relying mainly upon the Scripture Certainly if a Writing can afford infallible direction the written Word of God has the best pretence in the World to that office Therefore the Reformed Church hath reason in some respect to thank the French Papists for althô their pretended unerring Director is not sufficient yet it suggests to them where they may find out one that is very sufficient Such will be the consequence of that model of an Infallible Guide which is advanced and defended by the Gallican Church and by others that follow their method But there are yet farther Inconveniences in it enough to dissatisfie any considerative person whatsoever I was content as you have heard to pass by the great Controversie above mentioned between the Italian and French men I could have prevailed with my self to have connived at the many dissentions under which the Gallican Divines do labour concerning the nature and constitution of a General Council Yet after all I perceive it is impossible to get to an end of their Controversies in so much that I am affraid I shall incumber the Reader with a tedious and long account of them The thing that at present I shall consider is their dissention concerning the extent of that Infallibility which they attribute to General Councils For some extend the supposed Infallibility attending the Councils aforesaid to all sorts of Decrees whether they concern Faith or Practice and this was the current sense of the University of Paris 145 years ago as appears by their conclusions concerning this affair publickly agreed upon and declared Anno Dom. 1542. by the Theological Faculty of that University Articulo 22. It is certain say they that General Councils lawfully assembled Certum est Concilium Generale legitime Congregatam universalem representans Ecclesiam in Fidei Morum determinationibus errare non posse and representing the Universal Church cannot err in Decrees concerning Faith and the Church But of late the Gallican Doctors sing a new song they have departed from this Opinion of their Predecessors and restrained their imagined Infallibility of Councils only to matters of Faith. And an account of this one may find p. 9. of the Reflections made upon the first Answer given to the Papist Misrepresented and Represented Besides it is in every bodies mouth that has been educated in France that in matters of Practice Discipline or Government General Councils are not Infallible Thus at one stroke the French Doctors of these last ages have cut off at least in nine or ten parts from the extent of that Infallibility which their Predecessors 145 years ago did ascribe to the Decrees of Councils For most certain it is the Rules of Practice appertaining to Christianity are to speak within compass nine or ten times as many as the matters of Faith. So the modern French Clergy do hold a much less extended Infallibility then what was heretofore held and taught by the Theological Faculty of Paris above mentioned and according to the modern Position or Doctrin we are deserted by the unerring Guide in much the greater part of Christianity and may err and wander in all practical Points and scatter as much as any Hereticks whatever Hereupon some perhaps will say that although the Office of an infallible Conductor be reduced to a very small compass yet notwithstanding it is better to have his help and assistance as little as it is than to want it Truly there was a time when I thought so too but then I considered that most of those Points controverted between Protestants and Papists are matters of practice Therefore if the unerring direction of the Guide does not extend to practical Decrees it follows that most of the points aforesaid have not hitherto been infallibly determined in savour of the Church of Rome The Worship of Images the Adoration of the Gross the Worship of Angels and Saints the half Communion the Adoration of the Host and several other things are points of practice and not properly matters of Faith. If it be said that the Decrees made by the Council of Trent concerning those things do virtually and implicitly contain a point of Faith by obliging us to believe the lawfulness or expediency of doing them I answer that the case of other Decrees about matters of Practice Discipline or Government is just the same In so much that either all practical Decrees must for this reason be reducible to matters of Faith or else the Decrees concerning Image Worship half Communion and the rest abovementioned cannot be reduced to that kind but must be rank'd among matters of Practice and so are not capable of any infallible Determination if the Description of the Guide given by the French Divines be true But if any man will maintain that all practical Decrees are reducible to matters of Faith for the reason aforesaid then the deposing Canon of the Lateran Council is reducible to the same kind and is consequently established in the Roman Church by an infallible Decree which makes it an essential part of the Romish Church Now this is that great inconvenience which the French Clergy do endeavour to avoid by restraining the unerring priviledge of the Councils to matters of Faith alone They are sensible that several Constitutions and Decrees of Councils are prejudicial to Rights of Sovereign Princes and injurious to the