this Example of Caiphas upon the stage not considering that it is so far from being any way advantagious to the pretence of the Roman Pontiff that it even disgraces the very name of High Priest This Author c. 18. pag 46. speaking of the Grace and Assistance which God in some instances gave to Persons eminent in Office and particularly to Capiphas when he judged it necessary that Christ should be put to death for the conservation of the Nations he says With like helping Grace he doubts not but God generally assists the Pastors of the New Law and more especially the High Priest that is the Pope for the good of the whole Flock And therefore thô he were as wicked as Caiphas yet he is ready to render him all respect due to his Function and to obey him in every thing concerning the exercise of his Charge not for any consideration of his Person but meerly for the Office he bears Let the Reader observe the words of this Author what a notable guide the Bishop of Rome is according to this mans description of him His extraordinary endowments in conducting Souls to Heaven is compared unto the Grace which Caiphas had when he falsly and unjustly condemned our Saviour for a Deceiver and consequently the whole Christian Religion for a deceit Nothing certainly can be more strange unless it be what Cardinal Bellarmine says concerning Papal Infallibilty lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. c. 5. he maintains that the Pope hath a priviledge of being free from error in making any publick Decree what ever relating to Faith or Practise and he carrys the Assertion so high as to say that If the Pope should err by command ing Vices Si Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia vel prohibendo virtutes teneretur Ecclaesia credere vitia esse bona virtutes malas nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare Lib. 4. de Rom. Pont. Cap. 5. and forbidding Vertues the Church would be bound to believe that Vices were good and Vertues evil unless it would sin against Conscience Wonderful Doctrine Certainly no man of any reason or honesty but will abhor such a Position and accordingly Bellarmines heart smote him in his old age for having delivered such a thing And therefore in his Recognition upon this passage he minced the matter and partly recalled this wild saying perhaps when he was near death and had no hopes to obtain the Papacy for himself then he was content to speak more soberly concerning the Power and Priviledges of the Pope But above all men commend me to Costerus the Jesuite for a wonderful Teacher of Papal Infallibility He says It may come to pass as we confess that the Successor of St. Fatemur fieri posse ut Petri Successor Idola colat apud se forte de Fide non recte sentiens adeoque Artibus Diabolicis operam navet Sed constanter negamus Vicarios Christi Petrique Successores Romanos Pontifices vel Haeresin alios docere posse vel Errorem proponere Cost Enchirid c. 3. Peter may worship Idols privately perhaps having a wrong Opinion concerning the Faith and may consequently be a Studier of Diabolical Arts. But this we constantly deny that the Popes of Rome Vicars of Christ and Successors of St. Peter can teach Heresie to others or propose an Error Whether Costerus when he delivered this had an eye to those Popes who have been accused of being Magicians and invoking Devils I cannot determin But I appeal to all persons endu'd with Reason and let them judge whether I had not just cause to grow very much dissatisfied with that Communion whose Members do first make it necessary for all Christians to bottom and ground their Faith and Religion upon the credit of an Infallible Guide and then they give the most lewd description of him that ever was heard One that may be an Idolater a Wizard and an Infidel an Heretick in his private capacity one that is notwithstanding to be obeyed if he command Vices and forbid Vertues and if he command so all Christians are bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues evil one that is an Infallible Guide such as Caiphas was one that has as much security and certainty of being in the right as Caiphas had Whence it follows that the Christians who rely on the Pope have just as much certainty of being in the right as the Jews in our Saviours time had of being so by relying on their High Priest yet they notwithstanding the infallible Conduct of Caiphas cryed against Christ crucifie him crucifie him and release unto us Barabbas Doubtless these men who describe and prove the Popes Infallibility after such a manner as you have heard are very blamable Methinks they should have more regard to the Honour of a Prince than to have characterized him as they do I know it was not done out of any ill will but it is usual for too officious Servants sometimes to do their Masters as much hurt as if they were real Enemies Thus the Reader will fully perceive how little satisfaction I found in the pretended unerring Guide or Conductor which the Italian Papists do propose It is manifest there is very little comfort or security in the Conduct of such a Guide But being disappointed in expecting infallible Guidance from any one person such as the Pope is whom the Italian Parasites advance I proceeded to consider another unerrable Guide which the French Divines set up in opposition to the Italians that is a General Council This indeed at first appeared unto me to have the fairest pretension to be the Guide so much talked of I suppose it well known that in France the Personal Infallibility is generally rejected and decryed as an untrue and groundless thing and many large Discourses have been written by the French Divines in order to prove not only that the Pope may be deceived but also that he has been very often actually so even in matters of the greatest importance The Discourses written by Gerson above 250 years