Libertis of the Gallican Church they are aware of the great mischief which those Canons and Decrees made for deposing Kings might bring upon them if their potent Monarch should perceive that such Doctrines are judged essential to the Religion of Rome and for that reason they warily restrain the supposed Infallibility of Councils to matters of Faith alone and so give themselves room and scope enough to run down the deposing Canons Doctrines and yet to pretend that they have an infallible Guide still left in store But this design will be quite ruined if practical Decrees are therefore esteemed to be infallible because they include or suppose a speculative Doctrine concerning the lawfulness or expediency of things they enjoyn For if such Decrees and Constitutions are infallible then they are essential parts of the Roman Catholick Religion even the deposing Canons among the rest So that I plainly see the Frenchmen will be necessitated by trusting to the Conduct of their infallible Guide either to own that
Image-worship Invocation of Saints c. neither yet are nor indeed ever can be decreed infallibly or else they must own the Doctrine of deposing Princes to be infallibly decreed which is the thing they endeavour to avoid The latter case makes their Guide mischievous and dangerous and the former makes him in a manner unserviceable Thus we see what a miserable confusion these poor people have brought themselves to by pretending to find a visible Judge of Controversies incapable of Error among mortal men They have made the greatest part of Christianity an uncertain thing as far as in them lay by removing it as far as their Opinions could remove it from its proper and natural basis that is the Word of God and by grounding it upon the testimony of an airy phantome called an infallible Guide but owned by themselves to be liable enough to Error and to have erred most grievously in matters of the greatest importance They say this Guide cannot be mistaken in matters of Faith but in the conclusion they cannot tell what they themselves mean by that term matters of Faith for although that term be of it self clear enough yet they make the signification of it obscure and uncertain by confounding matters of Faith and matters of Practice being not able according to their Principles for as much as I understand to make any clear distinction between them When I was brought to this great uncertainty and did not know on what foundation to ground my Belief or how to understand certainly the Commands of God I remembred what was said Deuteron chap. 30. vers 11 12 13 14. The Commandment which I command thee this day is not hidden from thine eyes nor is it far off It is not in the Heaven above that thou shouldst say who shall go up for us into Heaven and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it neither is it beyond the Sea that thou shouldst say who shall go over the Sea for us and bring it unto us that we may hear it and do it but the Word is nigh thee even in thy mouth and in thy heart that thou maist do it And the same thing is repeated in the New Testament by St. Paul. Rom. c. 10. v. 6 7 8. with an application of it to the Christian Dispensation Having been thus taught of God I understood that it was not necessary for me to seek an infallible Guide either in Rome or France God has provided sufficient means whereby we may know his Will in all Christian Countrys without going beyond the Sea to fetch the knowledge of it from afar off His written Word is a Guide whose Veracity cannot be questioned and there are means to understand the true sense of it which are abundantly sufficient and infinitely better than the Romanists have to understand their pretended infallible Director For that is a thing that no man certainly knows neither what he is nor where he is neither how he is to be consulted nor how far he is to be trusted which doubtless are lamentable defects in a thing called a Guide The Word of God assuredly ought to be our Rule And I am resolved to follow it according to the Direction given me by St. Augustine Let no man say to me O! Nemo mihi dicat O! quid dixit Donatus aut Parmenianus aut Pontius aut aliquis alius illorum quia nec cum Catholicis Episcopis sentiendumest sicubi fortè fallantur ut contra Canonicas Scripturas aliquid sentiant Aug. de Vnit Ecclesiae c. 10. what said Donatus Parmenianus or Pontius or any other of them for neither ought we to agree with Catholick Bishops if perhaps in some cases they are so much mistaken as to entertain Opinions contrary to the Canonical Scriptures Thus we see St. Augustin prefers the Guidance of Gods Word to the Direction of any one or more Bishops although accounted never so Catholick It seemed strange to me that a matter of such weight and consequence as this is the stay and prop of all Religion as they term it and a thing that tends so much to the preservation of Truth and Peace in the Church should not be taken notice of by the four Evangelists who yet record many things of smaller importance That St. Paul should hint nothing of it to that Church that pretends so mightily to it That in his Epistle to the Corinthians where he takes notice of their Schisms one being of Paul another of Apollos and a third of Cephas he did not tell them that they ought to require Cephas his Judgment for the Determination of their Differences That Peter himself giving all diligence to mind the Christians of what was needful before his departure should forget to tell them of so necessary and so important an Article as this That the Scriptures so frequently warn us of false Teachers and false Prophets that should arise and yet tell us nothing of this infallible Remedy but rather put the cure of the evil upon the pains and diligence of the Christians in trying their Spirits That the Asian Bishops in their opposition against Pope Victor and the African in their opposition to Pope Stephen should either not know of this priviledge of St. Peters Successors or not acknowledge it if they did That St. Augustin and the Council of Carthage should be so ill instructed in the Faith as not to acknowledge it but rather stand out so stifly as they did in the case of Appeals That the Popes in the contest with him should be so ignorant of their own priviledges as not to alledge their Infallibity in the Point which would have put a speedy end to the Dispute but rather take Sanctuary in a pretended Canon of the Council of Nice That so many Councils should be called from distant parts of the world to the expences of the Bishops and the hazard of their Churches when there was a Remedy so near at hand as the consulting of the infallible Bishop of Rome on all occasions And lastly that the Popes themselves should so far disbelieve it as to contradict and rescind the Decrees of one another These things seem to me such mighty prejudices against this infallible Judg that I know not how to answer them To which I shall add that instead of putting an end to Controversies and being a Cure to the evils of Christendom as is pretended it is the most expedient way to promote and continue them by possessing that Church which hath been the great cause of Disputes with an opinion of her own Infallibility and consequently rendring her incurable in her Errors and incapable either of redressing them or satisfying the Consciences of them that dissent from her Consequently St. Augustine expresses the same thing in another place more largely than above in his last mentioned passage shewing nothing to have infallible Authority except the holy Scripture no not a General Council it self Who knows not says he that the holy Canonical Scripture
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
the Manichees would have gone undiscovered Hence I could not but conclude that Leo and all Orthodox believers of his time were of the same judgment in this point with the Reformed Church of England since that Reverend Bishop lookt upon receiving the Cup as a certain sign of an Orthodox and true Christian and esteemed the contrary practice an infallible marke of a detestable and sacrilegious Heretick And I am exceedingly confirmed in this Opinion because I find that Pope Gelasius one who sate in the Episcopal Chair of Rome about Thirty years after Leo's death hath in a most publick solemn and authentick manner declared the necessity of Receiving in both kinds and the contrary practice to be sacrilegious For he made a Canon against the corrupt custom of Receiving in one kind which some superstitious people were then endeavouring to introduce And this very Canon is to be found in Gratians Body of the Canon Law. De Consecrat dist 2. c. 12. It is in the Acts of the Councils It is also in the Annals of Cardinal Baronius ad annum 496. But in short there is no doubt of its being the true and genuine Canon of Gelasius and consequently no man can rationally deny this to be a very convincing proof that the judgment and practice of the ancient Bishops of Rome was directly contrary to that of the Modern Bishops and Church thereof I shall here produce the words of the Canon it self that the impertiall Reader may judge whether I had not reason to conclude that the present Roman Church is guilty of Novelties and that the Reformed Church of England does punctually follow the sense of Antiquity But we find says he that some who having received the portion of the Holy Body do abstain from the Cup of the Blood. Comperimus autem quod quidam-sumpta tantummodo Corpus sacri portione â Calice Cruoris abstineant qui proculdubio quoniam nescio qua superstitione docentur obstringi aut integra sacramenta percipiant aut ab integris arceautur quia divisio vnius ejusdemque mysterii sine grandi sacrilegio non potest provenire Gratian. de consecrat dist 2. c. 12. Let these men without all controversy because they are informed against as persons possest with I know not what superstition either receive the whole Sacrament or abstaine from the whole for a division or parting of the one and the same mistery cannot come to passe without very great sacriledge This ancient Canon I find hath given very strange disturbance to the modern Church of Rome great stir hath been to avoid the force of it if it were possible to be done And because it cannot be denyed that this Canon or Decree was made by Gelasius almost 1200 years ago Therefore many interpretations have been devised to make it reconcilable and consistent with their present practice of detaining the Cup from the People The first device is to imagine and suppose without any manner of ground in the world that this Decree only respects the Priests consecrating the Host Thus we find the Author of the Annotations upon Gratian endeavouring to escape the difficulty But undoubtedly neither the Protestants nor any rational man hath any reason to regard this vain and idle supposition Especially when so eminent a man as Cardinal Baronius hath assured us that this is a senselesse and foolish solution He calls it frigidam solutionem ad annum 496 num 20. 