ago are abundantly known to all men of Reading Tract An liceat in causis Fidei à summo Pontifice appellare And in later times Launoius a Sorbon Doctor in many places of his Epistles not only declares his own Sense against the Personal Infallibility of the Pope but likewise the Sense or Judgment of the Gallican Church He reproaches one Baro his adversary for holding the Bishop of Rome to be incapable of erring and counts Baro to be a Traytor to the Gallican Church and Nation for it I shall produce one passage out of Launoius to this purpose Thus he inveighs against Baro In Gallicanam grassatur Ecclesiam quae Romanum Pontificem submittit Concilio ei non errandi in fide moribus privilegium abjudicat sed soli adjudicat Ecclesia Ecclesiam figuranti Concilio Launoius Epistolarum parte 5ta Epistola ad Fortinum pag. 43. vide etiam pag. 93. He perniciously destroys the Church of
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
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
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
MOTIVES OF CONVERSION TO THE CATHOLICK FAITH As it is PROFESSED IN THE REFORMED CHURCH OF ENGLAND By Neal Carolan formerly Parish-Priest of Slane and Stacallan c. in Meath Imprimatur Aug. 8. 1688. Rad. Rule R. R. in Christo Patri ac Domino Domino Francisco Archiep. Dublin à sacr domest DVBLIN Printed by Jos Ray for William Norman in Dames-street and Eliphal Dobson at the Stationers Arms in Castle-street 1688. The Preface to the Reader IT is just and reasonable that every man that deserts the Communion of a Church in which he hath been educated and embraceth a Communion distinct from it should render some accompt to the world of the reasons of his change that so he might avoid the imputation of levity and rashness This hath been done by many of the Protestants that have embraced the Roman Faith namely by Dr. Vane Mr. Cressy Mr. Manby and others and by many Romanists that have embraced the Reformed Religion by the Learned Archbishop of Spalato and several others and being my self resolved to forsake the Communion of the Church of Rome and to embrace that of the Reformed Church of Ireland which I think more agreeable to the Word of God and to the Primitive Antiquity I look on my self to be under the same obligations of satisfying others in the Motives of my change As it was my great happiness to be Baptized into the Christian Faith so it was my misfortune to be educated in that which is far distant from it I mean the Roman Faith as it now stands since the determinations of the Council of Trent and I hope the Gentlemen of that Religion will not take it ill that I call it an infelicity since I can entertain no other apprehensions of it whilst I lie under the convictious that are at present upon my Spirit In the Communion of this Church I was admitted into the seven Holy Orders of the Church in a weeks time by Anthony Geoghegan Bishop of Meath in the Year 1662 and in the month of August in the same Year I was sent to Paris where I was instructed in Phylosophy in the College of Grassini and took the Degree of Master in Arts in the University of Paris aforesaid and after Writing my Speculative Divinity in the College of Navar in the said University under Dr. Vinot Dr. Saussoy and Dr. Ligny I finished my course and took up a resolution of returning to my Native Country where I landed about June 1667 and afterwards continued about some two years teaching a private School in the Borders of Meath till in the year 1669 I was instituted into the Parish of Slane and Stacallan by Oliver Desse then Vicar General of the Dioress of Meath where I continued as Parish Priest for four intire years to the no small content and satisfaction of my Parishioners from them in the year 1675 I was removed to the Parishes of Paâ—â—stown and Brownstown and in the year 79. commanded back again to my first charge in Slanâ— During this time I had the opportunity of reading two Bookes that were most especially recommended to the Clergy of the Province of Uâ—ster by the late Primate Oliver Plunket viz. Archdokins Theologia Tripartita and the Touchstone of the Reformed Gospel The former of these he distributed amongst us at a certain price when the first imprâ—ssion of it came forth and the latter we were required to purchase as being very proper to confute Protestants out of their own Bibles I was no less forward in procuring the Books then industrious in reading them and for a long time I thought them unanswerable till at length discoursing with some of the Reverend Protestant Clergy of Meath I found by them that the Touchstone was only an old Book new vampt up with a new Title and some few Chapters added and that it had been long ago published under the Title of the Gag for the new Gospel and learnedly been answered by the Reverend Bishop Mountague Whereupon I procured the answer to it and upon perusal found that the Author of the Old Gag ro New Touchstone call it which you please had in many things basely misrepresented the Doctrine of the Protestants propounding it in such crude and indifinite terms as no sober Protestant doth acknowledge it for their sense as in his 2d Proposition he affirms that Protestants say that in matters of Faith We must not relye upon the judgment of the Church and of her Pastors but only on the written word In the 3d that the Scriptures are easily to be understood In the 4th that Apostolical Traditions and ancient customs of the Church not found in the written word are not to to be received nor oblige In the 5th that a man by his own understanding or private Spirit may rightly judge and interpret Scripture In the 7th that the Church can erre In the 32 that the Saints may not pray for us and so in others None of which Propositions are owned by Protestants as their Doctrines without many previous distinctions and limitations I found also that in other things he had hudled together many Propositions as the general sense of Protestants which if he had consulted their learned Writings he would have found to be no more then School Points and Problematical Questions nay which are still disputed as such by the best learned men in the Church of Rome Such are for Example The Doctrines of Freewill in the 19th Proposition The Impossibility of keeping the Commandements in the 20th Proposition The Inamissibility of Faith in the 23th The Doctrine of Election and Reprobation in the 24th The Doctrine of Assurance of Salvation in the 25th and The Doctrine of every mâ—n having his Guardian Angel in the 26th most of which Points are matter of Controversie between Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants amongst the Protestants And between the Jansenists and Jesuits in the Church of Rome This unfair proceeding charging the Protestants with Doctrines which they either totally deny or do not acknowledge without previous distinctions bred a dislike in me to the Book and consequently put me upon an inquiry into those Doctrines of the Protestants which the Author of it had so fouly misrepresented and the more I read in their Writings the better I was reconciled to their Opinions and the worse I liked those of the Church of Rome some of whose Errors I shall briefly touch as the Motives of my Conversion and occasion of my deserting her Communion Motives of Conversion to the Catholick Faith as it is professed in the Reformed Church of England CHAP. I. Of the Vncharitableness of the Church of Rome THE first Motive thereof is her great Uncharitableness not only to Protestants but also to all other Societies of Christians this day in the World except themselves and that in two things First In confining the Catholick Church to themselves Secondly In excluding all others from hope of Salvation that are not in their own Communion It will be unnecessary to prove that these
are the Doctrines of the Church of Rome since there is no Controvertist that doth not affirm them and they are expresly defined in the Council of Trent in her Anathema to every Article And Pope Pius IV. affirms in his Bull That this is the Catholick Faith out of which no one can be saved All the Clergy of Ireland whether Secular or Regular are taught to say so the Priests and Friers affirm it in their Sermons now to the People more than ever And it is one of the most popular Arguments and common Topicks of Conversion that they all use to the Protestants to reconcile them to the Church of Rome That they are all Hereticks That they are out of the Church That there is no hopes of Salvation for them whilest they are so The first of these particulars viz. Confining of the Catholick Church to themselves is a Proposition so hugely unreasonable that I could hardly bring my self to the belief of it It seemed to me a very unreasonable thing that the Church of Rome which is but a Member of the Catholick Church and that none of the foundest should arrogate to it self the Name and Priviledges of the whole Catholick Quia à dicto secundùm quid ad dictum simpliciter non valet consequentia Nec semper denominatio totius sequitur partes seperatim sumptas And I could find no Text of Scripture for the justification of it nor any sound Reason to prove it nor any promise of our Saviour on which to ground it and I concluded with my self that the affirming it might prove a dangerous prejudice to the perpetuity of the Church and contradict our Saviours promise concerning the Gates of Hell not being able to prevail against it because it was not only possible that the Church of Rome as well as other Churches might err but there are express Cautions given her in that particular by St. Paul Rom 11.18 20. Thou bearest not the root but the root thee Be not high minded but fear and if God spareth not the natural branches take heed least he also spare not thee In the Writings of the Primitive Fathers it appears that they never believed the Church of Rome to be any thing else but a particular Church Ignatius in the Title of his Epistle to the Romans stiles it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And St. Ambrose reckons the Roman Church in the same rank with the Churches of Egypt and Alexandria So that if they were particular or topical Churches the Church of Rome must be so too The same thing doth Pope * Apud Binium in Concil Ephesino Celestine in his Epistle to John Bishop of Antioch where he reckons up the Churches of Rome and Alexandria as Members of the Catholick Church Asseret se Nestorius fidem tenere quam secundum Apostolicam doctrinam Romana Alexandrina Catholica universalis Ecclesia tenet Nay it appears by the Epistle of Pope Innocent III. to John Lib. 2. Epist 200. Patriarch of Constantinople that in the 12th Century the Pope himself did not believe it Dicitur autem universalis Ecclesia quae de universis constet Ecclesiis quae Graeco Verbo Catholica nominatur says he Ecclesia Romana sic non est universalis Ecclesia sed universalis Ecclesiae pars Besides this I find this very Proposition condemned in the Donatists and looked upon by the Fathers as the grand Fundamental Principle of their Schism and Division for they as appears by the Writings of St. Augustine and Optatus did affirm that Christ had no Church on Earth but in the parts of Donatus that the Church was perished in all parts of the World except their own Assemblies and that Salvation no where could be had but in their Communion they esteemed the rest of the Christians to be no better than Pagans they broke their Chalices scraped their Altars and washed their Vestments and the Walls of their Churches pretending that all was polluted by their touch of them How much of this Spirit doth reign in our modern Donatists is easily observed by any man that will take the pains to