21. And says he rejects it and hath no need of such foolery But there is another evasion which is commonly made use of by the Romanist in order to elude the force of this Canon and because this evasion is most in vogue amongst them therefore particularly I did consider it Many of their controvertists do pretend that the ancient Decree of Gelasius was only temporary and occasional built upon the condition of the times when it was made And therefore say they it might be abrogated without any violation of Divine law when the reason of it by the change of the times was removed Now it is pretended that the reason or cause of it was this In the age of Gelasius say they the Church was exceedingly pestered with a copious number of dissembling Manichees who had a mind to be accounted Catholicks yet out of a superstitious aversion to Wine abstained from the Cup in the Sacrament And this if we believe them was the cause and reason of the Decree against receiving in one kind and not any Divine Precept enjoyning both This I narrowly examined and found it to be more idle and insignificant than the former which Cardinal Baronius called senseless and foolish For whatever the condition of those times was the principal reason of the Canon is incorted into the Canon it self and it is this following Because a parting of one and the same mystery cannot come to pass without very great Sacriledge Now I must beg leave of my old Friends to tell them that this is no temporary or mutable reason certainly not to commit Sacriledge is a thing of unchangeable and perpetual obligation neither has it any dependence upon the condition of any Age or Time For let the Times change never so much it will never be lawsul to commit Sacriledge and such is communicating in one kind alone if Pope Gelasius may be believed Thus it is plain that this ancient Decree is directly contrary to the late constitutions of the Roman Church and these evasions invented in order to make it seem reconciliable have not any plausible colour of reason Therefore I doubt not but the judicious and impartial Reader will be satisfied that it is necessary for all Christians that come to the Lords Supper to partake of it in both kinds and that this necessity arises from the Command of our Saviour enjoining all to drink of the Cup. The ancient Fathers did so believe and teach as the Authorities already cited do clearly and satisfactorily manifest Herein I have Lindanus agreeing with me though he was a great Defender of Popery in these words when he had first shewn what the Opinion of the old Writers was said After this manner the ancient Fathers chiefly St. Leo Hunc igitur in modum illam ve tustissimam planéque Apostolicam utriusque speciei Communionem conservatam atque observatam populo Christiano cupiebant prisci Patres Divus Leo Gelasius Patres in Concilio Turonensi Gelasius and the Fathers in the Council of Tours did desire that that most ancient and altogether Apostolical Communion in both kinds might be preserved and observed by the Christian people Lastly That the Reader may the better compare this ancient Doctrine and Practice with the novel and late Rule set up by the Romanists it is necessary that I produce the Canon made by Pope Martin V. in the Council of Constance about 272 years ago which forbids administring the Cup to the people Because the Canon is long I shall only produce two clauses of it and any man
against Image worship The sact of Epiphanius rending the Veil that hung in the Church of Anablatha is effectual to demonstrate what an abomination it was in his days and in his opinion to worship Images which himself in his Epistle to John Bishop of Hierusalem translated by St. Hierom out of Greek into Latin does thus explain I found there says he a Veil hanging at the door of the Church dyed Inveni ibi Velum pendens in foribus ejusdem Ecclesiae tinctum atque depictum habens Imaginem quast Christi vel Sancti cujusdam non enim satis memini cujus Image fuerit Cum ergo hoc vidissem in Ecclesiâ Christi contra Auctoritatem Scripturarum hominis pendere Imagi nem scidi idud magis dedi consilium custodibus ejusdem loci ut pauperom mortuum eo obvelverent efferrent Epiph. Ep. ad Joan. Hierosolym Tom. 2. Oper Hieron Ep. 60. and painted and having the Image as it were of Christ or some Saint for I do not well remember whose Image it was When therefore I saw this that contrary to the Athority of the Scriptures the image of a man was hanged up in the Church of Christ I cut it and gave counsel to the Keepers of the place that they should wrap and bury some poor dead man in it And afterwards he intreated the Bishop of Jerusalem under whose Government this Church was To give charge thereafter Praecipere in Ecclesia Christi istiusmodi Vela quae contra nostram Religionem veniunt non appendi Epist Epiphanii ubi supra that such Veils as these which are repugnant