compare their Writings and Practises with those of their Ancestors the antient Donatists in Africk And indeed it is high time for every man to leave the society of that Person that thinks himself alone to have reason and all the rest of mankind to be mad and out of their wits Nor is this Proposition only unreasonable but is also very uncharitable in as much as it condemns not only Protestant Churches but all the Christians in the Eastern parts of the World that are not of the Roman Faith the Greeks and Arminians the Jacobites and Nestorians the Maronites and Abissines and Cophtites or Christians of Egypt and for ever excludes them from hopes of Salvation which is in effect to unchurch the greatest part of Christians and condemn them to everlasting burnings who are more in number and more extend in Territories then the Professors of the present Roman Faith can pretend to be notwithstanding all their brags of Universality It may be perhaps said that the Eastern Christians and Protestants are Hereticks but I think it much easier to say so than make it good and if they were yet the charity of the modern Bomanists is much more streightned than that of St. Augustines was De Baptis contra Don. l. 1. c. 10. l. 5. c. 27. who durst not deny a possibility of Salvation even to Hereticks themselves For when the Donatists did object that Heresio is an Harlot that if Baptism of Hereticks be good then Sons are born to God of Heresie and so of an Harlot His Answer was that the Conventicles of Hereticks do bear Children unto God not in that wherein they are divided but in that wherein they still remain join'd with the True Catholick Church not in that they are Hereticks but as much as they profess and practise that which other Christians do Nay according to the Opinion of the Roman Doctors they have no reason if they stand to their own Principles to judg so severely of Hereticks for they grant that the honour of Martyrdom is only peculiar to the Members of the Catholick Church and they cannot deny but it is possible for an Heritick to suffer for the Christian Religion and lay down his life in the defence of the Faith of Christ From whence it must inevitably follow according to their own confessions that either Hereticks may be saved or else Martyrdom is not proper to the Church and Members of it Nor are the Romanists only unreasonable and uncharitable in confining the Catholick Church to themselves but they are so in excluding also other Christians from the hopes of Salvation that are not of their own Communion This will appear from two Considerations First they are more uncharitable to them then they are to Heathens that never heard of Jesus Christ for * Lud. Vives in Aug. de Civitat Dei. l. 18. c. 47. Andr. id
Quis autem nesciat sanctam Scripturam Canonicam tam veteris quam novi Testamenti certis suis terminis contineri eamque omnibus posterioribus Episcoporum Literis ita praeponi ut de illà omninò dubitari an t disceptari non possit utrum verum vel utrum rectum sit quicquid in eâ scriptum esse constiterit Aug. lib. 2. contra Donat. cap. 3. both of the old and new Testament is comprehended within its own determined limits and that it is so far preferred before the more modern Writings of Bishops as that it is unlawful to doubt or to dispute about it or to question whether any thing manifestly written in it be true or right But he then immediately after tells us that the case of Ecclesiastical Writers of National Synods and General Councils is quite otherwise Who knows not that the Writings of Bishops Quis autem nesciat Episcoporum Literas quae post confirmatum Canonem vel scriptae sunt vel scribuntur per sermonem fortè sapientiorem cujuslibet in eâ re peritioris per aliorum Episcoporum graviorem Authoritatem doctiorúmque Prudentiam per Concilia licere reprehendi si quid in eis forsan à veritate deviatum est ipsa Concilia quae per singulas Provincias vel Regiones fiant plenariorum Conciliorum Authoritati quae fiunt ex universo orbe Christiano sine ullis ambagibus cedere ipsaque plenaria priora saepe posterioribus emendani Aug. ubi supra which either heretofore have been written or are at present in composing since the Canon of Scripture is established may lawfully be reprehended by a more ingenious Discourse proceeding it may be from a person skilfuller in that affair or by the more grave Authority of other Bishops or the Prudence of the more learned or also by Councils Moreover who knows not that Provincial or National Synods do yield without delay to the Authority of General Councils which are gathered out of all the Christian world and that General Councils precedent in time are often corrected by them that are subsequent Here we see that according to St. Augustine nothing but the Word of God is esteemed incorrigible or infallible not so much as a General Council Therefore I am resolved to follow this Doctrine and to adhere to the Word of God as my only Rule And because I find that the Church of England in this particular agrees most exactly with St. Augustine for that reason I will henceforth embrace the Communion of that Church CHAP. III. Of Transubstantiation THE third Motive of my Conversion is my dislike to the modern Doctrine of Transubstantiation and I may well call it so because it was disliked by the antient Fathers and was full 1215 Years before it could obtain the credit to be defined as an Article of Faith for it was not defined such till the Council of Lateran held the above mentioned Year under Innocent III. and the Testimonies of the Fathers Councils as hereafter you shall see are so decretory against it that the learned Arch-Bishop of Paris doth ingeniously acknowledg it Petr. Mar. Tract de Eucharist And for the justification of it they have been forced to corrupt their Logick and their Natural Philosophy the better to season Young Novices