to our Religion should not be hanged up in the Church of Christ Had this holy Father now been arised from the dead and had seen the great number of Images not only hung in Churches and Oratories of them of the Communion of Rome but also worshiped and adored relatively as their Disputants term it how much Christian Reader think you would he be amazed and astonished hereat would he not rather judge them to be the Churches of Baal than of Christ And yet these people brag of Antiquity after this and pretend to rely on the Authority of ancient Writers in asserting the Lawfulness of Image-worship Let us hear in the next place what Lactantius says Imagines sacrae quibus inanissimi homines serviunt omni Sensu carent quia terra sunt Quis autem non intelligat nefas esse rectum animal curvari ut adoret torram quae ideo subjecta est ut calcanda à nobis non adoranda sit Quare non esse dubium quin Religio nulla fit ubicunque simulachrum est Divini autem nibil est nisi in caelestibus rebus carent ergo Religione simulachra quia nihil potest esse caeleste in ea re quae fit ex terrâ Lactant. lib. 2. cap. 17 18. Those consecrated Images says he which vain men do serve want all Sense because they are earth Now who is there that understands not that it is unfit for an upright creature to be bowed down that he may worship the earth which for this cause is put under our feet that it may be trodden upon not worshiped by us Wherefore there is no doubt but that there is no Religion wherever there is an Image There is nothing that is godly but consists in heavenly things Therfore Images are things that have nothing to do with Religion or they are void of Religion because nothing that is heavenly can be in that thing which is made of earth St. Ambrose affirms that in his days the Church was an utter stranger to any thing like Images He tells us That the Church acknowledged no vain resemblances Ecclesia inanes ideas vanas nescit simulachrorum figuras sed veram novit Trinitatis substautiam Lib. de Jacob Vitâ beata nor any vain Figures of Images but that it acknowledged the true Substance of the Trinity When Adrian the Emperor had commanded that the Temples should be in all Cities rendred clear of Images it was immediately apprehended that he had provided these Temples for Christ as Aelius Lampridius noteth in the Life of Alexander Severus Which is a convincing Argument that it was not in use with Christians in those days to have any Images in their Churches This I suppose is enough to demonstrate that the ancient and primitive Church was as great a Stranger to Images and that it abhorr'd them as much as the Church of England does at present Many and large Collections have been made by Protestant Writers of the Sense and Opinions of antient Writers concerning this particular unto whom I must refer the Reader because the present occasion will not permit me to be prolix or tedious in reciting them I have examined several of these Collections and find them to be accurate and this is one principal motive of my Conversion We see by what has been already alledged of what account the use of Images was in the ancient and best times Christians then would by no means permit them to be brought into their Churches Nay some of them would not so much as admit the Art it self of making them so jealous were they of the danger and careful to prevent the deceit whereby the simple might any way be drawn on to adore them Now the Church of Rome does own that it is very abominable to worship an Image absolutely that is to make it the principal or sole object of Adoration But their evasion here in is that a relative Worship is not forbidden nor falleth under the compass of Idolatry that is to say to worship an Image in regard of him whose Image it is and by reason of the relation it has to him it is not against the Commandment To this I answer that the Worship of it after that manner doth not excuse the Worshippers from Idolatry since the Commandment is delivered in general expressions and has no limitation or restriction but it forbids without exception all bowing down to them and worshipping of them of what kind soever the Worship be Had a relative Worship of Images been accounted lawful in the primitive ages certainly the holy Fathers and Councils would not have omitted to acquaint us therewith But we find the quite contrary for when the Gentiles demanded of the ancient Christians why they had no known Images they did not say we have Images to be relatively worshipped But Minutius Felix returned them this for answer Quod enim simulachrum Deo fingam cùm ipse Homo si recte existimes sit Dei simulachrum Mi nut in Octav. What Image shall I make of God when Man himself if you rightly judge is Gods Image St. Augustine discoursing about the Duties that arise from the first Table of the Decalogue has this following passage It is forbidden that any similitude of God should be worshipped in things contrived by humane invention Prohibetur coli aliqua in figmentis hominem
Dei similitudo non quia non habet Imaginem Deus sed quia nulla ejus Image coli de bâ—t nisi illa quae hoc est quod ipse Aug. Epist 119. ad Januarium not but that God has an Image but because no Image of him ought to be worshipped except that one meaning Christ which is the same thing with himself Here we see St. Augustin's Opinion concerning the Sense of the second Commandment he judges that worshiping any similitude of God by an invented Figure is herein prohibited and consequently relative Worship according to his Judgment is a transgression of a divine Precept St. Ambrose agrees most exactly with him He tells us that God would not have himself worshiped in Stones Non vult se Deus coli in Lapidibus Ambr. Ep. 31. ad Valentin That is in Images made of Stone and I suppose the case will be much the same if the Image be made of any other materials By these examples we see how far the ancient Writers of the Church differ'd in their Opinion concerning Image worship from the present Church of Rome The ancient Writers agree exactly with the Protestants and were altogether of the same Perswasion with them although the word or term of Protestant was not then known but is of later times invented to signifie them that protest against the Errors of the Church of Rome I shall add a few words more concerning the original of this wicked practice I find by St. Irenaeus lib. 1. cap. 23. contra Heraes and also by others that Simon Magus and his Disciples wore the first that brought Images into the Christian Religion If the Rominists will acknowledge these for their Patrons themselves can tell how much it will redound to their Glory It is true that this custom of Image worship was very ancient but very heretical also and abominable Simon Magus and his Sectaries were introducers thereof as I said before who had Images some painted in Colours others fram'd of Gold and of other matter which they said were Representations of Christ made under Pontius Pilate when Christ was here conversant among men Whence it came to pass that Corpoorates and his disciple Marcellina who brought this idolatrous practice to Rome in the time of Pope Anicetus having privily made Images of Jesus and Paul of Homer and Pythagoras did cense and worship them as Irenaeus above-mentioned does relate lib. 1. contra Heraes cap. 24. But against this wicked practice the ancient Christians did zealously and piously declare Here is the eldest instance of Image-worship in any person that ever pretended to be any thing of a Christian and we may see how severely it is censur'd and mark'd with the infamous brand of Heresie such then was the first rise of Images among Christians but there was another cause that much contributed to the advancement of their Worship and that was this Many simple Christians nowly converted from Paganism could not unlearn the customs of it as it is observed by Eusebius concerning the image of Christ erected by the Woman that was cur'd of the Bloody Issue Euseb l 7. Hist Ecclesiast c. 18. It is no marvel says he that those of the Heathen who of old were cured by our Saviour should do such things since we have seen the Images of the Apostles St. Paul and St. Peter yea and of Christ himself kept painted with colours in Tables For they that is converted Gentiles of old were wont by a Heathenish custom thus to honour them whom they accounted to be their Benefactors or Preservers But by whomsoever they were first brought in certain it is they proved a pernicious allurement to the simple people who soon went a whoring after them contrary to the Command of God and the Doctrine of the ancient Fathers and Defenders of Christianity This I find to be the true state of the whole affair concerning Image worship and I am heartily sorry that I understood it not heretofore But I hope to obtain pardon because I labour'd under great prejudices of my Education and could not imagine that such grave and learned Doctors as have asserted the Lawfulness and Antiquity of Image-worship would have led me into so gross an Error We are told by some of these Doctors and particularly by the Archbishop of Spalate That the veneration of Images oven the most ancient Ecclesiam Christianam etiam antiquissimam totam ac universalem summo consensu absque ullâ oppositione aut contradictione statuas ac imaginas veneratam esse M. Anton de Domin de Consilio reditûs sect 23. the whole and universal Church did embrace as a Doctrine of Faith and that with unanimous consent and without any opposition or contradiction it did worship Statutes and Images Now for consutation of this shameless assertion I appeal to the aforegoing Councils and Holy Fathers certainly I had reason to grow dissatisfied with the Communion of Rome when I saw that their great sticklers endeavoured to defend their Doctrines by such notorious and manifest untruth Concerning the Adoration of the Cross I Think the worship of the material Cross of Christ to be somewhat like the worship of Images and that is the cause why I have rankt it under this general head which I assign for my fifth Motive But altho the Devotions paid by the Romanists to the Cross do in some respects resemble Image worship yet in many regards they are much worse For the Romanists do avowedly give Latria to the Cross and although some of them do pretend that this is only given to it relatively yet if one examine their Hymns and Prayers directed to the Wooden Cross it will manifestly appear that their excuses are trivial and their pretences vain None doubts but that our Saviours Sufferings which are often called the Cross of Christ do