for the reception of it in Divinity and maintain such Paradoxes in them both that if the Protestants had the ill Fate to take them up they long ago had been hissed out of the Schools for defending them Such are the proposition of accidents existing without a subject and the possibility of one Body being in divers places at the same time they have destroyed the nature of a Sacrament by taking away the Visible Sign and have stretched the words of Institution to a sense that many of their own Writers did not believe before it was defined and some have since been so candid as to confess that they could not see the meaning of Transubstantiation in the Text if it were not for the authority of the church They are forced to tell all men loudly to their faces that four of their Senses are mistaken about their proper Object when neither the Medium nor the Organ are indisposed That there is no Bread there at all thô they see feel smell and taste Bread. That the Senses of this or that man are not only mistaken which is somewhat pardonable but the Senses of all mankind at all times and in all places whensoever they receive the Eucharist nay that they are engaged so fatally in the mistake that they are never like to be retrieved out of it thô they use their utmost care to detect the fallacy They are forced to contradict the common reason of mankind and maintain Propositions that sound Reason doth abhor in all other instances Sound Reason tells us that one Body can be but in one place at one time that it must have partes extra partes distant in situation and impenetrable that it must have a quantity and extension that Accident cannot subsist without a Subject that conversion of one Substance into another cannot be without a change in the Accidents But in the Doctrin of Transubstantiation we are taught to disbelieve all these Principles The Body of Christ is at the same time in many places far distant from one another it is glorious in Heaven and on Earth subject to a thousand dishonours it occupies a certain place there but in the Host it takes up none but is in manner like a Spirit in an indivisible point it moves in one place and rests in another it is elevated in one place and depressed in another and all at the same time and season That the Body of Christ is without quantity and extension that there is length and nothing long breadth and nothing broad roundness and nothing round thickness and yet nothing thick That the Body of Christ doth exist without its accidents and essential properties and the accidents of Bread and Wine without a subject and yet these accidents shall do still the same seats and serve a man to as usuall purposes as if the substance were with them a man may seed upon them and be nourished with them and have his Spirit cheered and refreshed with the colour and smell of Wine thô he drink not a drop of it Lo these are the paradoxes which the defenders of Transubstantiation must be forced to take up for the justification of it and they must still seem so to me till I meet with a clear and satisfactory answer to them There was a time when I was content to swallow them as well as others the prejudice of Education and Authority of the Church had so great an influence upon me that I did not consider them as I ought but as by the blessing of God I have shaked off the prejudice of the one so I am still willing to pay a deference to the authority of the other if it can be made good that
she hath authority to impose things on my Belief that thwart my Senses and contradict common Principles of Reason This monstrous and lately framed figment of human invention I mean the Doctrin of Transubstantiation is so far from being Primitive and Apostolick that we know the time it began to be owned publickly for an Opinion and the very Council in which it was said to be passed into a publick Doctrin and by what arts it was promoted and by what persons it was introduced For all the World knows that by their own Parties by (a) In 4. lib Sentent d. 11. q. 3. Scotus by (b) ibid. q. 6. Ocham (c) Leâ—t 40. in can missae Biel Fisher Bishop (d) Cap. cont captivit Babyl of Rochester and divers others whom (e) De Euchar. lib. 3. cap. 23. sect 2. dicit Bellarmine calls most acute and learned men It was declared that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the Canon of the Bible that in the Scriptures there is no place so express as without the Churches declaration to compel us to admit of Transubstantiation and therefore at least it is to be suspected of Novelty But further we know that it was but a disputable Question in the ninth and tenth Ages after Christ that it was not pretended to be an Article of Faith till the Lateran Council in the time of Innocent III. 1215 Years after Christ that since that pretended (f) Venere quidem tunc multa in confultationem nec decerni tamen aperte quic quam potuit Platina in vita Innocent III. determination divers of the chiefest Teachers of their own side have no more been satisfied of the ground of it than they were before but still have publickly affirmed that the Article is not expressed in Scripture (g) apud Suar. tom 3. disp 46. sect 3. loc com lib. 3. fund 2. particularly Johannes de Bassolis Cardinal Cajetan and Melchior Canus besides those above reckoned And therefore if it was not expressed in Scripture it will be clear that they made their Article out of their own heads for they could not declare it to be there if it was not and if it be there but obscurely then it ought to be taught accordingly and at most it could be but a probable Doctrine and not certain as an Article of Faith. But that we may put it past Argument and Probability it is certain That as the Doctrine was not taught in Scripture expresly so it was not taught at all as a Catholick Doctrine or as an Article of Faith by the Primitive Ages of the Church Now in order to make this appear we have the Confessions of many Authors very much esteemed by the Church of Rome whose authorities have been most exactly collected and examined by the learned Bishop Taylor to whom I own my self much indebted for my Conversion For the further manifestation of the incontroulable truth of this point we need no other proof but the confession and acknowledgment of the great Doctors of the Church of Rome Scotus says That before the Lateran Council Transubstantiation was no Article of Faith as Bellarmine confesses Lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23 Sect. unum tamen Sum. l. 8. c. 20. and Henriquez affirms that Scotus says It was not antient insomuch that Bellarmine accuses him of Ignorance saying He talked at that rate because he had not read the Roman Council under Pope Gregory VII nor that consent of Fathers which to little purpose he had heaped together Rem Transubstantionis Patres nè attigisse quidem said some of the English Jesuites in Prison The Fathers have not so much as touched or medled with the matter of Transubstantiation Discurs modest p. 13. And in Peter Lombard's time it was so far from being an Article of Faith or Catholick Doctrine that they did not know whether it were true or no And after he had collected the Sentences of the Fathers in that Article he confessed He could not tell whether there was any substantial change or no. His words are these L. 4. Senten dist 11 lit a. If it be enquired what kind of Conversion it is whether it be formal or substantial or another kind I am not able to define it only I know that it is not formal because the same Accidents remain the same Colour and Tast To some it seems to be substantial saying that the Substance is changed that it is done essentially to which the former authority seems to consent But to this Sentence others oppose these things if the substance of Bread and Wine be substantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Christ which before was not the Body then every day some substance is made the Body and Bloud of Christ which was not his Body before And to day something is Christs Body which yesterday was not and every day Christs Body is increased and is made of such matter of which it was not made in the conception These are his words which I have remarked not only for Arguments sake though it be unanswerable but to give a plain demonstration that in his time this Doctrine was new not the Doctrine of the Church And this was written about (a) Ad Annum 1160. fifty years before it was said to be decreed in the Lateran (b) Ad Annum 1215. Council And therefore it made haste in so short a time to pass from a disputable Question to an Article of Faith. But even after the Council (c) Secund. Buchol An. Dom. 1271. sed secund Volaterranum 1335. in 4. lib. Sen. tent dist 11. q. 1. sect propter tertium Durandus as good a Catholick and as famous a Doctor as any was in the Church of Rome publickly maintained that even after Consecration the very matter of Bread remained and although he says that by reason of the Authority of the Church it is not to be held yet it is not only possible it should be so but it implies no contradiction that it be Christs Body and yet the matter of Bread remain And if this might be admitted it would salve many difficulties which arise from saying that the substance of Bread does not remain But here his Reason was overcome by Authority and he durst not affirm that which alone he was able to give as he thought a reasonable account of But by this it appears that the Opinion then was but in the forge and by all their understanding they could never accord it but still the Questions were uncertain and the Opinion was not determined at Lateran as it is now held at Rome It is also plain that it is a stranger to antiquity De Transubstantiatione â—anis in Corpus Christi rara est in antiquis Scriptoribus mentio De Heraes l. 8. verbo Indulgentia said Alphonsus à Castro There is seldom mention made in the ancient Writers of Transubstantiating the Bread into Christs Body I know the modesly and interest of
that the giving of the Cup to the people is an indifferent thing and may be done or omitted as the Rulers of the Church shall judge convenient Some of them proceed farther and pretend that receiving the Bread alone was less or more the practice of all ages since the beginning of Christianity Many conjectures and surmises have been invented by Bellarmin and others in order to make this seem likely and yet all in vain For many learned men of the Roman Catholick party are ashamed of this pretence and ingenuously confess that there never was any such practice approved amongst the Ancients Alphonsus à Castro asserting the lawfulness of the peoples communicating in both kinds hath these words saith he For I have learned from the Writings of many holy men Nam olim per multa saecula sic apud omnes Catholicos usurpatum esse ex multorum sanctorum scriptis didicimus Alphons titul Eucharist Haeres 13. that anciently for many ages it was the custom for all Catholiques to communicate so Lindanus a great maintainer of Popery affirms that both kinds were generally received in the Eucharist even till the year 1260. Panopliae lib. 4. c. 56. in these words I now omit other things says he which make for this purpose to wit Omitto nunc alia quae huc faciunt quod in aetatem usque Divi Thomae 1. ann Domini 1260. utriusque speciei Communio ferè ubique fuerir Laicis administrata sed non ubique periculis fortè effusi Sanguinis Domini scandalis unà cum populis negligentia pietatis detrimento increbescentibus paulatim utriusque speciei Communio in unam degeneravit that till the age of St. Thomas that is till the year of our Lord 1260. the Communion in both kinds was almost every where administred to the Laity but not every where perhaps