abundantly deserve our greatest regard but then to transfer this to the material and literal Cross is a wonderful thing and I am astonisht at my self in that for so many years I never considered it or weighted this matter as I ought to have done But I shall proceed to consider some of the pretences and excuses which Roman Catholicks make in order to defend the worship of the Cross Bellarmin sayes lib. 2. de Reliquiis Sanctis that the Cross ought to be adored by the fame worship with Christ because it was touched by Christs Sacred Body But if this be true then it follows that the Blessed Virgin Mary is to be worshiped by the same worship also by reason she carried him nine months in her Womb she nourisht him c. and his contact with her was natural with the Cross violent But the Romanists deny such due to her therefore of necessity they ought to deny it to be due to the holy Cross If Latria or supreme Worship be due to the Cross for its contact with Christ it ought rather for that reason to be attributed unto the Ass whereon Christ rid with solemnity to
intelligentes psallere debemus nemo enim quidquam facit sapienter quod non intelligit but also to know and understand the sense meaning of our singing for none can do any thing rationally except he knoweth the meaning of it And likewise by Jacobus Faber Stapul in his Comment on 1 Cor. 14. who affirms rebuking the people for their Lewdness touch-this particular That a great part of the world now a days prayeth Maxima pars hominum cum nunc orat nescio si Spiritu scio tamen quod non mente orat nam linguâ orat quam non intelligit but whether their Prayers proceed from the Spirit of God I know not but I know they pray not from the heart nor to any effect because they pray in an unknown tongue If the aforegoing incontroulable Authorities of these holy Fathers be not sufficient to confute Bellarmines groundless Surmise and imaginary Comment by saying that in the former ages of the primitive Church Common Prayers were generally practised in Latin amongst the Faithful and Professors of Christianity for his and his Sticklers Disgrace and Shame I add Thomas Aquinas on 1 Cor. 14. Lyra ibid. and Cassander Liturg. cap. 28. who siding with St. Paul do frequently tell us that Divine Service or publick Prayers in an unknown Tongue do not edifie and consequently were forbidden as I have shewn evidently already To this effect I might produce the torrent of the holy Fathers who flourished in the succeeding ages of the Church but that I am willing to shun prolixity And so I go on to the proof of the third part of my Assertion which is That the Practical Custom of all Christian Nations anciently was to pray in their own native Languages and it is to this very day Here Origen in his 8th Book against Celsus may come in as an impartial Witness testifying that the Grecians in their Prayers use Greek and the Romans the Roman Language and so every Nation according to his Idiom prayeth to God and praiseth him as they were able And Lyra seconds him thus on 1 Cor. c. 14. affirming that in the primitive Church Blessings our Lords Prayer and all other things were done in the vulgar tongue nay not only Common Prayers but the whole Bible was anciently by many Translations made fit for the peoples use as St. Hierom. Epist ad Sophr. affirms that himself translated the Bible into the Dalmatian tongue And Vlphilas Sozom lib. 6. Hist c. 37. a Bishop among the Goths translated it into the Gotick tongue And that it was translated into all other Languages we are told by St. Chrysost Homil. 1. in 8. S. Joannis By S. August l. 2. c. 5. de Doctrinâ Christianâ And Theodoret Serm. 5. de Graecar Affect Curat Besides all these authentick Testimonies of the aforementioned renowned Doctors who indifferently acquaint all Christians that in the primitive Church the Priest and the People joined together in their Prayers and understood each other and prayed in their mother-tongue I will produce for a further and more palpable conviction of this Foppery the words of the Civil and Canon Law. Justinian the Emperour made a Law in these words Our Will and Command is that all the Bishops and Priests do celebrate the Sacrament of Oblation and the Prayers thereunto added in the holy Baptism with a loud and clear voice which may be understood by the faithful that thereby the minds of the Hearers may be raised up with greater Devotion to set forth the Praise of the Lord God for so the Apostle teacheth 1 Cor. 14. And Innocent III. is most express herein in the great General Council of Lateran as themselves esteem held anno 1215. Can. 9. where he hath these words Because saith he in many places within the same City and Diocess the people of divers Tongues are mixt together having under one and the same Faith divers Ceremonies and Rites We strictly charge and command that the Bishops of such Cities and Diocesses provide men fit who may celebrate the Divine Office according to the diversity of their Languages c. If you will inquire why are they not as stedfast followers of Pope Innocent in this point as in that of Transubstantiation I can give you no other reason but that I am afraid they will be called Libertines by their ill-wishers for making use of the Laws of God and Man as they please to the advancement of their Self-ended