dangers and scandals arising from spilling the Blood of Christ together with the peoples negligence and the decay of Piety becoming every day greater the Communion of both kinds gradually degenerated into one Albaspinaeus the late learned Bishop of Orleans in France undertakes to confute several of Bellarmins Conjectures about the pretended Antiquity of the Half Communion especially his fancy that the Lay-communion a thing sometimes mentioned by the ancient Writers was a custom of the peoples receiving only in one kind and upon this occasion Albaspinaeus hath these words following But if we grant that which by all means we ought to acknowledge to wit Atqui si detur quod concedi omninò necesse est quo tempore Concilia Patres de Communione Laicâ mentionem fecerunt Laicos sub utraque specie communicâsse sequitur non esse sub una specie Communionem lib. 1. Observat cap. 4. that in those times when the Councils and Fathers made mention of the Lay-Communion the people did partake of both kinds it follows that this i.e. Lay-Communion is not participating of the Sacrament under one kind There are two remarkable places in Cardinal Bona lib. 2 c. 18. de Rebus Liturgicis to prove that the Communion in one kind was not practised till the year 1200. and that all the precedent ages had the contrary practice and gave both kinds to the people publickly He pretends besides but indeed without any considerable ground that the Half Communion was privately practised in those ages These are his sayings It is certain says he that all persons in all places Certum est quippe omnes passim Clericos Laicos viros mulieres sub utraque specie sacra mysteria antiquitùs sumpsisse cum solemni eorum Celebrationi aderant offerebant de Oblatis participabant Clergy and people men and women did anciently receive the holy mysteries in both kinds when they were present at the publick Celebration when they offered and did partake of the Offerings And a little after For always and every where Semper enim ubique ab Ecclesiae primordiis usque ad saeculum duodecimum sub specii Panis Vini communicârent fideles caepitque paulatim ejus saeculi initio usus calicis obsolescere from the infancy of the Church till the 12th age the faithful received the Communion under both kinds of Bread and Wine and the custom of the Cup in the beginning of that age began by little and little to be disused Thus we see by the Testimonies already produced that detaining the Cup from the people was no ancient practice but began about 460 years ago These Authors here cited being Papists are a sufficient proof of this and many more of the same Perswasion might be brought to confirm the same which at present I omit that I may shun tediousness But the thing which upon examination I found my self obliged principally to consider was not only what had been the ancient practice in this matter but also what the reason ground was which moved the holy Fathers and the primitive Church generally as well Laity as Clergy to believe themselves most strictly bound to receive both kinds For that they had such a Belief the Authorities which I shall hereafter alledge will convincingly demonstrate and the reason and ground of this their Perswasion was the Command and Institution of Christ He had ordered in the Gospel that all should drink of the Cup and they with great Piety and Reverence to his Command accounted themselves all obliged to do what he enjoyned them This certainly is nothing but what ought to be done And I heartily wish the Church of Rome had retained the like veneration and pious regard for the Command of Christ I should then have found no cause to blame her in this particular Now because I have here in effect asserted that the Command of Christ concerning the Sacrament was that which had influence upon the Christians of the eldest ages I shall in the first place produce the Precept and then subjoin immediately the Sense of Antiquity to it which will manifest that they thought the obligation arising from the Divine Precept did extend to all Believers without any discrimination and if this be effectually performed I suppose it will be unnecessary to advertise the Reader that the same apprehensions concerning the necessity of receiving in both kinds ought to take place at all times and in all Christian Societies The consequence of which is that the Roman Church is a notorious transgressor of Divine Law in this respect and that the pretended indifferency of giving the Cup to the people or withholding of it is a false supposition Our Saviour when he first appointed this Sacrament delivered a Command Matt. 26.27 that all should drink of the Cup and after his Resurrection he reinforced all the Precepts which he had given to his Disciples and consequently this amongst the rest Matth. 28.19 20. saying Go teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all
originem Dominicae Traditionis revertatur◠Cypr. Epist 63. Pamilianae editionis and in administring it to the People do not do that which Jesus Christ our Lord God the Teacher and Author of this Sacrifice did and taught I judged it to be agreeable to good Conscience and necessary to write to you about this matter that if any one be yet possessed with this Error he may by seeing the Light of Truth return to the root and original of our Lords Tradition And thus having establisht his foundation namely that nothing ought to be done contrary to the Institution of Christ in the first part of his Epistle he proves the necessity of using Wine in the Consecration of the Sacrament but in the later part he comes to consider the great inconvenience and mischief to the people that ensued from their being deprived of the Cup. And that which he chiefly takes notice of was a great decay and failure of Christian Courage occasioned as St. Cyprian supposes by this depravation of the Sacrament For in times of Persecution some learned from the Aquarians to abstain from drinking the Consecrated Wine least the smell of it should discover that they have been at the Christian Meetings in the Mornings St. Cyprians Words are these Caeterum omnis Religionis et ve ritatis Disciplina subvertitur nisi id quod spiritualiter praecipitur fideliter observetur nisi si sacrificiis matutinis hoc quis ve retur ne per saporem vini redoleat sanguinem Christi sic ergoincipit in persecutionibus a passione Christi fraternitas retardari dum in oblationibus discit de sanguine ejus et cruore confundi Cyp. Ep. 63. ubi supra But the discipline and good order of all Religion and Truth is overthrown unless what was spiritually commanded be faithfully observed But perhaps the case is that some persons in the Morning Sacrifices or Sacraments are afraid least by the savor of Wine they should smell of Christs Blood and so by this means our Christian Brethren in times of Persecution begin to be slack or backward in suffering for Christ while at the Celebration of the Sacrament they learn to be ashamed of Christs Blood. And a little after the same Author says Quomodo autem possumus propter Christem sanguinem fundere qui sanguinem Christi erubescimus bibere How can we being asham'd to drink the Blood of Christ spill our Blood for Christs sake Besides in another Epistle the same S. Cyp. writing to Cornelius the Bishop of Rome concerning the restoring of certain delinquent Brethren who in times of Persecution had fallen into Idolatry but by Repentance deserved to be reconciled to the Church urges the necessity of their being admitted into Communion because that since new Troubles and Persecutions were coming on it would be necessary to arm and fortifie all Believers with the Sacrament of the Lords Supper and he insists particularly upon the necessiy of giving them the Sacramental Cup. His expressions are these that follow For after what a strange manner do we teach and excite them to lose their Blood in confessing the Name of Christ Nam quomodo docemus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis Christi sanguinem suum fundere si eis militaturis Sanguinem Christi denegamus aut quomodo ad Martyrii poculum idoneos facimus si eos priùs ad bibendum in Ecclesiâ poculum Domini jure Communicationit non admittimus Cyp. Ep 54. Edit Pamel if we deny the Blood of Christ to them that are ready to undergo such a warfare And how do we make them fit for the Cup of Martyrdom if we do not admit them first by the right of Communion to drink our Lords Cup in the Church It is observable that S. Cyprian here pleads for the peoples receiving the Cup from the right of Communion that is from the right which accrewed to every one by his being made a member of the visible Church By this passage and the rest before cited it appears abundantly what the Judgment of this holy Martyr was that he thought all Christians obliged to receive the consecrated Wine and that the omission of it was a transgression of our Lords Commandment and the destruction of several Christian virtues especially of that courage and resolution wherewith all Believers ought openly to profess the Name of Christ I might produce many more ancient Witnesses of great credit to make good what is here by me affirmed but I shall content my self for brevitys sake with two others whose Authority doubtless ought to be past all exception with the Roman Catholicks because they were Popes or Bishops of Rome for anciently the Title of Pope was given to any eminent Bishop The first of these is Leo the first of that name that was Bishop in Rome but before I produce his Testimony it is necessary to observe that although his words are levelled against the Manichees who superstitiously abhorred Wine and therefore avoided receiving the Sacramental Cup yet Leo's words do abundantly shew what his Judgment was concerning that necessity which as he thought did lye indispensibly upon all Communicants to partake of the mystical Blood of Christ Consequently says he when they venture to be present at our mysteries Cumque ad tegendam infidelitatem suam nostris audeant interesse mysteriis ita in Sacramentorum Communione se temperant ut interdum tutius lateant ore indigno Christi Corpus accipiunt Sanguinem autem Redemptionis nostrae haurire omninò declinant quod ideò vestram scire volumus sanctitatem ut nobis hujusmodi homines his manifestentur indiciis quorum fuerit deprehensa sacrilegia simulatio notati proditi à Sanctorum societate Sacerdotali Authoritate pellantur Serm. 4. in Quadrages they after such manner do comport themselves in partaking of the Sacraments that sometimes they very safely pass undiscerned with an unprepared mouth they receive the Body but altogether avoid the drinking of the Blood of our Redemption which I would have you holy Brethren therefore to take no tice of that by these indications such men as these may be discovered to us and that they whose sacrilegious dissimulation is sound out by being observed and detected may be driven from the society of the Saints by the Power of the Church Hence it is manifest to any man of reason that St. Leo lookt upon this practice of the Manichees as a most wicked and sacrilegious thing and he decrees no less a penalty for it than Excommunication Now it cannot be their inward and invisible superstition that he would have notice taken of but it must be their external comportment in avoiding the consecrated Wine Moreover if receiving the Cup had been an indifferent thing and esteemed so in Leo's age then the omission or declining of it would have been no distinctive mark to discover the Manichees from the Orthodox or regular Communicants For both might have done the same thing and so
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
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