Errors and for impudently rejecting what is contrary thereunto Now if the usual Custom of the Prophets Christs Institution and exemplary manner of preaching and teaching to say Prayers in an understood Language if the Words of the Apostle the Practice of the primitive Church the Sayings of the holy Fathers and Concessions of impartial men of their own Communion if the Consent of all other Christian Nations and the Piety of our Forefathers if right Reason and the nature of publick Service it self if the Needs of the Ignorant and Condition of the holy Prayers if the Laws of Princes and the Laws of the Church which require all our Prayers to be said according to the Understanding of our Auditors if all these cannot prevail with the Church of Rome to do so much good to the poor ignorant peoples Souls as to consent they should understand what in particular they ask of God assuredly there is great pertinacy of Opinion and very little Charity to those procious Souls for whom Christ suffer'd and for whom they must give a strict account And the Papists themselves own that at this very instant of time the Egyptians Moscovians Sclavonians Armenians Ethiopians Moravians Bohemians Hungarians the Jacobites Abassines and all other Christian Nations have in and throughout the whole Universe their Liturgies in their own native Languages And Eckius affirms that the same practice and no other is observed in the Indies in Asia in Africa or any other part of the world amongst Christians And that being so it is strange that the Protestants should not have the same priviledge without any peremptory Censure from the See of Rome of being Hereticks and damned for doing nothing else but what other Christians do As to the proof of the fourth part of this Assertion This prophane custom of Prayers in an unknown Language which the Church of Rome so closely sticks unto is derived 1. From the Osseni Hereticks as Epiphanius affirms Haeres 19. 2. From the Heracleonites of whom St. Augustine gives an account saying That they taught to pray with obscure words supposing that words in a barbarous and unknown tongue might be more powerful 3. If we may give credit to famous Historians both ancient and modern From the Jews who in their Synagogues not only formerly but at this very day read Hebrew which the people rarely understand And besides from the Turks who in their Mosques read Arabick of which the people know nothing The very consideration of these leading Patterns which the Church of Rome does so pertinatiously imitate herein have been so prevailing with me as to forsake her Communion and to embrace that of the Reformed Church wherein surer Guides unto Eternity can be demonstrated And now having given an account of the Motives of my Change I have one only Request to make to the candid Protestants that they would not treat a new Convert as the Christians did St. Paul on his first Change Act. 9.26 by being afraid of me and not believing me to be a sincere Proselyte for as I never persecuted any of them in my life but rather did them all good offices that lay in my power so I hope it will be some motive to them to believe my Conversion real when it is done at a time when they themselves are not without fears and apprehensions of Disadvantage FINIS ADVERTISEMENT BEcause that I the Writer of the foregoing Book am in some degree a stranger to the English Tongue I desire the Reader ingeniously to pardon my unskilfulness in it and not to be disgusted if he meet with some improprieties in the Language for although by the advice and direction of my Friends many improper expressions were corrected yet I suppose that some Errors of that nature do still remain ERRATA PAge 3. line 22. read Armenians p. 4. in the margin r. Andradius lib. 3. Orthodoxarum Explicationum Resp ad Axiom 6. alii apud Casalium lib. 1. c. 12. prim part de quadripert justit p. 6. l. 20. r. taken p. 7. l. 25. and afterwards r. Cataphas ib. l. 30. r. de Conciliorum Authoritate p. 8. l. 4. r. Nation ib. in the Latin citation r. Ecclesia p. 15. l. 18. r. Faith and Duties ib. l. 28. r. nine parts in ten p. 16. l. 33. r. Romish Religion p. 17. l. 1. r. to the rights ib. l. 2. r. liberties p. 30. l. 5. r. yet it ceases not ib. l. 18. r. for itu p. 31. l. 28. r. he does p. 33 in the latin citation of Lindanus r. id est anno Domini p 35. in the latin citation of Card. Bona r. sub specie ib. r. communicarunt p. 41. l. 8. r. necessity p. 42. l. 13. of the latin citation r. sacrilega p. 43. l. 31. r. impartial ib. l. ult r. corporis p. 44. l. 11. r. parting of one p. 45. l. 25. r. reconcilable ib. l. 32. r. Lindanus who agreeing p. 47. l. 7. r. erroneous p. 51. l. 14. r. therefore p. 54. l. 13. r. Haeres p. 57. l. 3. r. Bell. lib. 2. c. 23. de Reliquiis sanctis Books Printed for and Sold by William Norman and Eliphal Dobson BIbles and Common Prayers in all volumes Book of Homilies Boltons Statutes Boltons Justice of Peace Book of Rates Plurality of Worlds Prayers and Meditations Gawens Logicks Mortons Devotions Dr. Lakes Officium Eucharisticum Dr. Burnets Life of the Earl of Rochester Tillotson against Transubstantiation Bishop of Corks Sermons Silvius de Febribus Mullineux's Sciothericum Telescopicum Discourse against Purgatory Discourse against Auricular Confession The Interest of Ireland